Paper 2 **Final Polish**

*  I do not hope to solve any problems or to give you any answers, I wish to  *
provoke your thoughts, so that you can discover your own problems and find your own solutions to them.


Dear Macho Women and Femme Men,

            To be shunned from society hurts, it leaves confused feelings of being frightened and alone, unable to tell where you can belong or who can accept you for who you were born to be. People who see themselves as 'normal' people may use words like 'different', 'weird', 'trouble', or 'gay' when they talk about people who go against their ways of normality. One lesson we should have learned from generations and generations of history is that everyone is equal, but still people are too fearful of things that are 'different'. Today's generation is facing the fear of people who go against what is considered 'normal' for their assigned genders, also known as gender roles. Society's dominate gender roles of men shown as strong, brave, and dangerous heroes of masculinity and women characterized as submissive, caring, and gentle things of femininity; these ideas of gender roles are forced subliminally onto us leaving us with a sexist perception of what the standard man and woman is, what society defines as 'normal'. However, imagine if the standard gender roles were to be rewritten putting the gender roles of society on the opposite sex, changing it so that men were the ones persistently perused by women and if women were raised to not show the weakness in their emotions. Even more drastic yet, picture a world where gender roles were eliminated and had no foothold in people's minds; we may naturally gravitate towards our old gender roles because femininity or masculinity is coded into our biology, or we might reshape gender roles into guidelines available for all humans, unlike our society's separate roles for men and women twisted by the need to uphold historic belief, the need to advertise for profit, and the greed to keep the power where it is. The effects of the current gender role stereotypes given by society are stifling to a person's self-expression, women and men who do not fall in line with these stereotypes are stigmatized for going against their assigned gender roles, which unfair in society that is suppose to place such high value on equality.

A woman goes to a high fashion retailer to look at the latest fashions, she works for a important clothing magazine that is always up-to-date with the trends so her style is always under surveillance. She sees so many cute things that she cannot make up her mind, until she decides to buy them all to fill up some of that empty space in her closet.

A man goes to a high fashion retailer to look at the latest fashions, he works for a important clothing magazine that is always up-to-date with the trends so his style is always under surveillance. He sees so many cute things that he cannot make up his mind, until he decides to buy them all to fill up some of that empty space in his closet.

            Take some time to analyze what is different about these two segments, really think about what each sentence means for the woman and for the man. Do not look at them as you yourself would judge them, think about the issue globally, from the position of someone likely to find issue with the difference, someone who has become a bigot by blindly following the ideals of gender roles and accepting them as facts. From that perspective, several actions would be marked as being feminine qualities that only women should do such as; working in the fashion industry, being conscious of clothing style, describing clothes you want to wear as 'cute', indecisiveness with decisions, compulsive buying, and even having enough clothes to fill-up your closet. A woman can do all of these things and not be questioned or rejected for any reason, but when a man does them it is unnatural, making people hateful, fearful and for some it is sickening.

            There is a large displacement between societies' image of the ideal man and the man in the segment above, he is so far from 'normal' that he is feared because of his unique differences and is shunned from society. Society believes within their ideological culture for only men and women to be together that men's dominant ways of masculinity are the appropriate way for a boy to act, what proof do they have of this to keep the belief in place as the mindset best for a boy to grow up in? The rules society expects boys to follow are damaging to the growth of a human, a drastic example of the results of these rules and there outcomes is given by Joan Morgan -author of "From Fly-Girls to Bitches and Hos"- talking about rappers and their artistic interpretation of the way they live their lives given in their music and lyrics, she explains "When brothers talk so cavalierly about killing each other and then reveal that they have no expectation to see their twenty-first birthday, this is straight-up depression masquerading as machismo,"(603). Morgan is talking about black rappers in particular  but these men are living their interpretations of what they think of as the manly lifestyle that is acceptable for a black man in our society. You would be shocked if a woman was to have this attitude towards life, but it is within the realm of possibility for a man to have this attitude because it falls in line with the attitude expected by society from men. Why should that depression be considered natural for a man, when a man shopping for cute clothes is considered unnatural?

A man sprints down the street from his house so his family cannot see him cry, he goes down a dark alley and finds an abandoned 67' Chrysler. He starts to beat the car with whatever he can find, not even noticing the deep cuts forming on his hands.

A woman sprints down the street from her house so her family cannot see her cry, she goes down a dark alley and finds an abandoned 67' Chrysler. She starts to beat the car with whatever she can find, not even taking noticing of the deep cuts forming on her hands.

            A bigot whom looks at this with strict belief in societies gender roles would take notice that the woman is; physically exerting herself, running away from her emotions, is not scared of danger, knows something about cars, she releases her anger in physical form, and is unphased by the pain in her hands. Qualities that are typical in a boy and not quite so typical in girls. This difference from normality leads to society -the mass populous- into feeling unrelated and distant from the single person, justifying the person's exile from society. These characteristics are scary coming from a boy, but from a girl it seems even more drastic and unpredictable. She is a girl, most would perceive on site that she is happy, safe, and nonthreatening  but when she acts out in anger in such ways she is looked at more critically then the boy because it is expected from the boy, not the girl. Although women also have limitations put on them because of gender roles, men have been far more stigmatized for going against their assigned gender role.

Women are now more freely able to express themselves whether their actions are masculine or feminine, while men have been taught to have no desire to be like a women or to do anything feminine because it is taught as the opposite of masculinity. Men are not able to participate in girly, feminine activities because they are scared of the ridicule that they will face from their peers. Here's another angle to look at it from, what would you call a girl who typically does boy activities? A 'tomboy' is likely the first thing to pop into your head, nothing wrong in calling a girl that some girls today even call themselves that proudly. Now, what do you call a boy that likes to take part in feminine activities? It is difficult to come up with a term similar to a 'tomboy' for a boy, many of the terms that you would first think to use are derogatory like 'fag' or 'sissy'. The author of  "Boyhood Femininity, Gender Identity Disorder, Masculine Presuppositions, and the Anxiety of Regulation", Ken Corbett, elaborates the situation " Feminine boys are often described as 'whiny', 'mincing', 'weak', 'just like a girl'. These modes of address not only signal the demeaned status of feminine boys, but also illustrates how anguish as a bid toward social redress is shunned. And how emotion as a call to social transformation is belittled,"(Corbett). Why is there a non- derogative name for girls going against gender roles, but not a single commonly used non-derogative name for boys going against their gender roles? Because women have years of feminism striving for women to have the right to be seen as equals to a man.
 
           Women have made leaps and strides in equality, fighting uphill against the gender roles that are placed on them as women. This has given women a much stronger sense of pride in recent years, allowing them to have the courage to break several of the barriers of gender roles that were used to keep woman in check back in the day. Michael Kimmel gives an example of feminism pride when he writes, ' "Whenever I ask a women what they think it means to be a woman, they look at me puzzled, and say, basically 'Whatever I want'"(608). This is not the same for men, man has not made strides for equality with women because most men are content with the position they hold and have no desire to be like a woman. Leaving all boys to face brutal standards such as "big boys don't cry" and "take it like a man" which are emotion-numbing messages forced onto men at a very young age. Leaving boys very critical of the way they act, as well as the actions of other boys, and self-conscious of the way they are perceived by other men. They are unable to do several things that a woman can do because they are raised to fear doing anything feminine because it is unnatural for a boy.

I grew up with four brothers, we had seven boys total in the house counting my step-father and grandfather leaving my mom as the only woman in the house. With so many boys in the house everything was often a masculinity contest, I rarely won. My mom always kept a diary for all the funny things us boys said and did as children, one story in the book I heard several time was,

"I went to all of my boys to ask them what they wanted to do as a career when they got older. Broc said that he wanted to be a race car driver like his daddy, Dylan said he wanted to be a veterinarian cause he likes animals, Ty said he wanted to be a professional baseball player. Last, I went to Tyler and asked him what he wanted to be when he grew up, he said "Either a singer, a dancer, or a hairstylist".....Uh-oh...."

This was from my mother, I reheard this story in her version about a year after it happened. When I heard the punch line as "Uh-Oh" all I wanted to do was rip the page from the journal and pretend that it never happened. I was scared to be called out like that by the naivety of a joke my mom put in her funny stories journal, a story that was shared with our entire family, all thirty-six of them. Why was I so scared? I saw it as outing myself as gay, a story from when I was young and just innocently answering a question. They laughed at the story, like it was just a good joke, it had no real meaning. At most they saw it as a phase and just laughed it off, but in their ignorance of the situation I was left to form my own opinions from their reactions, that being a singer/dancer/hairstylist was not an appropriate thing for a boy to do, that's was why they were laughing at the story. This was a defining moment for my masculinity, I see this as the moment I was trapped in by gender roles for the next ten years of my life.

            The purpose of the gender roles in unclear, it has been for several years a way to keep people in check, particularly women and homosexuals. It has also been fundamentals that we raise our children on, rules they will come to see as the way people should act, and if they do not act this way they need to be either ostracized or forced into a rut of self-denial in order to fit in with everyone else in society. Gender roles have been made into attractive qualities that bring people together in love -as well as- the defining factors of peoples irregularities that are to be feared and avoided. Balance needs to be restored to the gender roles, it is time to form a positive outlook on all walks of life -we are all equal- and we cannot let our children draw these harsh and scary conclusions about things they do not understand. You do not want to hinder a child's growth by giving them fear of truthfully expressing themselves and the way that they feel, this is the only way for a child to grow up with confidence in who they are and how they act. Women have mended this rift some with their strong pride in feminism  meanwhile men are left in the world women are striving for and show no interest in "diluting" men's masculine image that our society holds in such high regards. Their needs to be a mass re-evaluation of the values we are passing down to our children, and how they are taught to judge men and women. If a boy goes into a toy store and picks up a doll out of genuine interest it should not be seen as unnatural by anyone, same goes for girls playing with monster trucks. Children need to explore and be creative for themselves before they are given opinions that they do not have, all that leads to is ignorance and bigotry.We need to cure the ignorance and bigotry that we still have today to find what is true within gender-assigned roles and what is just opinion.

We can all love and be loved,

-Tyler Higgins

"I hope that - whoever you are - you escape this place. I hope that the world turns, and that things get better.

But what I hope most of all is that you understand what I mean when I tell you that even though I do not know you, and even though I may not meet you, laugh with you, cry with you, or kiss you: I love you.

With all my heart.

I love you.

-Valerie"

~V for Vendetta

Paper #2: Final Draft

*  I do not hope to solve any problems or to give you any answers, I wish to  * 
provoke your thoughts, so that you can discover your own problems and find your own solutions to them.

Dear Macho Women and Femme Men,

            To be shunned from society hurts, it leaves confused feelings of being frightened and alone, unable to tell where you can belong or who will accept you for who you were born to be. People who see themselves as 'normal' people may use words like 'different', 'weird', 'trouble', or 'gay' when they talk about people who go against their ways of normality. One lesson we should have learned from generations and generations of history is that everyone is equal, but sill people are too fearful of things that are 'different'. Today's generation is facing the fear of people who go against what is considered 'normal' for their assigned genders, also known as gender roles. Gender roles of men shown as strong, brave, and dangerous heroes of masculinity and women characterized as submissive, caring, and gentle things of femininity; these ideas of gender roles are forced subliminally onto us leaving us with a sexist perception of what the standard man and woman is, what society defines as 'normal'. However, imagine if the standard gender roles were to be rewritten putting the gender roles of society on the opposite sex, changing it so that men were the ones persistently perused by women and if women were raised to not show the weakness in their emotions. Even more drastic yet, picture a world where gender roles were eliminated and had no foothold in people's minds; we may naturally gravitate towards our old gender roles because it is coded into our biology, or we might reshape gender roles into guidelines for all humans, not like our separate roles for men and women twisted by the need to uphold historic belief, the need to advertise for profit, and the greed to keep the power where it is. What are the effects of the current gender role stereotypes given to people, and is it possible to live in a society without them?

A woman goes to a high fashion retailer to look at the latest fashions, she works for a important clothing magazine that is always up-to-date with the trends so her style is always under surveillance. She sees so many cute things that she cannot make up her mind, until she decides to buy them all to fill up some of that empty space in her closet.

A man goes to a high fashion retailer to look at the latest fashions, he works for a important clothing magazine that is always up-to-date with the trends so his style is always under surveillance. He sees so many cute things that he cannot make up his mind, until he decides to buy them all to fill up some of that empty space in his closet.

            Take some time to analyze what is different about these two segments, really think about what each sentence means for the woman and for the man. Do not look at them as you yourself would judge them, think about the issue globally, from the position of someone likely to find issue with the difference, someone who has become a bigot by blindly following the ideals of gender roles. From that perspective, several actions would be marked as being feminine qualities only women should do such as; working in the fashion industry, being conscious of clothing style, describing clothes you want to wear as 'cute', indecisiveness with decisions, compulsive buying, and even having enough clothes to fill-up your closet. A woman can do all of these things and not be questioned or rejected for any reason, but when a man does them it is unnatural, making people hateful, fearful and for some it is sickening.

            There is a large displacement between societies' image of the ideal man and the man in the segment above, he is so far from 'normal' that he is feared because of his unique differences and is shunned from society. Society believes that their ways of masculinity is the appropriate way for a boy to act, what proof of this do they have to keep this belief in place? The rules society expects boys to follow are damaging to the growth of a human, a drastic example of the results of these rules and there outcomes is given by Joan Morgan, author of "From Fly-Girls to Bitches and Hos", talking about rappers and their artistic interpretation of the way they live their lives given in their music and lyrics, she explains "When brothers talk so cavalierly about killing each other and then reveal that they have no expectation to see their twenty-first birthday, this is straight-up depression masquerading as machismo,"(603). Morgan is talking about black men inparticular, but these men are living their interpretations of what they think of as the manly lifestyle that is acceptable for a black man in our society. You would be shocked if a woman was to have this attitude towards life, but it is within the realm of possibility for a man to have this attitude because it falls in line with the attitude expected by society from men. Why should that depression be considered natural for a man, when a man shopping for cute clothes is considered unnatural?

A man sprints down the street from his house so his family cannot see him cry, he goes down a dark alley and finds an abandoned 67' Chrysler. He starts to beat the car with whatever he can find, not even noticing the deep cuts forming on his hands.

A woman sprints down the street from her house so her family cannot see her cry, she goes down a dark alley and finds an abandoned 67' Chrysler. She starts to beat the car with whatever she can find, not even taking noticing of the deep cuts forming on her hands.

            A bigot whom looks at this with strict belief in societies gender roles would take notice that the woman is; physically exerting herself, running away from her emotions, is not scared of danger, knows something about cars, she releases her anger in physical form, and is unphased by the pain in her hands. Qualities that are typical in a boy and not quite so typical in girls, this difference from normality leads to society, the mass populous, into feeling unrelated and distant from the single person justifying the person's exile from society. These characteristics are scary coming from a boy, but from a girl it seems even more drastic and unpredictable. She is a girl, most would perceive on site that she is happy, safe, and unthreatening, but when she acts out in anger in such ways she is looked at more critically then the boy because it is expected from the boy, not the girl.

            Women have made leaps and strides in equality, fighting uphill against the gender roles that are placed on them as women. This has given women a much stronger sense of pride in recent years, allowing them to have the courage to break several of the barriers that were used to keep woman in check back in the day. Michael Kimmel gives an example when he writes, ' "Whenever I ask a women what they think it means to be a woman, they look at me puzzled, and say, basically 'Whatever I want'"(608). Here's another angle to look at it from, what would you call a girl who typically does boy activities? A 'tomboy' is likely the first thing to pop into your head, nothing wrong in calling a girl that some girls even call themselves that proudly.

             Now, what do you call a boy that like to take part in feminine activities? It is difficult to come up with a term similar to a 'tomboy' for a boy, many of the terms that you would first think to use are derogatory like 'fag' or 'sissy'. The author of  "Boyhood Femininity, Gender Identity Disorder, Masculine Presuppositions, and the Anxiety of Regulation", Ken Corbett, elaborates the situation " Feminine boys are often described as 'whiny', 'mincing', 'weak', 'just like a girl'. These modes of address not only signal the demeaned status of feminine boys, but also illustrates how anguish as a bid toward social redress is shunned. And how emotion as a call to social transformation is belittled,"(Corbett). Why is there a non- derogative name for girls going against gender roles, but not a single commonly used non-derogative name for boys going against their gender roles? Because women have years of feminism striving for women to have the right to be seen as equals to a man.  

             This is not the same for men, man has not made strides for equality with women because most men are content with the position they hold and have no desire to be like a woman. Leaving them to face the brutal standards such as "big boys don't cry" and "take it like a man" which are messages forced onto men at a very young age. Leaving boys to be very critical of the way they act, as well as other boys actions, and self-conscious of the way they are perceived by other men. They are unable to do several things that a woman can do because of the way they are raised to think that doing anything feminine is not allowed for a boy.

I grew up with four brothers, we had seven boys total in the house counting my step-father and grandfather leaving my mom as the only woman in the house. With so many boys in the house everything was often a masculinity contest, I rarely won. My mom always kept a diary for all the funny things us boys said and did as children, one story in the book i heard several times was, "I went to all of my boys to ask them what they wanted to do as a career when they got older. Broc said that he wanted to be a race car driver like his daddy, Dylan said he wanted to be a veterinarian cause he likes animals, Ty said he wanted to be a professional baseball player. Last, I went to Tyler and asked him what he wanted to be when he grew up, he said "Either a singer, a dancer, or a hairstylist".....Uh-oh...." This was from my mother, I reheard this story in her version about a year after it happened. When I heard the punch line as "Uh-Oh" all I wanted to do was rip the page from the journal and pretend that it never happened. I was scared to be called out like that by the naivety of a joke my mom put in her funny stories journal, a story that was shared with our entire family, all thirty-six of them. Why was I so scared? I saw it as outing myself as gay, a story from when I was young and just innocently answering a question. They laughed at the story, like it was just a good joke, it had no real meaning. At most they saw it as a phase and just laughed it off, but in their ignorance of the situation I was left to form my own opinions from their reactions, that being a singer/dancer/hairstylist was not an appropriate thing for a boy to do, that may be exactly what they thought and why they were laughing at the story. This was a defining moment for my masculinity, I see this as the moment I was trapped in by gender roles for the next ten years of my life.

            The purpose of the gender roles in unclear, it has been for several years a way to keep people in check, particularly women and homosexuals. It has also been fundamentals that we raise our children on, giving them rules they will come to see as the way people in the world function making the ones that do not follow these rules to be either ostracized or forced into a rut of self-denial in order to fit in with everyone else. Gender roles have been attractive qualities that bring people together in love, as well as, the defining factor of irregularities to be feared and avoided. These roles do slightly adapt to the times as can be seen through-out the years, but I think system does not have a problem of adapting to the situation we have, but is in need a complete restructuring of the gender role system for situations that are to come today and in the future. We need to reevaluate what is true within these gender roles and what is opinion.  

Paper #2 Rough Draft

Dear Macho Women and Femme Men,

            In this letter I do not hope to solve any problems or to give you any answers, I want to provoke thought, if anything, so that you can discover the problems and find your own answers to them.

            Being shunned from society hurts, it can leave feelings of being alone and confused, or even frightened, unable to tell where you belong or who will accept you for who you are. People who see themselves as 'normal' people may use words like 'different', 'weird', 'trouble', or 'gay' when they talk about people who go against their ways of normality. One thing we have learned from generations and generations of history is that people have a fear of things that are 'different', today's generation has a fear of people who go against what is considered 'normal' for genders, also known as gender roles. Gender roles of men shown as strong, brave, and dangerous heroes of masculinity and women characterized as submissive, caring, and gentle things of femininity; these ideas of gender roles are forced onto us leaving us with a perception of what the standard man and woman is, what is 'normal' to society. However, imagine if the standards were to be rewritten putting the gender roles in society on the opposite sex, changing it so that men the ones constantly perused by women and women are raised to not show the weakness in their emotions. Even more drastic yet, imagine that gender roles were eliminated and had no foothold in people's minds, we may naturally gravitate towards our old habits because it is in our biology, or we could reshape the gender roles that are placed on men and women into something different then society has made them today. Is it possible to live without gender roles in society?

A woman goes to a high fashion retailer to look at the latest fashions, she works for a important clothing magazine that is always up-to-date with the trends so her style is always under surveillance. She sees so many cute things that she cannot make up her mind, until she decides to buy them all to fill up some of that empty space in her closet.

A man goes to a high fashion retailer to look at the latest fashions, he works for a important clothing magazine that is always up-to-date with the trends so his style is always under surveillance. He sees so many cute things that he cannot make up his mind, until he decides to buy them all to fill up some of that empty space in his closet.

            Take some time to think about what is different about these two segments, really think about what each sentence means for the woman and man. Do not look at them as you yourself would judge them, but from the position of someone likely to find issue with the difference, someone who is held by the ideals of gender roles. Several things could be marked as being feminine qualities such as; working in the fashion industry, being conscious of clothing style, describing clothes you want to wear as 'cute', indecisiveness with decisions, compulsive buying, and even having enough clothes to fill-up your closet. A woman can do all of these things and not be questioned or feared for any reason, but when a man does them it is unnatural and to some even sickening. There is such a large displacement between societies' image of the ideal man and this man, he is so far from 'normal' that he is feared because of his unique differences and is shunned from society. The same could be said for a woman who has qualities normally reserved for a man.

A man sprints down the street from his house so his family cannot see him cry, he goes down a dark alley and finds an abandoned 67' Chrysler. He starts to beat the car with whatever he can find, not even noticing the deep cuts forming on his hands.

A woman sprints down the street from her house so her family cannot see her cry, she goes down a dark alley and finds an abandoned 67' Chrysler. She starts to beat the car with whatever she can find, not even taking noticing of the deep cuts forming on her hands.

A person who looks at this with strict belief in the gender roles in society would take notice that the woman is physically exerting herself, running away from her emotions, is not scared of danger, knows something about cars, she releases her anger in physical form, and is unphased by the pain in her hands. Qualities that are typical in a boy and not quite so typical in girls, this difference leads to society into feeling unrelated and distant from the single person justifying the person's exile from society. These characteristics are scary coming from a boy, but from a girl it seems even more drastic. She is a girl, most would perceive on site that she is happy, safe, and unthreatening, but when she acts out in anger in such ways she is looked at more critically then the boy because it is expected from the boy, not the girl.

            Women have made leaps and strides in equality, fighting uphill against the gender roles that are placed on them as women. This has given women a much stronger sense of pride in recent years, allowing them to have the courage to break several of the barriers that were used to keep woman in check back in the day. "*" Most women today would say that their sex is not a hindrance to them and they can do anything a man can do.

             This is not the same for men, man has not made strides for equality because most men are content with the position they hold. Leaving them to the mercy of the brutal standards such as "big boys don't cry" and "take it like a man" which are forced onto men at a young age. Leaving boys from a very young age to be very critical of the way they act and self conscious of the way they are perceived by others. They are unable to do several things that a woman can do because of the way they are raise to be self conscious of themselves doing anything feminine.

            The purpose of the gender roles is unclear, it has been for several years a way to keep people in check, particularly women and homosexuals. It has also been fundamentals that we raise our children on, giving them guidelines they will come to see as the way the world works. They have been seen as both attractive qualities that bring people together in love and irregularities to be feared and avoided. These roles do slightly adapt to the times, but I think this is not a problem of adapting to the situation we have, but a restructuring of the system for situations that are to come. We need to reevaluate what is true within these gender roles and what is opinion.  

Annotated Bibliography #2

Works Cited

Connolly, Paul. Racism, Gender Identities And Young Children : Social Relations In A Multi-     Ethnic, Inner-City Primary School. Routledge, 2002. EBSCOhost eBook Collection.   Web. 13 Nov. 2012.

In this book they outline several situations that might arise in a multi-cultural school, they talk about different students and the dynamic situations that they may come to face. It is an interesting way to write, as well as a great way to get a view from many different perspectives. The school system is an understudied frontier of where the melting pot of American society really comes together. Looking at the conflicts that arise from these smaller systems might be able to tell us what it would entail on a global level.  

Jordan-Young, Rebecca M. Brainstorm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences.       Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. 2010. Print

Jordan- Young has made leaps and bounds in this field, after intense research and rigorous analysis of others and her own work. She is paving the way to the realization the there is in fact scientific results pointing towards proof that people can be born gay and born straight. There is biological facts that lead to several characteristics of men and women, and what makes them that way. So does this prove or disprove the possibility of ambiguity in a relationship? What hormones would need to be changed to reverse the gender roles.

Kuzminyh, A. A., and S. N. Enikolopov. "Prevailing Perceptions Of Masculine And Feminine      Aggression" Psychological Science & Education 5 (2011): 70-80. Academic Search        Complete. Web. 13 Nov. 2012.

This has a lot of statistical facts, I will look at the effects of these statistics if they were to be true for the opposite gender. It will give me a solid base to lay out the rest of my paper on, I need to understand in detail how the gender roles work now before I am able to accurately predict how they would change in a world that would be so drastically different. This will give readers more belief that I actually know what I am talking about and won't be distracted by unsurity.

Stets, Jan E. and Peter J. Burke "Femininity/Masculinity" Washington State University.     Department of Sociology. Web. 13 Nov. 2012.

This is a study on the topic of femininity and masculinity completed by very knowledgeable people in the Sociology Department of WSU. They explore the topic in depth with several of there own great points that give the topic direction. They are not looking at the topic in the same way i am, but in several ways that is better because I will be able to get a solid look at the situation from another perspective. I can use some of their conclusions and theories to help build my own of the world where the gender roles are reversed.

Paper #2 Proposal

Title ~ Macho Women and Femme Men

Topic ~  Have the differences between men's and women's personalities been so different that it has formed the society we live in today, or is it the society that we live in that has made the personalities of men and women different? If we were to 'restart' the gender roles in society, would gravitate towards the old habits, or could we reshape the gender roles that are placed on men and women, or possibly get rid of gender roles all together?

Analysis ~ Exploration of the complete reversal of gender roles, if a man were to be the ones constantly perused by women and if women were raised to not show the weakness in their emotions. Would it be a simple flip-flop for the two genders, or do some characteristics only occur in a man or woman? Is dominance a man's role naturally, is submission the natural state for a woman? Are both attitudes needed to make a functional pair, or is any personality (and gender) capable of falling in love with another?

Exigence ~ I have an vision of people loving people. A person is capable of loving whoever they fall in love, unrestrained from the gender roles, society norms and the notion that straight men only date straight women or even that gay men only date gay men.

Intended Audience ~ Anyone capable of showing love and compassion.

Main Evidence ~

            Pathos ~ I will use the reversal of gender roles to get people to think about what it truly means to be a man or a woman. The point is not to get them to agree, it is to get them to think of the possibilities and how were are restrained from them. They will be more able to define the structures they are bound by, and will be forced to think critically about themselves and how they feel about certain roles they have been forced into, whether consciously or subconsciously. Will also compare to real life situations that I have personally seen, mostly in the gay community, where someone went against the suggested gender roles and what the effect of it was.

            Logos ~ I will use facts from gender studies found online to have something to compare the role reversals too. I will use biological facts that show a real difference between men and women as well as what is observed in the animal kingdom between animals who are not persuaded by advertisement or human gender roles.

            Ethos ~ I will give my perspective on the situation as someone who defines my sexuality as Ambiguous. So I will explain the way I look at people, how I perceive them to be, who I am attracted to and why I am attracted to them. I will explain the technical and emotional aspects of being Ambiguous and what would mean for society if it was practiced globally.

RA #3 Kimmel

Title: "Bros Before Hos"

Author:  Michael Kimmel

Date: 1998

Topic: Men and the rules that boys feel they have to monitoring how they act, talk, move, and think to be as least feminine as possible in order to be perceived as a man in society today by other men.

Analysis

                In Michael Kimmel's writing titled "Bros Before Hos" he talks about the issues that boys in today's society face, and the expectations many of them feel they need to live up to. Kimmel explains how "The Boy Code leaves these boys disconnected from a wide range of emotions and prohibited from sharing those feelings with others" 616. Men are put into this thing mold when they're born, as a man they are perceived by society to be the masculine, dominant man that society sees most real men as. Kimmel  elaborates when he says "The face that you not show to the world insist that everything is under control, that there's nothing to be concerned about" 609. Men must constantly be in check of all of their actions and thoughts so that have the approval of other men.

                One of the worst fears for a man in today's society is to be perceived as gay, to be perceived as gay is the same to some men as having no masculinity to them at all. They have been trained by generations of bigotry that shines through in today's culture, everything can be compared to being gay. Kimmel  puts it into terms by telling us " 'That's so gay'. It said about anything and everything dash they're closed, there book, the music or TV shows they like, or the sports figure they admire. 'That's so gay' as become a free loading put dash down, meaning bad, done, stupid, wrong. It's the generic bad thing" 612. The word has been so over used and said to mean so many different things, I think that it now even goes beyond the gay community. I see several people saying gay has two definitions, one for the slang term and the other meaning gay people, but this is not a significant impact to the younger people who fear saying the truth about their sexuality because of all the bad things they here. I wish we could take back the definition of the word gay in today's culture and at least make the slang word definition conceptually correct, the word gay should be used to call something gay if the object or action is in some way perceived as homosexual. Some would say that is just as bad, but in my opinion the actual definition of gay is better than it meaning stupid.

so what would that mean for a gay man in study today, surely not all gay men are depicted as bad wrong or stupid like how gay is so commonly used in today society. As a gay man I do not even I feel a as important quality in a man, there are many other characteristics in actions that make a boy turn into a man. A man has responsibilities, has people he needs to love, has drive, and direction for himself; masculine men are able to accomplish this, so is a regular man, or even a feminine gay man. I think it should be thought of mare as when a child becomes an adult, the two sexes should not have separate standards for when they can be seen by society as adults

RA #2 Morgan

Title: From Fly Girls to Bitches and Hos

Author: Joan Morgan

Date: 2008

Topic:  Author Joan Morgan talks about her life as a Black woman dealing with Black and feminist issues and how women are affected by the perception of given to them by hip-hop in today's culture.

Analysis:

Joan Morgan talk about her opinion as a black feminist, and how she has come to interpret the attitude and the hurtful words that come along with it  hip-hop culture in today's world. Morgan fears that supporting a genre of music that disrespect women so constantly is unfeminist in itself. So the problem for Morgan comes from her love and support of the hip hop music, and the connotation that it is the same as okaying what the artist have said about women. Morgan offers a solution, "(Sistas) gotta continue to give up the love but from a distance that's safe. Emotional distance is a great enabler of unconditional love and support because it allows us to recognize that the attack, "the bitch, ho" bullshit  isn't personal but part of the illness." The illness they have being a depression that they have because of the molds they were put into as a child and the inability to thrive in this world.

all of the harsh words an insult a rocker says I his artistic expression, is how he truly feels, but is that really a respectable and healthy way to act? Morgan elaborate when brothers can talk though casually about killing each other and then reveal that they have no expectations to see their 21st birthday, that is straight up depression masquerading as much was it 603. I agree completely these men who have no desire to live life are lost within their own sorrow and we have no way to get out of this in this society that we live in.

Morgan tries to give us her perspective on the situation which is very dynamic from her position, she explains that "(Her) feminism places the welfare of black women and the black community on its list of priorities. It also maintains that black-on-black love is essential to the survival of both" 602. Now if a white man were to be saying something of this caliber her would be seen as an extremist, but for Morgan it does not come across so harshly. I could see how black- on-black love is need to keep the culture of the black communities thriving, but it is not something that can be forced on to people it just has to take its course. Morgan has a very interesting way to look at the situation and has opinions and information that could help navigate through the situation if the reader is looking for help in this area. The idea that men who act tough talking about killing and how their not scared to die, is actually depression disguised as machismo. By far the most crucial point in her paper, and the way that we need to look at the situation if we ever hope to help solve the problems that are there.

Killborne RR #2

            Jean Killborne's book "Can't Buy My Love: How Advertising Changes the Way We Think and Feel" uses the chapter Two Ways a Woman Can Get Hurt to open the conversation to the effects of the sex-fueled advertisements flooding the world today and how they affect us, even on a subconscious level. Killborne discusses how they are using women as figurines to glorify their products, dehumanizing women making them look more like an object for a man to use or posses. Several  models have been asked to do riskier posses that are inspired from the vast amount of pornography available on the internet sometimes even the more risky material, Killborne puts it into perspective when she writes that "Pornography is more dangerously mainstream when its glorification of rape and violence shows up in mass media, in films and television shows, in comedy and music videos, and in advertising."  Making pornography more present and visible in the world every day, exposing even the youngest of children to product endorsements where the only difference between their commercial and a pornography scene is the amount of clothes worn.... and possibly the lighting.

            All of these stereotyping and role giving advertisements are leaving the innocent, unexposed children confused with a warped moral theory of how men should be treated and how women should be treated. All of the stereotypes and the discrimination of people exploited for the sake of a trivia objects sold along with all the suggestive, provocative, and clever advertisements; I don't want my children to learn a thing from these advertisers, but how could they not pick up bits and pieces from this world of social media. Women are continually depicted as weak, fragile things that are to be possessed by man. Sexy men are seen as dominant and dangerous, getting the women no matter if she says yes or no.

            Killborne is worried about the effects these advertisements will have on children, girls more so then boys because of the violence associated towards women. Killborne has a good point to make when she says, " The most important difference is that there is no danger for most men whereas objectified women are always at risk," I do not disagree that women have seen far more abuse than their male counterpart because of being stereotyped as weak and for a man to use, but I do not think the effects advertisement has on girls is more so than the effect it has boys. I think the sexual role stereotypes of dominant males and submissive females is shown to all children at a very young age in today's world causing its own damage, but  women are more at risk for physical abuse and mental abuse because they are thought weak by their male counterpart who believe they are dominant.

             Media has in several ways become a moral compass to help guide children through their difficulties. Instead of a the child having to ask the parent to explain something, the child can see a television show on the issue. Leaving the child to learn the interpretation of the situation through the television which will contribute to the process of forming many of the stereotypes and judgments they will hold on to going into their future.

Proposition 30 Op-Ed *Final Polish*

Proposition 30

Californians have a common attitude of distrusting the lawmakers in Sacramento completely because we have been cheated by them way too many times, and we just don't know why. I personally have a hard time swallowing the political food that is forced down my throat by Sacramento. Proposition 30, however, isn't too hard to swallow, but it may be just a little too salty. I say 'too salty' because of the way Governor Jerry Brown has gone about advertising, it's like they're trying to make it look like a good idea by saying that it is the best option to help the children. They try to drive this point home making a No on Proposition 30 mean that you are in favor of a $6 billion dollar budget cut to the schools. Sacramento's budget plan for California has these 'trigger cuts', as Governor Brown refers to them, that need to be made because the state will not have money coming in through Proposition 30's tax increase which would help refund the education system, pay for Sacramento's plans for California, and reduce our incredible amount of debt. Lawmakers have already stacked budget cut after budget cut on the school system, a Yes on Proposition 30 will stop these budget cuts from happening, and keeping schools from losing three weeks from their school calendar you as well as increase to what is considered a normal sized class.  Proposition 30 is an income tax on California's richest as well as a quarter of a cent increase to the regular sales tax to raise money for the Education Protection Account to fund the education systems of California. The money originally earmarked for schools would overflow back into the General Fund to hopefully help eliminate some of our state's debt. Proposition 30 is what Sacramento needs to repair the terrible job they've done in these past few years, while saving the schools from the wrath of their budget cuts. It might be just what California needs to start us on the way out of our ocean of debt we've sunk into; but many fear that Sacramento lawmakers will just continue to drown us.

Proposition 30 is estimated to give California $6 billion annually, through an increase to the income tax on individuals whose incomes are more than $250,000. For California's wealthiest residents anyone making more than $500,000 would have an increase of 3% to their income tax, anyone above $300,000 a year will have a 2% income tax increase, and a 1% increase to the $250,000 and up bracket. That is not the only source of income coming through Proposition 30, it also has a separate sales tax increase effective on all Californians by an increase of .25% of every dollar spent, which will create almost $1.2 billion a year. Proposition 30 has advertised that it is a proposition for the schools and only for the schools, one would think that Proposition 30 would increase the amount of money received by the schools, but the bill itself does not give any extra revenue to the schools. However, the only increase to the amount of money received by the schools will happen through Proposition 98, the Official Voter Information Guide for the California General Election describes "The revenue generated by the
measure’s temporary tax increases would be included in the calculations of the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee (around fifty percent)—raising the guarantee by billions of dollars each year". Since the amount of money taken in by the state is going to increase, so will the amount of money the Education Protection Account, which is controlled by Sacramento, is able to fund California schools without need to use any of the money in the General Fund. Yes on Proposition 30 will mean a small sales tax increase, an income tax on the rich, the start of the Education Protection Account, and stopping the "trigger cuts" from taking effect.

Yes on Proposition 30 is a vote of trust in Sacramento, a vote that Californians will trust in the decisions of the lawmakers in Sacramento and that they will use any extra revenue generated from Proposition 30 in a way to better California as a whole. In my past few years as a student in the K-14 schooling system, I have become accustomed to  the schools becoming weaker and weaker as the years went by, the past four years has seen over $20 billion to California's school system. Teachers at my school took the blunt of the budget cuts having to buy their own materials to teach an effective lesson and having to worry if they're job the love doing is going to be there for them the next year. One of the teachers at my high school was cut from the schools pay-roll and officially fired, but he didn't want to leave his school and his students so he continues to work there, to this day, for free. The cuts that Sacramento was obviously making to the school systems during my time there has left me bitter, as I continue to endure the consequences of poorly funded aid  for the  Higher Education System.  Now, Sacramento is threatening the school systems with an enormous $6 billion dollar budget cut that will go into effect if Californians do not vote for Proposition 30. To have seen and experienced, first hand, how the schools have struggled through the last few budget cuts makes you realize how bad the schools would take a $6 billion dollar cut, when the past budget cuts have been much smaller than the one attached to a No on Proposition 30.  

Proposition 30's promoters, with their underhanded and vague advertizing, puts California voters in a position where they have to vote for either a tax measure that plays on peoples sympathies and drives for a better education system or cutting funds to the already struggling school system, a choice that could be considered an ultimatum to some. It's a crooked way to get a yes vote, that makes me have less trust in Sacramento's agenda and their bill.

This bill is a tax increase plain and simple, hidden behind a crusade for the schools agenda which is built on exaggerations of how helpful it will be for the California school systems. The money made through Proposition 30 will be funding the schools like the General Fund has done in the past, this will cause the General Fund to over-flow so Sacramento has more money to play their $50 billion dollar 'shell-game'. I'm hopeful, but skeptical about the positive impact that Proposition 30 will have on our education system. We might never know where the taxpayers money that over-flows from the General Fund will go if we trust Sacramento with more of our money.  

Proposition 38 mentions that around 30% of its $10 billion a year revenue would be put into effect to help get California out of its hole of debt, but these contributions would only last for a fraction of the 12 years that this proposition would be in place for. All other money raised is kept in its entirety for the schools and Early Care and Education, completely separate from the control of the government. With that said, if you really want your vote for a new tax measure to help the schools out as much as possible, and don't care to see what Sacramento has planned for California with Proposition 30, then a Yes vote on Proposition 38 would be a wise choice. That would mean a broad tax increase and that the "trigger cuts" would be activated from the No vote on Proposition 30, having the threat of budget cuts are scaring many people away from this possibility much to the benefit of Governor Jerry Brown and his proposition. Proposition 38 would make that amount back and more, according to the Official Voter Information Guide for the California General Election, Proposition 38 " increases personal income tax rates on annual earnings over $7,316 using sliding scale from .4% for the lowest individual earners to 2.2% for individuals earning over $2.5 million, for twelve years". Proposition 38 is a way to take the schools out from under the control of the government, saying "we don't trust you with our children's education anymore" and giving the power back to the schools in the most literal way possible.

According to the Los Angeles Times, "in 2011, the state budget was more than $25 billion in the red". Something needs to change in order to decrease that amount so we can start thinking of how to make California as a whole a better place instead of how we can pay off our huge pile of debt. You have two options for a new tax measure this November; Proposition 30, fixing the damage Sacramento previously caused the school system and an increase to the amount of money available in the general fund, or Proposition 38, which puts the schools ahead, even after a $6 billion dollar budget cut, by making them self-sustainable. This will separate school funds from Sacramento's budgeted agenda, allowing them 12 years of independent spending.

Governor Jerry Brown has stepped into his father's shoes, the question everyone is wondering is what he is going to do to fill them. Goldie Blumenstyk from The Chronicle of Higher Education tells us " Edmund G. (Pat) Brown was governor when the California Master Plan for Higher Education was enacted in 1960". Modeling after his father's footsteps, Gov. Brown is also the face of a crusade to help save the schools, but my worry is that he will not make a big enough impact on the schools in the long run with Proposition 30 and he will lose some of his credibility as well as tarnishing his father's name and his title as California's Governor. However, if he is able to change the direction that California is headed with this single proposition, then he will be a respected Governor for years to come for being the one who finally got our state above the water.

Proposition 30 Op-Ed

Proposition 30

Californians have a common attitude of distrusting the lawmakers in Sacramento completely because we have been cheated by them way to many times it seems, we just don't know why. I personally have a hard time swallowing the political food that is forced down my throat by Sacramento. Proposition 30, however, isn't too hard to swallow, but it may be just a little too salty. I say 'too salty' because of the way Governor Jerry Brown has gone about advertising it's like they're trying to make it look like a good idea by saying that it is the best option to help the children. They try to drive this point home making a No on Proposition 30 mean that you are in favor of a $6 billion dollar budget cut to the schools. The tax measure states these 'trigger cuts', as Governor Brown refers to them, need to be made because there will not be any money coming in through Proposition 30 to help pay for Sacramento's plans and reduce California's incredible amount of debt. Lawmakers have already stacked budget cut after budget cut on the school system, a Yes on Proposition 30 will stop schools from losing three weeks from their school calendar you as well as increase to what is considered a normal sized class.  Proposition 30 is an income tax on the rich to give to the suffering school system and a has a quarter of a cent increase to the regular sales tax, all of which goes into the Education Protection Account to fund the education system and to give money originally earmarked for schools by the government back into the general fund to help eliminate some of our state's debt. Proposition 30 is what Sacramento needs to repair the terrible job they've done in the past few years, it might be what California needs to help us out of its ocean of debt we have now sunk into; but many fear that Sacramento lawmakers will just continue to be the ones drowning us.

Proposition 30 is estimated to give California $6 billion annually, through an increase to the income tax on individuals whose incomes are more than $250,000. For California's wealthiest residents anyone making more than $500,000 would have an increase of 3% to their income tax, above $300,000 a year has a 2% income tax increase, and a 1% increase to the $250,000 and up bracket. That is not the only source of income coming through Proposition 30, it also has a separate sales tax increase effective on all Californians by an increase of .25% of every dollar spent almost $1.2 billion a year. Proposition 30 has advertised that it will be raising the money for the schools and only for the schools, one would think that Proposition 30 would increase the amount of money, but the bill itself does not give any extra revenue to the schools. A yes vote will mean a small sales tax increase, the start of the Education Protection Account that is separated from Sacramento and is able to fund California schools without using the money from  the General Fund, and it will stop the "trigger cuts" from taking effect. However, the only increase to the amount of money received by the schools will happen through Proposition 98, a ballot measure passed back in 1998 that insures that around 50% of the state's revenue will go to the schools. Now that the amount of money taken in by the state is going to increase, so will the amount of money the schools will receive from the Education Protection Account.

A Yes on Proposition 30 is a vote of trust in Sacramento, a vote that Californians will trust in the decisions of the lawmakers in Sacramento and that they will use any extra revenue generated from Proposition 30 in a way to better California as a whole. In my past few years as a student in the K-14 schooling system, I have become accustomed to  the schools becoming weaker and weaker as the years went by, the past four years seen over $20 billion to California's school system. The cuts that Sacramento was constantly  making to the school systems has left me  bitter having to endure the consequences of poorly funded aid  for the  Higher Education System.  Now, Sacramento is threatening the school systems with an enormous $6 billion dollar budget cut that will go into effect if Californians do not vote for Proposition 30. This bill is a tax increase plain and simple, hidden behind a crusade for the schools agenda which is built on exaggerations of how helpful it will be for the California school systems.

Proposition 30's proponents, with their underhanded and vague advertizing, puts California voters in a position where they have to vote for either a tax measure that is playing on peoples sympathies and drives for a better education system or cutting funds to the already struggling schools which could be considered an ultimatum to some. To have seen and experienced, first hand, how the schools have struggled through the last few budget cuts makes you realize how bad the schools would take a $6 billion dollar cut, when the past budget cuts have been even smaller than the one attached to a No on Proposition 30. It's a crooked way to get a yes vote, that makes me have less trust in Sacramento's agenda and their bill.

We won't know where the taxpayers money will go if we trust Sacramento with more of our money. The money made through Proposition 30 will be funding the schools as the general fund has been doing in the past, so now Sacramento will not have to give the schools any money from the general fund, basically giving Sacramento more money to play their $50 billion dollar 'shell-game'. I'm hopeful, but skeptical about the positive impact that Proposition 30 will have on our education system.

Proposition 38 also mentions that around 30% of its $10 billion a year revenue would be put into effect to help get California out of its hole of debt, but these contributions would only last for a fraction of the 12 years that this proposition would be in place for. All other money raised is for the schools and Early Care and Education, completely separate from the government. With that said, if you really want your vote for a new tax measure to help the schools out as much as possible, and don't care to see what Sacramento has planned for California with Proposition 30, then a Yes vote on Proposition 38 would be a wise choice. That would mean that a broad tax increase  that the "trigger cuts", $4.8 billion on the schools alone not including the other programs that would receive cuts, that  would be activated from the No vote on Proposition 30, all of the threats of budget cuts are scaring many people away from this possibility much to the benefit of Governor Jerry Brown and his proposition. Proposition 38 would make that amount back and more, according to the Official Voter Information Guide for the California General Election, Proposition 38 " increases personal income tax rates on annual earnings over $7,316 using sliding scale from .4% for the lowest individual earners to 2.2% for individuals earning over $2.5 million, for twelve years". Proposition 38 is a way to take the schools out from under the control of the government, saying "we don't trust you with our children's education anymore" and giving the power back to the schools in the most literal way possible.

According to the Los Angeles Times, "in 2011, the state budget was more than $25 billion in the red". Something needs to change in order to decrease that amount so we can start thinking of how to make California as a whole a better place instead of how we can pay off our huge pile of debt. You have two options for a new tax measure this November; Proposition 30, fixing the damage Sacramento previously caused the school system and an increase to the amount of money available in the general fund, or Proposition 38, which puts the schools ahead by making them self sustaining. This will separate school funds from Sacramento's budgeted agenda, allowing them 12 years of independent spending.

Governor Jerry Brown has stepped into his father's shoes, the questions everyone is wondering is what he is going to do to fill them. Goldie Blumenstyk from The Chronicle of Higher Education tells us " Edmund G. (Pat) Brown was governor when the California Master Plan for Higher Education was enacted in 1960". Modeling after his father's footsteps, Gov. Brown is also the face of a crusade to help save the schools, but my worry is that he will not make a big enough impact on the schools in the long run with Proposition 30 and he will lose some of his credibility as well as tarnishing his father's name and the title as California's Governor. However, if he is able to change the direction that California is headed with this single proposition, then he will be a respected Governor for years to come for being the one who finally got our state above the water.

Rough Draft #1

Californian now have a common attitude of distrusting the government completely because we feel we have been cheated by them for too long, we just don't know how. I personally have a hard time swallowing the food that is forced down my throat by Sacramento. Luckily Proposition 30 isn't too hard to swallow, maybe just a little over salted. I say over salted because of the way it is advertise is like there trying to make it look like a good idea, and that it is for the children. Then, they try to drive home this point by making a No on Proposition 30 mean you are voting for $6 billion dollar budget cut to the schools. These cuts need to be made because of California's incredible amount of debt, proposition 30 is an income taxes on the rich to give to the poor school system, and to give money originally earmarked for schools back into the general fund to help eliminate some of our state's debt.  Proposition 30 also has a quarter of a cent increase to the tax on a dollar. lawmakers have been stacking budget cut after budget cut on the cool system, Proposition 30 is saying in a reductions to education. A yes vote will stop school from losing 3 week from their school you as well as angry to what is considered a normal sized class. Proposition 30 has the  sales tax and income tax increase that Sacramento needs to repair the terrible job they've done in the past few years of holding California out of the ocean of debt we have now sunk into,  but many fear that Sacramento lawmakers will just continue to be the ones drowning us.

Proposition 30 is a vote of trust in Sacramento, a vote that Californian will believe got the lawmakers in Sacramento will use any extra revenue made from proposition 30 in a way to better California as a whole. In my past few years as a student in the K-14 schooling system, I have become accustomed to  the schools becoming weaker and weaker as the years went by. The cuts that Sacramento seemed to constantly be giving out to the school systems has left me a bitter product of a reduced High Education System.  now Sacramento is sending the school enormous $6 billion dollar budget cut if Californians do not vote for Sacramento's new tax increase. This bill is a tax increase plain and simple, hidden behind a crusade for the schools agenda which is built on exaggerations of how helpful Prop 30 will be for the California school systems.

Putting California motors in a position where they have to vote for a tax measure or cutting fun to school could be considered an ultimatum to some California who have seen and experienced, first and, the pairs of passed budget cuts even smaller than the 1 attached to a note on Proposition 30. A crooked way to get a yes vote, makes me have less trust in then and their bill.

We won't know where the taxpayers money will go if we trust Sacramento with our money again. The money generated by proposition 30 will be funding the schools as the general fund has been doing in the past, so now Sacramento will not have to give the schools money from the general fund, basically giving Sacramento more money to spend, hopefully on California.

According to the Los Angeles Times, California was more than $25 billion dollars in debt in 2011, something needs to change in order to decrease that amount so we can start thinking of how to make California a better place instead of how we can pay off our huge pile of debt. You have two options for a new tax measure this November; prop 30, fixing the damage Sacramento previously cause the school and an increase to the amount of money available in the general fund, or, prop 38, which puts the schools ahead, making the schools self sustaining with prop 38's  tax measure for a broad tax increase overall incomes varying depending on how much an individual, helping the school become separate from Sacramento, so they will not have to deal with this again for the next 12 years at least.

Proposition 30 is estimated to give California $6 billion annually, through an increase to the income tax on individual incomes of more than  $250,000 to more than $1 million in brackets between 1-3% increasing with the amount of income of California's wealthiest residents. That is not the only source of income coming in through Proposition 30 though, it also has a separate sales tax effective on all Californians by an increase of .25% of every dollar spent. Prop 30 has advertised that they will be raising the money for the schools and only for the schools, one would think that Prop 30 increase the amount of money, but the bill does not give any extra revenue to the schools. A yes vote will only stop the "trigger cuts" and form a new tax system that separately funds  the schools without using the general fund, the only increase to the amount of money received by the schools will happen through Prop 98. Prop 98 is a ballot measure passed back in 1998 that insures that around 50% of the general funds revenue will go to the schools, so now that the amount of money taken in by Sacramento will increase so will the amount of money the schools receive.

 Proposition 38 also mentions that some of its $10 billion a year revenue would be put into effect to help get California out of its hole of debt, but these contributions would only last for a fraction of the 12 years that this proposition would be in place for. All other money raised is for the schools, completely separate from the government. With that said, if you really want your vote for a new tax measure to help the schools out as much as possible, and don't care what Sacramento has planned for California with Prop 30, then a Yes vote on Proposition 38 would be a wise choice. That would mean that a broad tax increase  that the "trigger cuts" would be activated from the No vote on Prop 30, Scaring many people away from this possibility much to the benefit of Governor Jerry Brown and his proposition, but Prop 38 would make that back and more. Prop 38 is a way to take the schools out from under the control of the government, saying "we don't trust you with our children's education anymore" and giving the power back to the schools in the most literal way possible.

Governor Jerry Brown has stepped into his father's shoes, the questions everyone is wondering is what he is going to do to fill them. Edmund G. "Pat" Brown was the governor of California during the initiation of the California Master Plan for Higher Education in 1960. Modeling after his father's footsteps, Gov. Brown is also the face of a crusade to help save the schools, but my worry is that he will not make a big enough impact on the schools in the long run with Proposition 30 and he will lose some of his credibility as well as tarnishing his father's name and the title as California's Governor. However, if he is able to change the direction that California is headed with this single proposition, then he will be a respected Governor for years to come for being the one who finally got our state above the water.

Proposal

Proposition 30 is Governor Jerry Brown's first attempt to help better California in his still relatively new position, and he faces a behemoth for his first challenge, California's incredible amount of debt. Proposition 30 is income tax on the rich to give to the poor school systems, as well as helping us eliminate some of our state's debt. Lawmakers have been stacking budget cut after budget cut on the school systems, proposition 30 is saying enough reductions to education. A yes vote will stop schools from losing 3 weeks from their school year, as well as an increase what is considered a 'normal-sized' class. Proposition 30 also has a quarter of a cent increase to the tax on a dollar so that California has more money to decrease the debt of California.

A person would find little opposition saying that Sacramento lawmakers have  been doing a terrible job in the past years holding California out of the ocean of debt we have now sunk into, in fact some would say they're the ones drowning  us. Californians now have a common attitude of distrusting the government completely because we feel we have been cheated by them already in some way, we just don't know about it. I personally have a hard time swallowing the food that is forced down my throat by Sacramento. Luckily Proposition 30 isn't to disgusting to swallow, maybe just a little over salted.

I say 'over salted' because of the way it is advertised is like there trying to make it look good, that it is 'for the children'. They try to drive home this point by making a no vote on Proposition 30 mean that you are voting for a $6 billon cut to the school systems. So either you want to give the schools the sanctuary of Proposition 30 or you want to rip even more money out of the school systems damaging our future thinkers even more. It's an ultimatum on us by Sacramento, if you have any sympathy for the school system and have seen firsthand how badly any school in California have taken the recent budget cuts from Sacramento then you know that the school cannot take an outrageous $6 billon dollar cut with a grace, it will be a  broken shell of the former education system.

Proposition 30 is estimated to give California $6 billion annually, through increasing the income taxes by 1-3% on incomes more than $250,000. The income tax brackets are stated as:

Individuals making $250,000-300,000 dollars will see a 1% increase to their income tax.

Individuals making $300,000-500,000 dollars will see a 2% increase to their income tax.

Individuals making $500,000-1,000,000+ dollars will see a 3% increase to their income tax.

That is not the only money that will be coming through Proposition 30, it also has a separate sales tax increase of  .25%  on every dollar. Proposition 30 has some shady advertisement schemes and psychological tactics in order to convince a yes vote on 30. Even with those scary sides, the actions of this proposition remind me fondly of the story of Robin Hood. Proposition 30 will have a positive outcome on California as a whole, a much better result then what we would get from a no vote on Proposition 30.