"THERE'S NO CRYING IN BASEBALL!!!" Real Wild Women

‘A League of Their Own’ is a great example of some “wild women” making their way in the world. This movie is about women during World War II who were asked to join the new “All-American Girls Professional Baseball League”. It follows two sisters, Dottie and Kit, who both make it onto the team the Rockford Peaches after trying out. Dottie is reluctant to leave home since her husband is away at war but Kit convinces her she has to live for herself until he comes home. Kit is raring to tryout but Dottie is the only one invited to tryout. Kit convinces the guy to give her a chance and he tells her he will as long as she makes Dottie come too. Once the girls are on the team they face many obstacles such as being sexualized in tiny uniforms and forced to go to beauty school to ensure they look good while playing. The small crowds that come to watch them play harass them and make fun of their ability to play. They must face many stereotypes about women while staying on top of their game, and all with lipstick on!

As discussed in ‘Seduction and Betrayal in the Heartland’ “patriarchal authority… takes the form of a rejection of oppressive masculine protectionism” (Boozer 211). With most men at war, women cast off their former oppression and stepped into places they had never been allowed. Before the men had been in these places and there was “no room” for women. But with the men gone, women stepped in to fill their shoes. “…nothing is more threatening to patriarchal conventions than a woman who resorts to the tools of aggressive defiance” (Boozer 210). In the film, many of the men feel threatened by these women baseball players. Their coach doesn’t believe the girls are “real ballplayers” and sleeps or reads through their games. The crowd jeers at them, putting down their abilities. But these women hold their heads up high and play some mean ball despite all of this. They defy the odds stacked against them by those who doubt them.

While ‘A League of Their Own’ may not represent ‘wild women’ in the same exact terms as Thelma and Louise, it certainly represents strong women who pursue what they want. This film shows how women changed and shaped societies views of the female sex during this era. It was not previously socially acceptable for women to play organized sports on professional teams. But while the men are away, the women must play; and that they certainly did. These women go after what they want even though it is not the social norm. Eventually they make it acceptable, through their irrepressible spirits and determination to be treated equally to men.

Week 4 Blog Reviews

Susan: I really liked the article by Wright and I enjoyed your explanations and anedotes. I like the approach you took with explaining how the article made writing the assignment easier. Your blog on Frida Kahlo was very thorough and well done! I like how you fully described the painting objectively with out sounding stiff. When you moved onto your subjective description you continued the wonderful writing and observations.

Victoria: The picture you chose for the Frida Kahlo blog was one I considered doing myself. It's a really interesting picture and you did a good job of explaining what makes it so interesting. I liked how you related the pain it appears she is in on the outside to how she is feeling on the inside. In your blog on Deep Blue you did a great job of breaking the article down and explaining it. I agree that there is so much more to a robot being human than being able to beat us in chess.

Whitney: You did such a great job with the robot dialogue! I loved that it was Laverne and Shirley too :) You made the concepts of AI clear while making it believable that two people would actually talk about that. The painting you chose for the Frida Kahlo blog was one of my favorites of hers. It's so interesting and has lots of little details. Your subjective and objective descriptions were very descriptive. It was very insightful to relate the thorns around her neck to feeling trapped.

Frida Kahlo: Self Portrait in a Velvet Dress

Revival Art - Welcome to Revival Art. Web. 17 Sept. 2009. http://www.revival-art.com/?cPath=77&products_id=kahlo-spinavd&tpid=2140.

Frida Kahlo led a somewhat turbulent life. When she was young she was seriously injured and it affected her all her life. At times she led a promiscuous lifestyle, sometimes with women. Her life experiences were always reflected in her works, especially when it was a self-portrait. In this painting Kahlo uses all dark colors in the background and to dress herself. The background contains dark blue swirls or waves directly behind Kahlo's head. Kahlo's own skin is the lightest portion of the painting. The neck and torso are elongated. Her face seems emotionless but looking at the eyes that is obviously not true. Their is much detail to the face besides the eyes. Her dark, large eyebrows are frames for the mysterious eyes. She has painted color in her cheeks and and her lips are small and pert. Kahlo's arm hugs her body closely. The hand seems to be gripping the arm.

This painting was created by Kahlo for her college lover, Alejandro Gomez Arias who had recently left her. It seems this painting is a plea and an invitation all in one. Unlike most of her other self-portraits this one seems a bit more narcissistic than the others. She has elongated her neck and torso which creates a look of pride and confidence. The long neck leads up to the pretty angular face. Normally Kahlo does not paint herself in a such a "pretty" way. Her eyes are dark and almond shaped, seeming to beckon to Alejandro. They are framed by the large eyebrows, which are generally considered unfeminine however she does not edit them. Her face and body have a seductive appeal to them which also is most likely meant to regain Alejandro's attention. Her breasts are slightly visible through her dress which suggests Kahlo's sexuality.

One thing does throw off the seductive appeal of the portrait. Her arm wrapped around her body. This is a sign of insecurity and perhaps it is meant to show Kahlo's feelings of loneliness with out Alejandro. Her arm seems to hold her together. The background of the portrait suggests the turmoil she feels with out Alejandro, as do the dark colors which suggest depression. Kahlo's light skin stands out like a beacon against this background, making her the umistakable focal point of the portrait.

Machine dialogue

Homer (H): I think I could be that Deep Blue in a chess game...
Marge (M): Oh, reallly Homer? You have the skills of Kasparov?
H: Well, maybe not but at least I have feelings! Deep Blue wouldn't even be able to rejoice over defeating me!
M: I heard that computers may have consciousness just like humans now... Isn't that scary?
H: I don't believe that! Machines will never have my brains or my consciousness! I can grab a hot pan and know to drop it. One of the new advanced machines would know to drop the pan too if it was going to damage them. But I can feel the burn baby! It's a subjective experience for me.
M: But the machine recoils from the heat! That is consciousness!
H: No, that is programming. They were given a data packet with instructions for that.
M: But we are given instructions about touching hot pans. I taught the kids as babies not to touch the hot stove. So they are receiving data packets too.
H: But did the kids always listen? Of course not! So they learned from subjective experience that a hot stove equals DOH!
M: Oh you don't really believe that mystery of the mind stuff do you??? That McGinn guy who has the water into wine theory, total nut job! Of course the mind can be figure out! We are learning the mysteries of the mind every day!
H: Do you know how data becomes part of consciousness? Like how your brain figures out if you hear one of our children screaming or the neighbor's cat howling? When you do come to a conclusion on which one you hear, that is from experience a.k.a. consciousness! But there is still a mystery as to how that enters our mind. So yes, call me a mysterian!
M: Well, I guess there is some mystery to consciouness but I bet you that one day machines will consiousness just like us!
H: Humph, bet they don't!

Week 3 Blog Reviews

Susan: I like how Susan talked about thoughts and ideas in terms of the media, school, and family. I overlooked that in my own take on thoughts and ideas and I think it really is important to them! The approach that Susan took was really unique (in a good way!) and I wouldn't have thought of it! I really enjoyed her blog on on AI. It was very interesting and not loaded down with too many quotes but drew on her own thoughts. I agree with her take on machine intelligence! Aren't we the ones who created the machines after all??

Victoria: Victoria really backs up her writing with evidence and it makes her writing so effective. She asks some great questions that keep the reader thinking and processing the information she has presented! Victoria shared some of the same ideas as me about robots. Humans are the ones making the changes to machines so we are the ones creating their intelligence! I like bringing the idea of love into the mix. I noticed one teeny thing she might want to check! Her citation is supposed to include the author of the articles name as well as the page number :)

Whitney: Whitney did a superb job of making the essay on consciousness understandable! And with out making it seem like the reader was stupid. After reading her take on the essay I was like oh, I get it! Why can't these reaserachers just write like that! Her second blog on consciousness was very interesting. Her example about the definition of 'up' was really insightful showing her full grasp of the concept of AI. I agree it is really creepy how close technology has come to making machines have the intelligence of humans!

Robot Consciousness? Class Discussion #3 pg. 122

Humans seem rather obsessed with the concept of machines and robots possessing the intelligence to match our own. There have been countless movies portraying this idea and there are bound to be countless more as long as they are not walking among us in reality. Artificial Intelligence, Robots, and Bicentennial man are just a few of these movies. Robots fascinate us for many reasons; they could take over, they could help us, they could be smarter than us, they seem human in many ways. But they are not human. They may have consciouness but they lack morals, common sense, street smarts, and emotions. They do not have a real brain. They were created by humans who are extremely fallible. And yet researchers like Igor Aleksander and Marvin Minsky continue to try and develop intelligent machines.

Minksy believes that machines will someday surpass humans in consciousness. “A computer can be programmed to keep a record of all its internal states and then to trace back through these. For a human to do the same would require the ability to go back through brain states to find the point where there was a particular response to certain stimuli” (Davidson 120). But Minsky adds that he does not mean that machines will be more intelligent than humans, only that they could be much more conscious (Davidson 120). Machines could have a vast collection of information and facts that makes them intelligent. Facts do not make up for lack of experience though. A machine could know the exact physics and engineering of a stove top but with out experience it would not know that touching the stove would result in a severe burn. Consciousness does not equate to common sense or knowing what to do with consciousness.

It seems that manufacturing common sense in a machine is difficult. It is hard to imagine a machine ever being truly as smart in all the ways that humans are since they are created by humans. They lack that extra something, that organic and earth bound quality that humans are. They are all steel and plastic parts while humans are flesh and blood. According to Minsky “Consciousness is not the issue in the quest for intelligent machines: the need is to endow them with common sense” (Davidson 121). Apparantly simple tasks to humans are nearly impossible to robots because of the everyday knowledge that is involved. Something as menial as cleaning a glass would require the robots knowledge of gravity to the breakableness of glass (Davidson 121).

Intelligent machines seem like something that will always stay in the distant future. One day they may walk among humans but will they truly possess human qualities? Some parts of the human brain are still a mystery to humans. It seems impossible to duplicate the many facets and functions of a human brain for a machine.

Directed Freewrite Pg. 96

A thought, an idea, a belief, a hypothesis, a theory, a dream, consciousness.... are they one and the same? They seem to be. According to Francis Crick, consciousness is "attention and short-term memory" (Hazen 94). In my "humble opinion" this is also how I would define an idea or a thought. But I believe they can be broken down further while holding onto the broad definition given.

A thought floats in your immediate attention and consciousness. Sometimes it is something simple like "I need to go grocery shopping" or sometimes it is more complex such as when you are taking a test and trying to retrieve answers. Thoughts many times are focused on memories. Obviously you can have thoughts on what is happening in the here and now, such as the ridiculous amount of homework your teacher just assigned you or about the growling noises your stomach is making. A larger question is where do thoughts arise from? It seems that we draw on previous experience and memory to be able to have the conscious thoughts we do.... Or else how would we know that the amount of homework we have is ridiculous with out having previous homework loads to compare it to?

Personal views and beliefs seems to be the more detailed meaning of an idea. Ideas are often tied to a group that holds common views. The Republican and Democratic parties would be two groups that are defined by ideas. Some very different ideas yes, but each group forms their identity around the ideas that they hold to be true. Morals come into play with ideas because to have an idea is to have an opinion and most often our opinions our tied to our moral beliefs. Ideas seem to also be tied to memory. Many times one draws their ideas from their experiences, whether good or bad. For example, if a person had a car accident because they were texting they may have the idea to never text and drive again (good choice) and they will strongly advise others against it, perhaps even advocating against it and voting for laws banning it. Ideas help people make a better world!

As is evident, narrowing down the definitions for thoughts and ideas is possible, but not easy. They are two very different things but very closely related and often mistaken as interchangeable. While thoughts can be about really anything and may even encompass ideas, ideas have much more to do with a person's views and beliefs. The differences between thoughts and ideas are very intriguing and bring up their own sets of thoughts and ideas.

Week 2 Blog Reviews!

Susan: I really liked many of the points you made in your first blog. "Is it really possible to make a connection and impression on an individual you have never seen, but rather chatted with online or via text messaging?" This is such a difficult question to answer and you do a great job not just taking one side but trying to explain how there are pros and cons to both. I also agree with you that first impressions really do last. Your explanation of how even the layout of our blogs make an impression is a great point. In your second blog on goodness your whole third paragraph really struck home with me. I like how you said that people tend to focus on details and form stereotypes. You have great organization in your writing and you stay focused on the points you're trying to make!

Victoria: I agree with so much in your first blog! It is so weird how we can completely change personalities when switching between our peers and our family! I agree that I never pay much attention and yet somehow I just know that saying that four letter curse word in front of my mom is a big NO. Your writing kept me interested and I like the anecdotes from your own life that you connected with the text! In your second blog I was happy to see that even though you are a believer, you don't rule out the idea that nonbelievers can't be good. I like that you bring up the idea that there may be a difference in what believers and non-believers see as good and moral but who determines which group is correct comes down to what your own beliefs are. I'm looking forward to reading more from you!

Whitney: You are quite the writer! Not only do you set up your paragraphs to prove your point but you also give them an easy-to-read fluidity. Your personality is very apparent in your writing and adds a lot to what you are saying. In your blog on self you state that just like in writing, your vocabulary and voice are going to vary based on your audience. What a great way to point out that there may be variations of one's self. I really enjoyed the examples you used in your writing such as the sentence about online dating and letter writing. You tie everything together so well. I really share a lot of views with you in your second blog. I like the idea you brought up about if people are just being good to get into heaven is that really selfless and "good". I am excited to read more of your writing!

Goodness with out God.

The connection between God and goodness is a precarious tight-rope. On one hand many say that with out religion there would be no morals. On the other hand, people believe that human kind is born with the ability for goodness. Then the believers retaliate with the idea that inherent goodness comes from God. But how can a believer force this idea onto an atheist? Connecting God with being good excludes non-believers from having any moral code. Which is not the case since many atheists or non-believers have more morals than religious people. It is not very “good” of us to say that a certain group cannot be good because they do not believe in God. ‘Good’ has many definitions, among them: morally admirable, estimable, of moral excellence, having desirable or positive qualities… These definitions do not say anything about God. They do mention morals however. But do morals truly spring from religion and God?

It is unfair to say that we need God to be good. While a belief in God or a higher being most certainly shapes many peoples morals and views this does not mean it is necessary to believe in God to have good values and a quality character. Besides, having a religious affiliation does not mean that you will abide by the moral code you were taught. According to studies, “…a believer in a religion is less likely to do a good deed than is a nonbeliever” (Conyers and Harvey 63). This evidence is so surprising because the Christian philosophy is supposedly “treat others as you would like to be treated.” Clearly, religion and belief in God does not always make a better person.

The same person that goes to church every Sunday may be the person who walks by you when you are in need of help. But if they see a perceived wrong to their religion they will suddenly react to defend their god and their beliefs. Does this make them a good person? They may believe in God but they are not putting into practice what their religion and God say should be done for those less fortunate or in need of help. At times human nature seems to only be capable of goodness with the threat of eternal damnation or for those deemed “worthy” of a good deed. “People tend to practice altruism toward those in their own group but not those outside it” (Conyers and Harvey 63). These people “have” God in their life. And yet they discriminate between those they will help. Is this good?

Written vs. spoken, online vs. traditional

Writing gives you time to think about what you want to say before you put pen to paper (or fingers to the keyboard). And even when it is written you can take it back. In speech, if you say something you didn't want to or that was not the best sentence you ever constructed, you can't just go back and erase it. You will probably still come off as sounding nervous or inarticulate. In traditional classroom settings it is difficult for some people to put their best foot forward. Not only do you have to be in the height of fashion but you better have showered and you better smile at people and you better be ready to speak in front of tons of people if you are called on. Humans are so quick to judge if they find some flaw in your appearance or behavior. As Goffman says in his essay 'The Presentation of Self', "...observers can glean clues from his conduct and appearance which allows them to apply their previous experience with individuals roughly similar to the one before them or, more important, to apply untested stereotypes to him" (Beedles and Petracca 42). Even though you may have just stumbled over a few words when the professor asked you to introduce yourself, you have already made your first impression. And are undoubtedly being judged.

While it is true that the information one shares in an online class is completely dependent on how much one would like to reveal, I feel that most people will be themselves and perhaps even more open than they would in a traditional classroom setting. I am a shy person and I "clam up" when I have to speak in front of groups. Being in an online class allows me to show my personality with out worrying what impression I am making. While I am still making an impression, I don't have to see the reactions I am getting from other people. I know I'm not alone when I say that being self-conscious of others responses to me has held me back at some points. Facial expressions and body language have the ability to make and break relationships. Since I am not an outgoing person, sometimes my lack of words come off as snobbish or rude. In an online class where you don't have dozens of eyes staring at you while you speak or judging what you are wearing you feel more free to express yourself. Clearly sometimes not seeing people's expressions can actually lead to better communication!

As I am currently learning in my Language Science class, people use different parts of their brain to speak and to write. Obviously some people are better at one than another and sometimes feel more comfortable in a certain medium. An online class can help the inarticulate speaker to express themselves solely through the written word. Of course this leaves out expressions and gestures which are vital to communication... But I believe it depends on the context of the communication. If you are having a conversation with a friend and you are animated and using facial expressions they will know you are genuinely listening to them and enjoying the conversation too. But sometimes people are able to mask their true feelings with expressions and gestures and this leads to a false impression. So are the expressions that we give and the expressions that we give off really that different? In other words, can an online class mask who we are anymore than we already do in face-to-face situations?

Goffman makes the point that people can shape how others perceive them. In an online class it is completely possible that someone could create a different identity than their own. If an individual wants to be seen in a different light, or perhaps the truer version of themselves than they are in classes, than they are able to. " Society is organized on the principle that any individual who possesses certain social characteristics has a moral right to expect that others value and treat him in an appropriate way. Connected with this principle is a second, namely that an individual who implicitly or explicitly signifies that he has certain social characteristics ought in fact to be what he claims he is" (Beedles and Petracca 48). Therefore, individuals will represent their true selves in an online class and most people will expect that that individual is giving a true representation of themselves. Sometimes writing can be much more real and honest than speech.