Bonus: Response to Kathleen's Post by Bailey West

I do agree with Kathleen's post and I think she brings some good points to the discussion. Humor and the concept of offensive jokes are a hot topic- especially as we begin to evaluate being politically correct and how far to go with it. I honestly think it's a sticky subject and I don't have a firm opinion on it. I think there is some weight to the side that we use humor as a coping mechanism and in the environment of humor you know not to take things seriously. However, as Kathleen mentioned, different audiences will be impacted differently by the joke. I think her point about people of different generations would be impacted differently by certain humor. I hadn't thought of this point but I think it's very relevant to the discussion. I think it's important to recognize how humor would have different impacts on different generations. Usually people that are older and had first hand experiences with injustices would react differently. For example, an older person that knew people killed in the Holocaust definitely wouldn't find those jokes funny. Or people that lived through the Civil Rights Movement and had to deal with segregation probably wouldn't find racist jokes funny. These people are closer to the injustices that we sometimes joke about. However, generations like mine are a bit more removed. We know it's still "bad" to joke about these, but it happens and is funnier to some people because it's so shocking to joke about.

I honestly don't have a firm opinion on whether or not this humor is wrong. I think that it has to be very carefully placed in order to be considered funny. That includes thinking about who the audience is- their age, race, class. People have different humor and it's sometimes hard to judge what will appeal to them- or how they'll react to controversial jokes. I think as long as it's done with no ill intention, it's usually OK but it just depends. There will always be people that find it funny and some people that don't. I do like that Kathleen played in the middle of this, too. Personally once I look at some of the jokes deeper I also see how it's offensive and could be more offensive if said by someone else. I agree with that part of Kathleen's argument. I also think, though, that humor is hard to restrict. Many people argue that it's not meant to be taken seriously, but at the same time I see how it's a reflection of our culture and values. I like that Kathleen took a deeper look into the situation that wasn't just one-sided. I like that she looked to the viewpoints of others, especially people from different generations, because that can be eye-opening to how humor impacts people differently. Overall it was a good post that went to a deeper level to examine whether or not these controversial jokes should be considered funny. I think that we should be sensitive to the topic because really no side is right or wrong.

Bonus: Oooooh, The Nelson by Bailey West

I've been going to the Nelson Atkins Museum ever since I was little. My grandma always took me there because she knows the importance of art and wanted to share it with me. I remember seeing the different sculptures, paintings, and photographs. As a kid I didn't know much about them but I thought they were cool to look at. I remember when the Bloch building opened and my grandma was so excited to take me there. I was excited, too, but mostly because the building lights up at night (ha). I have many memories running around the lawn and up the steps. My brothers and I have rolled down the many hills, getting grass all over our clothes and in our hair. Also, you can't forget the embarrassment of getting too close to the shuttlecocks and having the voices yell at you (I hope you know what I'm talking about).When the glass maze was introduced, of course I ran through it... and ran into the walls because it's darn hard to see in there. These fond memories have made the Nelson Atkins Museum one of my favorite places.



Since I came to study at UMKC last year, I've made even more memories at this museum. I studied there with friends on the lawn. Since it's in walking distance of where I stay, I like to go on runs there when it's nice. On a snowy day this past February I had a snowball fight and built a tiny snowman with friends. Now that I'm a bit older I definitely have more appreciation for the art inside, too.

On a beautiful day a few weeks ago, I walked there with my SO and we got tickets to the Picasso exhibit. The exhibit first walks you through various series of African art similar to what inspired Picasso. The captions explained his interest in this art and how it inspired his abstract art. The exhibit walks you through Picasso's journey and style through this part of his career.

I really appreciated the exhibit. I wasn't expecting it to have all the African art it did, but I think it's definitely important. It also had a notice at the beginning of the exhibit about how many of these African artifacts most likely weren't obtained ethically. I'm glad that they acknowledged how Picasso was inspired and gave credit to populations that often don't get credit. They acknowledged that museums in the past haven't given this credit but that times are changing and more effort should be put into acknowledging our past and how art is acquired.

Another thing that surprised me was how close I felt to Picasso by the end of the exhibit. I expected it to only be his art, but instead it included stories about African art and how it inspired Picasso. It also included personal timelines of Picasso's life, as well as pictures of him taken by a photographer that made friends with him. In these pictures you could see him dancing, you saw him interacting with his children, and working in his house or studio. You got to see him as a person and not just an artist. In these pictures he had contagious smiles and goofy expressions. His house was cluttered- with art everywhere in piles, and random things mixed in. I appreciated these personal details because it gave more weight to his art. It really connected the thought of him, as a person, to his art.

Overall, I enjoy every visit to the Nelson Atkins Museum. I am extremely thankful that my grandma took me to this place ever since I was little. It's always a worthwhile visit and I'm glad to make new memories each time. So... obviously I think that you should visit too if you haven't. You don't have to know much about art at all- I really don't know much. When we get over this crappy weather and it's nice outside, maybe stroll on the lawn and peek inside. Roll down some hills (just lay down and roll... it's fun). But, trust me, don't touch the shuttlecocks... a voice will come out of nowhere and tell you to get the heck off (which I guess is good because, yknow, it's art). Also if you have to do homework, the lawn has wifi ;) Otherwise just take a blanket and lay in the sunshine.

Group A Post 4: Magical Realism and Gabriel Garcia Marquez by Bailey West

Gabriel Garcia Marquez is well known for incorporating magical realism into his work. Magical realism is present in stories that are anchored in reality but have elements of fantasy. According to Caroline Lee Schwenz in her article "Magical Realism", it "differs from pure fantasy primarily because it is set in a normal, modern world with authentic descriptions of humans and society". Marquez is known for using this in his stories; "A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings" is no exception. In this short story, Marquez uses magical realism to incorporate a supernatural creature into reality. How they treat this creature says a lot about the "othering" effect and how we treat people that are different from us. We tend to exaggerate differences between each other as an excuse to ostracize the new person.

In many ways this story makes a statement about how we treat people that are new or different to us. Marquez uses magical realism to do this by introducing a supernatural creature. This creature is unique because it's mostly man. Although he startles Pelayo and Elisenda at first, they "very soon overcame their surprise and in the end found him familiar". This shows that we are able to recognize humanity in each other. However, the old man is stuck in a constant middleground. He is not a person, but the priest doubts that he's an angel either. Instead of focusing on the human parts they did see of the old man, they couldn't get over his huge wings. People gathered around him and threw food at him "as if he weren't a supernatural creature but a circus animal". According to the story, "even the most merciful threw stones at him". Even if we are able to see some humanity in people that are different from us, it is often derailed by the differences.



A closer look at the man exposes even more of his humanity. When Pelayo got close to the man "he noticed that seen up close he was much too human". This quote alone says a lot about humanity. Once we see each other up close- once we really take the time to look and relate to each other- we can see the similarities. It becomes much harder to ignore. This begins to have an impact on the family as the crowd dwindles and the old man remains in the chicken coop until it collapses. They keep him at a distance but they allow him to stay. This leaves us with some hope about humanity; maybe we can notice more similarities than differences.

We often focus on the differences and exaggerate them; we marvel at or make fun of these differences. We make a show of it. Marquez shows this by inventing a supernatural creature to bring out these traits of humanity and expose how we treat something that is so similar to us but also different. However, the ending implies tentative hope. In the end maybe the similarities can outweigh the differences. Maybe we can learn to accept each other and live in peace.

Scholarly Article: https://scholarblogs.emory.edu/postcolonialstudies/2014/06/21/magical-realism/

Group A, Post 3: Fear in Flint Town by Bailey West

In the past year, Flint, Michigan has been in the media because of its water crisis. The city's water was found to have lead in it due to insufficient water treatment. A state of emergency was declared in 2016 for the city. This incident brought national attention to Flint, Michigan. However, the water crisis hasn't been the only problem the town has faced. According to FBI statistics, Flint is in the top 10 most violent cities in America.  I started watching a show called Flint Town which follows the Flint Police Department as they try to lower the crime levels in the city. As I've seen throughout the show, there are many elements of fear in the city of Flint. Racial tension, police brutality, and a low budget increase the fear between police and civilians.

(https://usa.newonnetflix.info/info/80156688/s)

According to the Statistic Atlas, 54.8% of Flint's population is black. Although there are people of color on the police force, including the police chief, racial tension between police and civilians runs pretty high. In one episode, about five officers were dispatched to a house where they took possession of someone's car. The citizens were angry and talking to a female officer who was white. One of the civilians remarked about the officer, "Well, she's white. She can do whatever she wants. They're all white". The camera then panned out to show the rest of the officers at the scene- most of which were black. Clearly the woman was probably just taking her anger out on the situation. However, this is an example of how race is connected in many instances between officers and citizens. This tension contributes to the fear of each other that is amplified by other factors. Over the past few years, police brutality has been a relevant topic on social media and news cycles. Police brutality has been evident for decades and there are legitimate cases of this. Police officers are not immune to bias; they are citizens themselves. It's completely possible for biased people to come into positions of power. However, this series shows the perspective from police officers. In the show, various black officers admit that police brutality is a problem in America but it's not always what it seems. Overall the police force in Flint seems worried that media sources latch onto these situations as a source of profit instead of legitimate change.

Low budgeting also contributes to the overall fear between officers and citizens of Flint. The show talks a lot about how low the budget for the police department is; they only have about 100 officers to patrol the whole city. Police officers often aren't able to get to all the calls they receive in one day. The show also mentions that many police officers have to report to dangerous calls alone when they should have a partner for safety. In one episode, a group of mothers were outside with their children and a group of people come around shooting off guns randomly. They call 911 multiple times over the course of several hours and it wasn't until later that day a police officer was able to respond. The citizens showed clear distaste for the amount of time they had to wait. Many citizens don't understand the financial shortages of the police department; they think that officers just avoid high crime areas. They are worried about the crime and danger in their neighborhoods, which is completely understandable. This misunderstanding just amplifies the divide and fear between citizens and police officers.

There are various circumstances that combine to create fear between citizens and police officers in Flint. Just a few of them are racial tension, police brutality, and low budgeting. Overall, this show has opened my eyes. I think that it's very important to look at things with open eyes and to always be critical. I've realized that nothing is immune from bias. One of the most important things the show exposed me to is the crisis in Flint and similar cities. These cities are highly divided because of people's fears of each other. A lot of these fears are based in bias and misunderstanding. The police department in Flint initiated a program to try to build a bridge between the divide. They created a volunteer unit so people could see the daily activities of police officers. They encourage openness and suggestions on how to be better. Hopefully programs like this provide a step towards change for citizens and officers.

Bonus- The Olympics: What's the deal? by Bailey West

Honestly, I know next to nothing about the Olympics. I've never been much of a sports person or adamant about following the summer or winter Olympics. I can probably count on one hand the number of times I've watched it. I'm not caught up in the competing athletes and don't really care what country wins. However, this year my opinion of the Olympics has shifted. I work at a pizza place, we have TV's and have had the Olympics on almost every night.  I also see it when I'm at the gym or scrolling through various social media sites. Unlike years before, I've had more direct exposure to the Olympics this year. This has lead to a general shift in my views of the Olympics. It started with general surprise at the sports in the Olympics and the dedication of the competitors. Then, I became more interested in the international relationships between countries in the Olympics and the competition's role in politics.

The first time I saw the Olympics this year, the sport being played was Skeleton (pictured below). I remember stopping in my tracks and thinking "Uh, what the heck is that? Olympic sledding??". Maybe it's my lack of knowledge of sports, but half the time I catch myself watching the Olympics I look at it and think "What the heck? That's a sport?". Some other sports that caught my eye or confused me thoroughly were curling and ski jumping. I don't mean any disrespect and I don't consider any of them invalid, but I was in awe and surprised that I didn't know these sports existed. This surprise peaked my interest and made me more attentive to the stories I came across about the Olympics.


https://www.pyeongchang2018.com/en/sports/skeleton

With the peaked interest in the Olympics this year, I began to notice how the Olympics can have a political impact. I came across a news story about gay Olympians saying they thought Vice President Pence was a bad choice to represent the US because of his anti-LGBT views. I am queer myself so this was definitely interesting and relevant to me. I think these Olympians are strong for not only working so hard to get to where they are, but for representing the US as openly gay individuals. It would be discouraging to be in their shoes and see Pence "representing" them during the competition, knowing that he truly isn't on your side and doesn't support your rights.

In Siddharth Bhattacharya's article "Why are Olympic Games important for participating nations?" he recognizes that the "Olympics have come to signify a stage for political statements". He mentions a few more instances where the Olympics were intertwined with politics. For example, there was a "boycott by the capitalist countries (US and 64 others) in 1980 Moscow, while boycott by communist bloc (Soviet and 13 others) in 1984 Los Angeles" (Bhattacharya). I find this interesting about the Olympics- how it can be used as a political stage. It can be used to give people a platform to speak out against injustices they face, like with the gay Olympic skaters. However, a country can also boycott the competition to send a message about political relations at the time.

Overall, I think it was worth it to me to pay more attention to the Olympics this year. I've realized that it's not just one big silly sports competition. Instead, it's an accumulation of different nations and cultures. It celebrates the work of athletes who trained their butts off. It also serves a higher purpose of providing a political stage to bring important issues to international discourse.

Post 2, Group A: Hypermasculinity in Military Movies by Bailey West

I watched the movie Sand Castle to analyze it for this blog post. It takes place during the Iraq war and contains a lot of themes regarding fear, death, and masculinity. In the movie, a U.S. platoon is assigned to fix the water supply of an Iraqi village. The water supply location was destroyed during a bombing by the U.S., so as a good publicity move they were assigned to fix it and bring water back to the village. Faced with an enormous task, the platoon tries to enlist help from the locals. They run into a variety of problems regarding who to trust and fear. The platoon members utilize hypermasculinity to cover their fear of the war, death, and instability they encounter. This shows in times of fear when they portray an effort to cling to traits of hypermasculinity: sexualization of women and objects, show of violence, and a lack of pain.

The movie opens with the main character, Ocre, admitting to the audience that he didn't join the army for some idealistic cause like fighting for freedom and defending rights. Instead, he joined because he really didn't know what to do with himself. He proceeds to slam his hand in the door of a Jeep over and over until it is bloodied and broken. This is presumably so that he can get sent home for medical reasons. However, the doctor doesn't buy his act and he is sent to another assignment. By choosing this as the first scene it sets the tone for the rest of the movie. It shows how scared they are, so much that some are willing to hurt themselves to get out of it.

After the tone of fear is set, the audience is hit by examples of hypermasculinity. As Ocre is walking around base camp, another soldier comes up to him looking very proud and asks him to come look at something. Behind him is a big military tank where, on the gun turret, the soldier painted "Pokey Mirra Loma". He explains joyously that it's his porn name because he's "going balls deep in Iraq". This ties in two traits of hypermasculinity: sexualization of objects and demonstration of violence. As they prepare to depart for their various assignments the soldiers probably feel nervous and fearful of what might come next. In order to cope with it and cover it, this soldier exemplifies hypermasculinity to draw the focus away from his fear. He sexualizes the situation as a form of dominating the situation and his fears. He also uses violence to dominate the situation by bragging about how much destruction he's going to cause.

Another example of hypermasculinity occurs later after the platoon searches a building. One of the soldiers got shot and another soldier picks him up, carries him down the stairs and says, "Quit your bellyaching, you're fine. Just a little gun wound". He says it a bit sarcastically with a chuckle because it's obvious the man is badly hurt. However, he's trying to wave off the pain and injury. This is a trait of hypermasculinity- to not show pain. It's being utilized in a stressful situation where they don't know if this man will live or die. It's just easier for them to cope with the fear by masking it.

In her book Masculinities, Violence and Culture, Suzanne Hatty states that "the raw and unfinished business of 'becoming a man' sometimes comes at great cost," (110). Hypermasculinity has its drawbacks and that's being recognized more and more. However, I think it's interesting to look at it as a coping mechanism when men are faced with high stress and fear. Overall, this movie was very interesting and it brought up some pertinent themes. I think it's important to recognize how people cope with things, especially in war. War is a display of violence that has such an impact on the soldiers. I think it would be useful to learn how they cope and why so that we can better help soldiers when they come back and have to readjust to society. This was a good movie that is still relevant today and has some important things to learn from.

Bonus: Religion as a Reliable Source by Bailey West

Personally I have never identified very much with religion. My parents aren't very religious but my mom does believe in God and identify as a Christian. My extended family, however, is extremely religious. Most of them live in a very small town that hasn't socially progressed since the 1950's- they still don't "believe in" mixed marriages. This makes up a large part of my family, so I get a fair share of uncomfortable holiday dinners and crazy Facebook posts. Although I realize that not all religious people fall into this category, these types of people do exist and I think it's important to think about their thought processes. Personally I think that their religion contributes a lot to their ignorance.

I believe that the lack of sources from religious leaders has impacted their thought process. They are used to accepting things at face value without much proof or explanation. I believe that this has affected the way they accept other "facts". Their whole lives are devoted to religion and God, so just using the Bible as a source is good enough proof for them. Regardless of your religious beliefs it should be common sense that there should be more than one viable source to prove a fact. Because their standard for sources and proof is so low, they are inclined to take almost anything as fact- as long as it involves God or caters to their interests. This means they get drawn into the broad propaganda scheme of extreme conservatism. They only watch Fox News and they are susceptible to inflammatory videos on Facebook that don't have any facts or sources. They have no standard of reference for facts and reliable sources.

Therefore, I think it is important for religious figures to provide sources. This is a touchy issue and I don't mean to offend anyone, but I think religious figures don't provide sources because it's hard for them to find some. It's all based on opinion and in the end that's what religion is- an opinion. Of course it doesn't always snowball like the situation with my family. I also believe that it's up to each individual to be well informed and critical of the belief systems around them.

In the end, it's up in the air. I think in order for religion to be considered valid they must include other valid sources and facts. However, I don't believe this is possible. I hope this doesn't sound like a rant against religion, because it's not. I personally don't identify with it but I can see the benefits. It's a good way to have hope and believe that everything happens for a reason. However, certain aspects of it do worry me- like the lack of sources and what that means for people's standard of a fact. All in all I think that everyone should learn to be critical of the environment around them, whether they're religious or not. It's important to look at where these ideas come from and why we think the way we do. We have to learn to assess sources for validity and determine what to take as truth.

Post 1, Group A--"Mindhunter": Dealing with Demonization of Serial Killers by Bailey West (Group A)

For this analysis, I have chosen the show Mindhunter. I chose this because it seemed interesting and I'd never seen it before. I had never heard of the show and only knew what I read from the bio, so I'd be going into it with a clear mind. Also, since it's about the psychology of serial killers I thought it might have some various social issues to discuss. I thought I would just analyze Episode 1, but after enjoying that episode I went ahead and watched the second one as well. I wasn't disappointed.

Basically, the show revolves around an FBI agent, Holder, in the 1970's. He is trying to connect the FBI with newfound knowledge in psychology. At this point in time people are beginning to question the mind of serial killers and see if there are any indicators that could be predicted. However, in his attempt to bring these two fields together he encounters quite a few problems. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies are reluctant to learn about psychology, especially about the psychology of serial killers. They view the killers as animal in nature and not human. They believe that the killers are born this way.

This brings out one of the main social issues the show deals with so far. People are reluctant to see these killers as people. Killers are often demonized in the media; they gain popularity only for the awful acts they've committed. They are presented to be cold blooded killers or blood thirsty animals. Law enforcement agencies, especially the people on the frontlines dealing with these cases, deal face to face with these violent crimes. They demonize killers as well because they see firsthand just what they're capable of. With this in mind, Holder comes in and suggests taking a look at the psychology of these killers- looking at their past, their behavior, and their attitude. This conflicts with the image people have in their minds of these killers.

This is particularly shown in Episode 2 where Holder goes to visit the "Co-Ed Killer" in jail. Holder sits down with a known violent killer and is surprised by the outcome. He seems polite and well maintained. Holder remarks to the Co-Ed Killer himself that he seems like a normal guy and that it's hard to pair him with the crimes he's committed. This scene embodies the dichotomy I described above. In our minds and in the media we completely demonize these killers, which in one sense is reasonable because the acts they committed are very violent and unacceptable. However, Holder sees the benefit in studying the psychology of these "animals". By studying the psychology of killers, you can understand more of why they act out in certain ways. You can recognize the different types of killers and psychopaths. In order to do that, though, Holder needs the recognition from the FBI that there is weight to this research. And furthermore, to do that he must convince them of the killers' personhood- something that proves very difficult to do even for himself.

Bonus #2: Weddings- Outdated Commitment Rituals or Celebrations of Love? by Bailey West

As a kid, I watched Say Yes to the Dress and The Bachelorette with my mom. At a young age I definitely idealized weddings, wedding dresses, and true love. I remember watching those shows and thinking how great it must be to fall in love and know who you want to spend the rest of your life with. I thought it would be perfect and easy. However, as I grew older I quickly realized this isn't the case. Love is something that isn't always easy, but can be worth it. Dedicating your life to someone isn't always the best answer. However, it should be up to the couple to decide to get married and what kind of wedding to have.

Currently, I have mixed feelings about weddings. Being a young adult now experiencing relationships and thoughts of the future, the legality of a wedding seems intimidating. We change so much over the course of our lives; do I really want to get into a legally binding relationship that would be expensive and painful to terminate? The whole concept is intimidating to me. I do believe in love and I think I could find someone I'd like to spend the rest of my life with, but I'm worried about the pressure of marriage. I'm worried that it would act more as a reason to not leave instead of an expression of commitment. I don't want to be in a relationship where the person doesn't leave because of how hard it would be, but isn't necessarily happy staying either.

Besides the legality of it, weddings are often excessive. Although I do enjoy seeing pictures of big beautiful dresses, decorations, nice venues, flower arrangements, etc., it is very expensive. I don't know if it's for me, personally, but I recognize that it is pretty to look at. I think whoever wants the wedding to be excessive is the one that should pay for it. There shouldn't be weight on any particular party. However, in the end I believe it should be up to the couple to decide the size and expenses of their wedding.

I do agree that a wedding is cause for celebration. I've been to a couple of weddings and it's been a nice celebration of love and unity. I do enjoy and respect that aspect. You get to dance, eat, and be around loved ones. However, the family aspect can definitely be skewed because many families have issues and aren't all hunky dory.

All in all, I think weddings are up to the couple. I don't think the concept is necessarily outdated, but there are some aspects that are. If I were to have a wedding, I don't want my dad to "give me away". I'd want my partner walked down the aisle by a loved one as well. I also wouldn't want certain parts of my family at the wedding because they're not supportive of many aspects of my life. I'd want it to be nice, heartfelt, and pretty but not excessive. I'd splurge on a dress but not spend thousands of dollars on one. I'm also not religious, so I don't want to get married in a church by a religious figure. So, in many ways my view of a wedding varies from the traditional sense but isn't entirely off base. If you truly believe you found the right person then it's up to you to decide whether or not marriage is for you.

In Class Assignment, Growing Up in a Haunted House by Bailey West

When I was little, I definitely believed in ghosts. I was the weird girl in the library that read her way through every paranormal-themed book the school had. Maybe it was these creepy ghost stories I spent so much time reading that impacted my judgment.
My littlest brother, Jesse, has always been a bit eccentric. He would make up stories to tell his class, friends, or his family. He convinced my brother, Alex, and I that our house was haunted. Jesse told very convincing stories; one in particular involved a floating orb or star shape in the laundry room. It scared all of us a lot, but at the same time it was thrilling.
The thing is our house was built in the 2000's- definitely not old. We were the first people to live in the house. There's no creepy backstory of the property it was built on... and Alex and I had never experienced anything supernatural ourselves. So, after awhile we chalked it up to one of Jesse's crazy stories. I'm not sure if I still believe in ghosts, but I do enjoy scary movies and books! This page describes some of the symbolic meanings of ghosts.


http://dreamicus.com/ghost.html