redefine-z

LGBTQ+ Marriages in Asian Countries

Sun, 11 Jun 2023 22:20:25 GMT

LGBTQ+ Marriages in Asian Countries

Article by: Sanjana Ganesh

Edited by: Kamakshi Gupta

Visual by: Sanjana Ganesh

As of May 24, 2019, Taiwan became the first Asian country to legally recognize same-sex unions. That’s one Asian country where LGBTQ+ marriages are legalized! What year is it now? 2023. And how many Asian countries recognize same-sex marriages now? Still just one. Yes, even after four whole years, Taiwan is still the only one – out of forty-eight Asian countries – where LGBTQ+ marriages are legal (Huang).

Despite this lack of action, recently the countries of Nepal and Israel have been making progress. During the beginning of May, the Nepali supreme court ordered the government to start legally recognizing LGBTQ+ marriages. According to Kyle Knight, a senior LGBTQ+ rights researcher at Human Rights Watch, Nepal is already known to be one of the countries in which LGBTQ+ activity is widely accepted and recognized (Driscoll). In Israel, they have repealed anti-homosexuality laws starting 1988, which had originally been implemented by British law back in 1948. LGBTQ+ couples now have equal access to medical services as heterosexual couples do, have less chances of getting hate-crimed due to society’s progressiveness, more representation in the media, and more incorporation of LGBTQ+ activities in Israeli culture (“Life For LGBT People”). Although the progress in acceptance and rights of LGBTQ+ couples in these two countries is a step forward, both of them must still consistently work towards legalizing same-sex unions. On the other hand, in countries such as Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Malaysia, and Indonesia, any LGBTQ+ activity is strictly criminalized. Same-sex couples or homosexual-identifiying individuals could face imprisonment or other forms of violent punishments, such as whipping, if they were to publicly reveal their identity (“Map of Countries”). These countries have the longest road to take towards legalizing same-sex marriages, as they must legalize identifying LGBTQ+ first and provide them with the medical and social rights that heterosexual couples have access to.

Now let’s talk about the irony. “Boys’ Love” or “BL” is a genre originating from Japan that portrays romantic relationships between males. In certain Asian countries, especially Thailand or even Japan and Korea, BL content has rapidly risen in popularity over the past couple of years. After gaining international recognition, producers from these countries couldn't help but put out more BL content in the entertainment media (De Guzman). Although such content is beneficial to the economy of these countries, particularly Thailand, the government still fails to recognize LGBTQ+ couples and give them rights in real life. [SPOILER] In the Thai BL series Cutie Pie , the main couple, Lian Kilen Wang and Kuea Keerati, discuss how they cannot legally be recognized as a married couple on paper. However, despite this challenge, they decide to stray away from reality and go through with a wedding ceremony towards the end of the series. Although there is sort of a happy ending, it leaves us with the realization that even a country which portrays high amounts of LGBTQ+ content on TV does not want to give actual LGBTQ+ citizens their rights. In a YouTube video titled “BL Actor Answers Your Questions About Thai BL Industry,” BL actor Perth Nakhun Screaigh – who played a supporting character in the Cutie Pie series himself – states “In a lot of recent BLs, even though they’re set in Thailand, in the world of that BL series gay marriage and gay relationships are totally normal… they just ignore real life and say ‘yeah this is how the world should be,’ which it should, so hopefully it can translate to real life sometime very very soon.”

LGBTQ+ marriage has been fully legalized in one Asian country so far while a few others are currently taking steps towards legalizing it. Some countries seem to remain idle when it comes to speaking up about the LGBTQ+ community while others attack members of the community head-on, stripping their rights away and condemning them due their sexual orientation. In spite of the fact that we are making slow progress, we must keep fighting for LGBTQ+ rights, not just in Asia, but in all countries around the world that still don’t accept same-sex couples and unions.

Book Banning Silences Voices

Thu, 30 Mar 2023 16:28:14 GMT

Book Banning Silences Voices

Article by: Ananya Ravi

Edited by: Kamakshi Gupta

Visual by: Ananya Ravi

The history of books dates back to around 3500 B. C. in Mesopotamia, where Sumarians designed their own alphabet (Cuneiform) and carved symbols into clay tablets (“The evolution of the book”). The carvings were etched on the clay using a stylus known as “Calamus,” a triangular carving tool. These clay tablets were then dried or fired in kilns to preserve them in the long term. The book’s evolution, from papyrus, to movable types, to modern paperbacks, to e-books, has long since been a key part of cultural change and sharing ideas. Throughout history, literature has spread major revolutionary ideas by exposing present situations and conveying the need to better the future generations.

Starting from the time period when America first fought for independence to present time, there have been numerous far-reaching books published in just the U.S. alone. In 1776, colonial America, Thomas Paine’s book “Common Sense” was a collection of articles that called for independence. The simplistic rhetoric of the book helped spur the independence movement into action. Noah Webster’s “Blue-Backed Speller”, published in 1783, including a different form of English that persists today as the American version of English (American revolution reference library, 2023).

Books have been a strong way to spread knowledge and coin new ideas to make a difference in various cultures. For the past few years, banning books has steadily risen in the U.S. Banning books silences voices of marginalized people such as the LGBTQ + community and restricts access for people that are economically disadvantaged.

The reason behind banning these books is that they include themes that are “too mature,” when in reality, it controls the ideas and experiences of the LGBTQ + community. According to America Index of School Book Bans, 41% of all books banned in public schools are due to themes of LGBTQ + and 40% including protagonists or secondary characters of color (“Banned in the USA,” 2023). The book banning process can start with a student, parent or librarian challenging a certain book. This quickly becomes problematic since it means any book can virtually be censored if enough people agree that a certain book contains offensive or inappropriate contents, which most often is themes of LGBTQ +. Book banning can range from making a certain banned book unavailable to public schools to completely making that book unavailable to the public by removing them from public libraries/e-libraries in general. Although censoring books may seem like a useful way to control what age groups can read what contents, in reality it aims to control specific messages in our society. \

During the past decade, books have been used as a powerful source of activism. As of 2023, there has been a fast move from right wing politicians looking to pass legislation to censor books. Looking at the common topics of the books being banned, this movement is clearly intended to silence the voices of minority groups such as people of color, people within the LGBTQ + community, etc. Ten states already have legislation that is in the process of doing so that prohibits school boards from including books/other school curriculum that teaches about sexual identities, sexual orientations, and anything related to LGBTQ + identities (Jensen 2023). As a result, library workers could possibly be sued for keeping such books that include these ideas given that these legislations are officially passed. These bills include certain types of language that could be left up to debate whether a book should be banned such as “objectionable lessons”.

In a time when not all resources are equally available to every group, book banning further perpetuates that gap. Banning physical books affects people who are less economically advantaged. There will always be some ebook organizations or libraries that include books that have been banned in other locations. However, book banning culture not only aims to control voices, it also controls who has access to certain materials. As books have recently been moving to the ebook format or audiobook, removing books from public libraries narrows the amount of platforms they are available in for certain populations. Current research illustrates how the use of ebooks have steadily been on the rise with a third of all collections being online and the use of physical books have declined from 91% to 39% in just 2019 alone (Rizzo 2022). Certain households don’t have access to digital devices and are thus disproportionately affected by the removal of what little books are available in physical format at public libraries.

Book banning culture leads to unequal access to educational materials which includes books that voice the experiences of minority populations. In total, 21 million people don’t have access to the internet in the U.S. alone, including about 27% that live in rural areas (Winslow 2019). These people rely more on public libraries and school curriculum for educational materials. Although book banning may seem to have no tangible effects on what the public has access to, in reality, it unjustly affects lower income households that can’t afford internet access.

Book banning had been at an all time high in the U. S. causing many controversies on whether the media should have restrictions. Although many parents that complain to the school board about a certain book may have the goal of restricting books to specific age groups, it prevents people from the LGBTQ + community from sharing their experiences because the specific books that have been flagged share such messages. In addition, for those that belong to a lower income household, what books that they have access to may just be limited physical ones from public libraries. Banning books further lowers the amount of physical books available to them, which limits the messages that they are exposed to. What book banning does, above all, is silence voices.

How Do Educators View Reproductive Rights?

Sat, 31 Dec 2022 10:01:50 GMT

Abortion

Article by: Ananya Ravi

Interviews by: Aarnavi Patel, Phi Chanda, Sani Page

Visual by: Ananya Ravi

In 1973, the supreme court passed the ground-breaking decision in the court case Roe V Wade which officially recognized the right to choose abortion to be protected under a person’s right to privacy. It was argued that health concerns theoretically include the psychological distress due to the fiscal impacts of carrying and physical stress from carrying a pregnancy to term when the case first came to court in the late 20th century. After a few years of battle, on January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Roe (the pseudonym under which the case was held), stating that abortion was a legal right in the United States (“Roe v. Wade,” 2022). The public had overwhelmingly disapproved of the decision to overturn this case with a 57% majority (Nadeem, 2022). This article will take a deep dive into the various opinions on the current events regarding reproductive rights.

In interviews conducted by Aarnavi Patel, Phi Chanda, and Sani Page, three teachers at Irvington High School in Fremont, CA express their opinions on the overturning of Roe v. Wade, its possible future impacts, and their stance on abortion rights. In order to represent a diverse range of voices, the interviewees were chosen from various backgrounds. Ms. Sharma is a South Asian woman who lived in a liberal country for a period of time, and Ms. Ferrer identifies as a devout Christian. Ms. Miller was born in the U. S. while her mother is Jewish, and her father is a Christian. All three of them specify how their personal backgrounds impact their political beliefs, especially relative to abortion rights.

The first interviewee was Ms. Sharma and she lived in Nepal, where abortion is legal. To provide some background, in some states, citizens held preference for a male fetus over female ones, and the. Most families preferred male children over female ones because males usually take on the financial responsibilities, while females take on domestic ones. In Nepal today, healthcare professionals are prohibited from revealing the sex of the fetus to the parent(s) to avoid abortions based on the gender of the fetus. Terminating pregnancies on the basis of the sex of the fetus can result in up to two years in prison (Kathmandu, 2017). She vehemently believes that a person is entitled to make an informed decision, especially in the case of sexual assault or unique health issues during or caused by pregnancy.

Ms. Miller was raised to be very independent, and her parents didn’t influence her career or her religious/spiritual beliefs even though her parents are religious themselves. Miller states that people’s bodily autonomy should be protected under a resident's privacy in their personal space. She holds that the Supreme Court is currently unrepresentative of the public, and leaning toward a conservative, Catholic court. According to the Pew Research center, about two-thirds of adults who have been closely following the Supreme Court’s recent current decisions view the Court as being conservative (Nadeem 2022). She believes in the court packing plan, “efforts to manipulate Court’s membership for partisan ends” such as advocating for more than nine Justices on the Supreme Court (“What is court packing?,” 2020). According to Article III of the United States constitution, Supreme Court Justices serve lifetime in court, which Miller points out to be ineffective in current times as the demographics of this country has significantly expanded. She predicts that in the future, restrictions on abortion rights will soon lead to more activism, prompting younger generations to become politically aware. As more states start passing restrictions and full bans on abortions, Miller asserts that despite the “pockets of red” in California, residents are protected from these restrictions for the most part. In terms of reproductive health, she feels that awareness and access to contraceptives is important because ultimately, even if the choice to have an abortion should be given to the person carrying, preventative measures are crucial.

The third interviewee, Ms. Ferrer, is a practicing Christian, although she doesn’t accept the religiously motivated moral arguments against abortion. She argues that “if you want to base your laws on scripture, then we’d need to back track and rewrite so many laws''. Her overall beliefs on the overturning of Roe v. Wade is that abortion rights should be protected and that this decision disproportionately affects people of color who have lesser access to reproductive health services. She further goes on to say without a proper separation of church and state, the U. S. would be hypocritical to claim that it’s a democracy. Common arguments opposed to abortion include religious beliefs, contrary to Ferrer’s stance, who boldly asserts that “a sovereign God who is the creator of life doesn’t care if a child is born so much that He cares about the livelihood of his people.” As someone who is pro-choice, Ferrer acknowledges that the pro-choice legislation would advocate for adequate sex education to inform people of their choices and allow them to plan their pregnancies. She believes that if people aren’t ready to have kids, they shouldn’t be forced to do so including non-life threatening pregnancies such as with cases of sexual assault.

All three of the interviewees shared the view that abortion is a choice that should fully belong to the person carrying. Each of the teachers support their claims with strong reasonings, and expand upon different areas of the subject such as the patriarchal preference for a male fetus over female one, the idea of court packing, and the hypocrisy of religious pro-chioce arguments. As reported by the Center for Reproductive Rights, in half of the U.S, abortion is inaccessible or is criminalized fully (“After Roe,” 2022). Many people are also concerned by whether states will go beyond banning abortion to restricting Plan B and other contraceptives, making planned pregnancies harder to achieve.

References

After Roe fell: Abortion laws by State. (2022, August 25). Center for Reproductive Rights. Retrieved December 30, 2022, from https://reproductiverights.org/maps/abortion-laws-by-state/

Kathmandu, P. K. (2017, December 25). Gender-based abortions threaten Nepalese Society - UCA News. Union of Catholic Asian News. Retrieved December 5, 2022, from https://www.ucanews.com/news/gender-based-abortions-threaten-nepalese-society/78705

Nadeem, R. (2022, July 11). Majority of public disapproves of Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade . Pew Research Center - U.S. Politics & Policy. Retrieved December 5, 2022, from https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/07/06/majority-of-public-disapproves-of-supreme-courts-decision-to-overturn-roe-v wade/#:~:text=A% 20majority%20of%20Americans%20disapprove,abortion%20for%20nearly%2050%20years

Nadeem, R. (2022, February 7). Public's views of Supreme Court turned more negative before news of Breyer's retirement. Pew Research Center - U.S. Politics & Policy. Retrieved December 18, 2022, from https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/02/02/publics-views-of-supreme-court-turned-more-negative-before-news-of-breyers-retirement/

Roe v. Wade. (2022, November 14). Center for Reproductive Rights. Retrieved December 5, 2022, from https://reproductiverights.org/roe-v-wade/

P. Chanda & S. Page, personal communication, September 8, 2022.

P. Chanda, S. Page, & A. Patel, personal communication, September 19, 2022.

P. Chanda & A. Patel, personal communication, September 21, 2022.

What is court packing? (2020, October 27). Rutgers University. Retrieved December 5, 2022, from https://www.rutgers.edu/news/what-court-packing

The Silver Lining of Scars

Sat, 26 Nov 2022 06:44:14 GMT

Mental Health

What is painful to me? What are scars to me? Throughout my life I have felt pain in several aspects, whether they were physical, emotional, or mental. I think pain comes in so many forms. You are riding your brand new, pink unicorn bike as a child and trip over the little pebbles, because you were blindsided by the joy you felt. The scratches bleed and as the blood drips on your scratched up knees, jolts of a burning cut-like sensation spread your veins. 2 months later, you take a look at your knee and see crooked indentations of delicate, salmon-colored skin, perfectly standing out from the tan. They are scars. Faded over time, and the pain lasting only the first couple days of the fall. I still see quite many indentions on my skin, sparking physically-intense memories as my eyes pawn over their presence, but the pain that has faded the moment my wound turned into a scar. But there are some scars that stay fresh even after years have passed. That bleed after years of healing. That traumatize your mind and sanity as you start ruminating on their reason. That somehow sparked memories in which your emotional capacity was shattered and your heart lay in pieces. That makes you wonder and spiral down the rabbit hole of why it had to have happened to you. They make you feel like you've been targeted, and somehow never seem to fade into oblivion. They show up when you least expect them to, and from people and circumstances that you truly believed would spark epiphanies. Those are the scars that come from emotional pain. Those are the scars that come from trauma, abuse, bullying, betrayal, and self-destruction. You can't see them, but their wounds go so deep that sometimes not even death seems to heal them. Emotional pain stays with you, it haunts you, it swallows you alive, it keeps you ruminating on it, keep hating yourself because of it, and keep denying the possibility of help and betterment because it’s made you lose hope. It's funny how one event, how one person can turn your life upside down. How it can so easily have the power to break you, to heal you, to hurt you, to kill you. But that's emotional pain. It's this burden of intense heartache, everytime the memories of your soul’s death antagonize your mind. It's complex. It's difficult. Sometimes you never heal from it, and sometimes even healing from it isn't enough for it to stop. For it to disappear. It's hidden in your memories and can be triggered at any given moment. It's what makes us human. The scars it leaves behind are a remark of the effect that pain had on us, what it did to us. Whether it ruined you or made you stronger, now that's up to you. Scars bleed and bleed till you bandage them, till you clean them. When your mind gets scarred, or your trust or any one of your cognitive processes or contests, your bandage and healing starts from acceptance and support. It might never heal, but give yourself the chance to at least try, to athletes take a shot. These scars sometimes come from yourself too. You've been hurt to the point of self destruction, because the world has put all of these boundaries, pressures, judgements, and stereotypes around you, that you force yourself to fit into them. When you try but somehow fall, and no one is able to heart yur screams of terror, tiredness, and pain, thats when you turn on yourself. You self harm, your drink, your use, your rage, and you slowly start to kill yourself. Those scars don't fade, the scars you place on yourself i'll always haunt you, because they are proof of how terribly broken and hurt you were. And everytime your eye gazes upon those scars, the healing shell that they have developed fades and they start to bleed. Those scars are a representation of your inner demons, your inner ghosts, your self hate, your self judgements, and they make you feel so guilty and miserable. You are supposed to be your best friend, but you have let society and people in your life affect you and immobilize you till the point of self-destruction, and that loss hurts. You've lost yourself and that mental pain never lets go of you, it stays and bleeds till you slowly start to pick yourself up. Till you rebuild the puzzle that the pain broke, and the heart that it shattered. It's not easy, and sometimes the scars will bleed, but one day they will get a little less difficult to acknowledge and a little less painful to feel. So physical scars fade, emotional scars stay, and mental scars consume right? But why are they scars? Why are they not wounded then? Because even though I spent the last 500 words talking about scars bleeding and not being able to heal, I used the word scars. I never said wounds and I never said forever. Scars are scars because they represent you healing from the battle that created them- even if it is just for a second. They represent your strength and courage to fight even when all the odds were against you. Some take longer to heal, some continue to bleed, but the moment you start seeing them as scars and not wounds, the pain and control they have starts to fade till you see hope and strength in them. And that right there is your silver lining.

Shades Of The Human Psyche

Fri, 25 Nov 2022 20:28:57 GMT

Mental Health

Though psychology may not be the first word that comes to our minds when we think of science, it is most definitely classified as a type of science. Science uses the scientific method- using observations to make hypotheses, then testing numerous times to see if that hypothesis can have evidence/data-based proof- to find new data to better understand the physical, behavioral, and chemical processes that work together to form society. Psychology may not be able to find a clear set of data representing the entirety of human behavior and emotions, but it can most definitely find trends and patterns which can help better understand how human behavior impacts the cognitive processes. Not only this, but psychology consists of scientific processes like observing, researching, experimenting, and is entirely evidence and data-based. Moreover, psychologists do not make conclusions based on theories, but based on numerous successful trials and proven data. So though the basis of psychology does not consist of numbers, equations, or visual results, it is still internationally considered as one of the most influential scientific studies proven to help better understand the complexities of the human psyche.

Science and pseudoscience are commonly mistaken as one and the same, but in reality are quite literally the opposite. Science is entirely based on evidence-based results which are then questioned and re-experimented on to then decide if a hypothesis can be considered as a fact. Pseudoscience uses theories and assumptions to generate "factual" results. Another major difference is that scientists can generate the same or similar results of a previous experiment numerous times, whereas pseudo scientists don't have high chances of generating similar results, being that their claims are based on theoretical concepts. Lastly, scientists encourage one another to discover mutations in data to better understand physical processes, whereas pseudoscientists discard unwanted sets of data in order to better "prove" their theories. So though pseudoscience and science can be mistaken for being one and the same, the base at which they sprout from consist of many significant differences.

Psychologists and psychiatrists often work together to form a treatment plan which would help their patient succeed in conquering their mental health battles. Though they work together, there are still major differences between the two, which is interchanged can probably cost them their medical or psychological license. One of the major differences is that psychologists have graduated with their masters in psychology or gotten their doctoral or PsyED, whereas Psychiatrists usually have their bachelors in psychology then go to medical school in order to be able to prescribe medication for patients. Which takes me to my next major difference; Psychiatrists work with the patient to find a medical solution to their mental health struggle, whereas psychologists work with the patient to better understand which emotional and behavior patterns are affecting their moods. In other words, psychiatrists have the ability to prescribe medication, aiding to alter their patient's brain chemicals, whereas psychologists cannot do that. Though they have major differences, both the fields work together to form a successful treatment plan- a mixture of therapy and meds- for their patient. They both work on figuring out which emotions are leading to certain behavioral and physical patterns, the difference being that psychologists work more on the cognitive end, whereas psychiatrists use medicine and a chemical approach. In today's world, where mental health continues to be a growing struggle for many teens, both psychologists and psychiatrists are in high demand, further influencing their mutualistic treatment plan for a healthier mind.

Galen was a well-known physician during the Middle Ages, and has had a lasting impact in the world of medicine and psychology. He was known to have expanded on Hippocrates' (the father of medicine) ideas of the four humors. Hippocrates believed that the reasoning behind illnesses was an imbalance between the four humors. He concocted that the four humors, blood, phlegm, black bile, and yellow bile, each representing an element of life (blood-air, phlegm-water, black bile-earth, yellow bile-fire) had to be in balance in order for a human or animal to live a healthy life. When these elements were not at their normal, doctors' job was to figure out a medical treatment which would put the elements back in balance, also curing the patient's illness. Later on, Galen gave a thought to this ideology and concluded that if there was a relation between the humors and illnesses, then there must be a relation between our bodily elements and our moods. He expanded on the Hippocratian theory of the four humors and connected them to elements representing a certain mood or personality. He believed that when a certain element was higher than the other, the mood coinciding with that element would be dominating. His elements included Sanguine (blood/air), Phlegmatic (phlegm/water), Melancholy (black bile/earth), and Choleric (yellow bile/fire). Sanguine represented the cheerful or optimistic mood, Phlegmatic, the sluggish or relaxed vibe, Melancholy, the sad or quiet feeling, and Choleric, the angry or short-tempered reactivity levels. To this day, Galen and Hippocrates' theories are used in modern-day medicine. Though the theory of the four humors has been long overlooked, scientists used their theories to conclude that chemical imbalances in the brain most definitely have an impact on our moods and emotions. It's crazy how modern medicine uses such ancient theories, but if we had to give props to the fathers of the psychological advancements, then they would have to be given to Galen and Hippocrates.

Freud's theories about the unconscious had a long-lasting effect on how psychologists viewed the effects that the unconscious had on someone's actions, thoughts, behavior, emotions, and desires. Freud's most famous written works further educating society on his theories on the unconscious include, "The Interpretation of Dreams" and "The Psychopathology of Everyday Life". His first work explores the hidden meaning behind dreams. As given in the title, "The Interpretation of Dreams' ' connects the desires that our unconscious has to what we dream about. Freud believed that by hearing about someone's dreams he could analyze it and find out their uncconsious's greatest and darkest desires. To this day, many still believe that dreams are a constructed pathway to accessing what our unconscious wants and commands. His second work, "The Psychopathology of Everyday Life", went into depth on how our unconcious's hidden desires come out in little snippets of daily life. For instance, according to Freud's theories, sometimes when we say words we don't mean to say, forget names, or even blank out, our unconscious is signaling its desire. Our unconscious has ways to pop out in our daily life from dreams to unwanted phrases to emotional responses, and both of Freud's books depicted the unknown psycho hypnosis of the unconscious.

Edward Thorndike, an American psychologist, in 1898 started to educate society on his "law of effect". It theorized that behavior patterns are a response to a particular conditioning. Thorndike essentially concluded that when a certain behavior is followed by negative physical simulations like discomfort or nausea, it is most likely to not be repeated. Whereas if a behavior follows through with satisfaction or euphoric delights, then it is most likely to be repeated. His study influenced a lot of what behaviorism stems from. Behaviorism states that human behavior is a response to certain conditioning patterns, and is repeated not by emotional stimulations, but physical or observable ones. In other words, just a definition to Thorndike's experiments, which focused on physical responses to behavior and how those responses affected the possibility of their repetition. Furthermore, in 1938, Skinner's work used that same formula but depicted its effect on animals. He concluded that the behavior of animal's strongly revolved around a reinforcement mentality. In other words, animals when rewarded for their behavior would be most likely to repeat it, whereas if that behavior caused them harm or some sort of physical discomfort, they would probably not repeat it. His theory strongly stemmed from Thorndike's research on behaviorism and how conditioning impacted behavior patterns and physical simulations. Both Thorndike and Skinner had long lasting effects on society's research on psychological development.

B.F. Skinner believed that one's behaviors were a direct response to external factors such as the conditioning and reinforcement patterns. He did not think that the conscious had anything to do with the way people felt or behaved, but had everything to do with their environment. His theories and research later became one of the fundamental stems for behaviorism.

Many individuals who are not well versed in psychology, often tend to confuse themselves between structuralism and functionalism, either believing that they are one and the same, or inter-changing their definitions. Structuralism to say the least, focuses on the different parts of the brain, and how the way that they are structured affect the way someone feels or acts. It focuses heavily on the consciousness of a person. Whereas functionalism focuses on how all the different parts of the brain work together in order to create a response stimuli to the person’s environment, which then affects how the person feels and behaves. In other words, the main difference between functionalism and structuralism is that functionalism theorizes that all the parts of the brain work together to create an environmentally- driven response, while structuralism looks at different parts of the brain and how they affect consciousness.

Philosophy takes us way back to the middle ages, when philosophers like Wundt and Aristotle were leading theorists of human existence. They developed theories that provided a strong foundation to the sprouting of psychological research. Wilhelm Wundt is often known as the father of psychology, and his contribution has a lot to do with structuralism. He believed that each separate part of the mind had its own purpose, that then contributed to the thoughts and feelings of the person. His belief that psychology was a study of the human conscious, stemmed from Wundt's theory, that you could observe one's conscious thoughts and feelings through introspection (internal perception). His philosophical research answering the question of human existence and life's purpose led him to dive into how the conscious impacted human thoughts and feelings. Even though Wundt is generally considered as the father of psychology, some still believe that Aristotle deserves that title. Aristotle is a well-known, middle ages philosopher that is commonly mentioned in history and science textbooks. His proceedings dove into how the underlying philosophical phenomenon of human existence and purpose was impacted by psychological processes. His research concluded that psychology was a study of the mind and soul, which gave reason to how and why emotions and thoughts came into existence. He strongly believed that all humans were motivated by the urge to find happiness or "eudaimonia", and that all their conscious thoughts, emotions, actions were an attempt to get closer to the "euphoric delight". Both Wundt and Aristotle mastered the art of philosophy and turned too psychology to answer the how and why of conscious human tendencies like thought and emotion. Though philosophy has been part of society a lot longer than psychology, psychology's beginnings lay deep in the incompleteness of philosophically-developed theories and phenomenons.

Behaviorism is known as the school of thought that defines psychology as the study of observable behavior. It was founded by John B. Watson and later developed by P.F. Skinner. It theorizes that psychological processes like thought and emotion do not trigger certain behavioral patterns, but conditioning and environmental components do. If behaviorism were still used in the modern day, if one were to get diagnosed with depression, their only remedy would be changing their environment triggering components in order to better instigate a lifestyle that opposes depression. Behaviorism, soon after founded, was overturned by new ideologies like functionalism, structuralism, socialism, and the development of constructs.

Pro-Choice Equals Pro-Voice?

Fri, 09 Sep 2022 19:30:37 GMT

Abortion

Throughout the many centuries that women have existed, the views and laws surrounding the topic of childbirth and abortion have evolved. In some periods, they were pro-abortion, valuing choice, and privacy; in others, people were against the notion prohibited the ideology. There were even times when abortion was permitted or prohibited based on the case, person, and location. Currently, the debate on abortion has been given the spotlight with the supreme court overturning Roe v.s. Wade's case, abortion is no longer a nationally protected right. This ruling has allowed multiple states to terminate, if not exceptionally lowering the possibility of accessing safe abortions. In some cases, doctors caught performing an abortion are imprisoned, medically suspended, or charged hefty fines. This verdict shocked millions of American residents, blatantly ignoring women's rights, feminism, pro-choice, and liberal movements.

In the past couple of decades, women have been working towards creating a much more inclusive, safe, and equal environment for themselves. They were able to get voting rights in 1920, completely changing their presence and power in the world of politics. Though laws had been established in favor of women's rights and equality, the mindset of American society still has work to do. There is still a salary gap between men and women, many women are still being restricted from education, and the stereotypes around the behavior of women are only growing. How should a woman dress? How should a woman behave? When should a woman lose her virginity? How many guys should a woman date? Should she be able to work after marriage? All common questions were asked when the answer should only be from the woman herself. Then there were the commands. “Date me or else…”, “You can't work as you have to take care of the kids”, “Go clean!”, “Get into the bed now”. If this wasn't bad enough, there were the comments that women would get after dating, being sexually active, or breaking up with someone. “Oh what a slut!”, “Really you're gonna ditch all of this, oh what a piece of shit”, “Whore!”, “Dude she’s such a bitch for leaving you, no one gonna satisfy her like you”, “Bruh she doesn't get no ass!”, “Was she even good in bed though?”. Sex, which was ideally supposed to be a mutually pleasing experience, began identifying as something males would get or force out of a female when they needed to be pleased, or were “horny”. It was always about if the man was getting enough if he was getting pleased if he needed more if he wanted more. Never was it, is she ok? Does she feel pain? Is this good enough for her? The standards around sexual intercourse only really preserved the dignity of men, whereas women would get slut-shamed for sleeping with anyone other than their partner. Chores, lack of education, social stereotypes, and sexual stereotypes floated the societies that women grew up in. Fortunately in the past years, through various female speakers, feminist movements, and social media outreach strategies, stereotypes have been able to slowly show change.

Many women, after realizing the boundaries that they had to cross in order to be seen as equal or get personal freedom, decided to speak out. This consisted of feminist movements, social media speeches, protests, boycotts, and various rallies. Though society had a lot of work to do, many began seeing through the eyes of women. Liberal states started looking at women as the future of this country. Education programs began to be more accessible and supportive of females in STEM and girls were encouraged to be high achievers. Conservative states, on the other hand, were furious at the arguments that feminists were able to share. This resulted in many states making their laws around women's rights and social stereotypes to become even more strict than before, in hopes that this would “show women their place in this world, what they were meant to do.” We were seeing quite a steady improvement in the roles that females played. We saw many successes including Michelle Obama, Priyanka Chopra, Eleanor Roosevelt, Selena Gomez, and Malala, and the list continues. Girls in schools surrounding their dress codes and menstrual policies began protesting and gathering signatures in hopes to change their schools’ views. This continual growth was present and quite encouraging to those who wanted to speak out. Then the verdict of the Roe v.s Wade case was presented, and fury spurred and is currently floating among American residents. How could the supreme court create such a progress-erasing law, when the 21st century was supposed to lift the women's rights growth and succession? Women all around America are furious. After battling for decades to gain sexual, social, and stereotypical freedom, they opened their eyes to see it taken away with the supreme court’s verdict.

Social media and those who are currently speaking out on the decision are mostly democratic women or women of color defending their physical rights. Those who don't believe in abortion generally stay away from social media due to an abundance of progressive and liberal movements. Most of the social progression and protesting that happened was through social media. So rightfully so, most social media users and those speaking out are liberals or pro-choice individuals. By hearing such a pro-choice ruckus, we fail to realize that there could be someone so close to us representing the pro-life movement without entirely understanding what it means or stands for.

Hearing the pro-life statement, many wonder why it is so heavily frowned upon. The thing is, you can most definitely be a pro-life individual and mock abortion, but then it is also your duty to stick with the pro-life approach throughout the child’s life. Many individuals who don't support abortion and are “pro-life” fall into the traps of racism, sexism, and many other social injustices. So how can you be pro-life, if after the child is born you are just going to be racist, sexist, and show injustice to it? How can you promote “equality” for ALL life in America regardless of whether it is a fetus or not, if you are constantly showing injustice to anyone who is different from the majority, or different from you? That right there is not pro-life, but it is pro-you. It is pro anyone who fits the status quo’s majority. It is anyone who is wealthy, caucasian, does not fall under any minority group, and is male representing. That's where the pro-choice has an issue. Pro-lifers don't care about the child post-birth, yet have so much to say when it is “A” fetus; not even their bodies. Words get promoted, yet their actions don't come through.

Another major reason that this anti-abortion decision angered residents, was because of the “your body, your choice” statement. It is a woman's body that usually delivers and nourishes the child. So if it is her body and herself that will be caring, watching, and helping the child grow, then it is she who gets to decide whether the child is someone she can keep or someone she has to let go of. Who are you to decide if a fetus should be born or not if it is not you who will be caring for it through all the pain, injustice, bliss, and roller coasters that it will encounter? Who are you to demand that the woman keep the child if she is not ready? Who are you to decide someone’s fate?

This “who are you to-” comes under the 19th amendment of privacy, which was originally why abortion was legalized. “Your life, your choice”, falling under the privacy of each individual was the reason abortion was made okay, because in the government’s eyes before the Roe v.s. Wade's case, abortion, childbirth, and love were no one’s business but those directly involved.

Another major point that was brought up several times was rape and unhealthy fetuses. If a woman gets pregnant after getting raped, it is most definitely her right to not have the child. The birth of a child may cause much emotional trauma, and PTSD, and could possibly put on pause the girl’s life. Sadly, the majority of the girls who are raped are between the ages of 16-24, which is also the prime time in terms of education for most people. How is a woman who has gotten raped supposed to continue with her life and achieve all of her dreams and goals if she is forced to birth a child that was never hers, to begin with? A child that was forced into her. A child that reminds her of the person who destroyed her life, insides, and soul: who tore her to pieces. A woman should be able to decide for herself if she wants to keep the child or not, especially if the child’s birth was not her decision or choice.

Then there are those fetuses that turn out to have some sort of terminal health issue that will result in immediate death after birth. Why should a woman be forced to birth a child that is only going to die after a week? Not only does childbirth put tremendous strain on a woman's body, but the woman is highly prone to get postpartum depression, trauma, weight gain, and health issues if she continues to grow a fetus that is only to die within the first couple of breaths. A woman's life and emotional state are quite literally endangered if she keeps holding on to a lost cause. Can you imagine if a child that you grew up with inside of your own body, that you had grown to blindly love dies, and you are forced to painfully birth it, see it, and then dispose of it? The mental and physical pain of that is tremendous.

I believe that abortion should be available to every single woman in this nation. It is her body and her choice followed by her baby and her voice. The current events though have resulted in quite a shocking and history-shaping decision, with the voice of the youth portrayed through protests and social media, we can hope to see a difference. I hope to see a change that will shift the arrow to the voice of those who are pro-choice. Indefinitely it is the women, the youth, and the people of the now that must create change to grant each individual the voice they deserve to have. To grant each woman the voice she deserves, be pro-choice.

redefine-z

LGBTQ+ Marriages in Asian Countries

LGBTQ+ Marriages in Asian Countries ﻿

Book Banning Silences Voices

Book Banning Silences Voices

How Do Educators View Reproductive Rights?

Abortion

The Silver Lining of Scars

Mental Health

Shades Of The Human Psyche

Mental Health

Pro-Choice Equals Pro-Voice?

Abortion

LGBTQ+ Marriages in Asian Countries