Gender Geography and What it Means to be a Man!

          The other week we discussed the topic of gender in geography. This is a subject of particular interest to me because I strongly believe that the different genders of man and woman are distinct from each other. I believe that whether you are a man or woman would definitely be important to a political geographer as it would have an impact on your political views and how you think about the world. Men want adventure, danger, and power. Men are goal oriented and always off to conquer the next thing and will squash anything that gets in the way of that. Women are full of compassion and a motherly nature to care for others. They want to be adored by men and to be protected by them. I feel like many people in my society today would not like these last few statements. Yet I do not think this portrayal of women shows them as weak. To be a good mother one has to be strong. My mother has 6 children and had to be a strong figure to raise us. I think many women would agree with the part apart wanting to be adored by men though I think that needing protection by a man is less valued in our society today. Gender may be a social construction but I believe it has enormous value in our society today because it helps one find their identity as a person. If one does not know whether they are a man or a woman he or she is not going to know who they truly are and the person God created them to be. Gender is especially important in families where I believe a child needs both a strong mother and a strong father to raise them and bring them up right.

            I was lucky enough to have many outlets to embrace my gender as a man growing up. Being in Boy Scouts from first grade to my senior year of high school fostered in me a manly love for the outdoors and important skills I needed to learn. Playing football helped me get out my aggression and showed me the values of sportsmanship and healthy competition. I currently subscribe to the blog, “Art of Manliness.” The main premise of the blog is that what it truly means to be a man has been lost in our society and that we need to study our forefathers to find out what it means to be a man. While I am practical in that I think many of the changes in our society are for the better, I agree that much manliness has been lost in our society and that we need to take it back. I also love books like Wild at Heart which show what it means to be a Christian man. Here at Florida State, I am in the Catholic Student Union. The Brotherhood of Hope is a group of vowed religious brothers that help to run CSU. They have been awesome in fostering a thriving men’s community within the Catholic Student Union. They have also been instrumental in helping me seize the great adventure that Christianity is, living out my faith fully, and holding nothing back. I know understand what it means to fight as a soldier for Christ fighting the enemy (sin and the devil) and bringing others to Christ. They have truly shown me what it means to be a man. Being a man does not mean watching sports, smoking cigars, and drinking beer (though I enjoy all of these things). Being a man means standing up for what you believe in and fighting for your faith. I think that if more men were able to understand this, our society would be better. We would not have passive men but men of action who taking control and responsibility in times of need. We would have strong fathers that do not abandon their children but raise them. We would have strong marriages that do not fail when things get tough.

 

Religion: Rational Thought and Dictator or Servant

    

            The other day religion in geography was brought up in class. Rich picked on me a lot because last semester when I had him for Human Geography I would turn every paper he gave me back to my faith and what I believe in as a Catholic. I was okay with Rich picking on me because it gives me a chance to talk about my faith and you never know if something you say will affect another person in the classroom and perhaps touch their heart in some way. I am not saying I know it all. Despite coming into my faith more in college I am still a sinner and I mess up a lot. Also, despite going to catholic schools from kindergarten to twelfth grade, the Catholic School system really failed me on knowing my religious education. I have simply been fortunately enough to find a community that has formed me and lead me to a better understanding of the truth. I have learned to seek the Lord every day in prayer, to follow Him, and be intentional in my actions as a Christian.

            One argument was: does religion hinder or control rational thought. My answer was that for me religion does not hinder my rational thought because as you come to know the Lord better, you will become more like yourself. You become more like yourself because you are becoming the person God created you to be. This, to me, encourages rational thought because you are more like yourself. Further evidence that religion does not hinder rational thought can be found at the Vatican Observatory. It is one of the oldest astronomical research institutions in the world and continues to have Vatican-paid scientists on staff today and it is tied to the University of Arizona. Also, Monseigneur Georges Lemaître of Belgium was a priest and scientist who proposed the expansion theory of the Universe and what became known as the big bang theory. This idea that rational thought and religion do not mix is a fallacy. I believe that they go together and complement each other.

            Another argument that was brought up was whether or not the Pope has the power to collapse the U.S.. This argument came about from how John Paul II helped collapse communism in Poland and ultimately this lead to the end of Communism in Europe. I always think it is funny how people look to the hierarchy in the Church and try to figure out how much power the positions have. Certainly, at some points in the past, hierarchy in the Church was corrupted and people used the hierarchy to seize power. And perhaps by definition the Pope could be looked at as a prominent dictator in the world today. Instead, I propose looking at it a different way. Because of Christ’s emphasis on being a servant and serving others, is the Pope instead of the world’s greatest dictator the world’s greatest servant? In the business world there is the model of a triangle and rising to the top. In the Church we like to think of an inverted triangle and the Pope being the point at the bottom, serving His people. Our current Pope is a good example of that: this past Holy Thursday he was in a youth detention center washing the inmates’ feet. Do I think he could collapse the U.S.? I don’t think so. I believe I am one of the few people in the U.S. who trust my Church much more than I trust my country. I do not think people put as much emphasis on religion anymore. They may still say they believe in God or go to church a few times a year, but I think that ultimately a holy man like the Pope probably would not have the power to bring it down. I think that the country itself, unless it turns to God, will bring itself down.

Terrorism and Hama

          Last week in class we had a discussion on terrorism. This is often a subject that can really spark anger in me because I get angry at the thought of any group killing innocent civilians and trying to intimidate another group through terror. I thought it was good that we tried to define terror in class and that we were able to compare our definitions. It really stimulated my thoughts on the subject. My definition was a small group usually going after civilians by a violent act in order to intimidate another group or to make a political statement. According to a documentary I watched for my Middle Eastern Geography class one of Al-Qaeda main goals for the September 11 attacks was to unify and call to action Muslims against the West. I supposed it would make the United States appear weak and not impenetrable. I suppose it did make a political statement but for the most part I do not think it unified Muslims against the West. In my opinion September 11 is the ultimate example of terrorism for me.  This is probably due to my bias as an American and the extensive use of the term after the attacks, especially by Bush. But what else counts as terrorism?

            One thing we did not really cover in my Political Geography class but was extensively covered in my Middle Eastern Geography class was the idea that terrorism is a one-time event. It is a single event in time. I suppose this differentiates it from war which is multiple events over a period of time. If this is true I can see how it would be an important distinction in geography because geography is the study of space and time is a form of space. With this distinction in mind I analyzed the Hama massacre of 1982 in Syria.

            For my last test in Middle Eastern Geography we had to read an article called Hama Rules. The article was by Thomas Friedman who wrote Hot, Flat and Crowded which, interestingly enough, is one of the books I am writing on in this class. I do not know how Friedman made the switch from writing about the Middle East to writing about Climate Change or “Global Weirding” as he calls it, but he seemed knowledgeable enough on the subject. The article was not only on the event itself but on the political implications behind it. According to the article, President Assad mowed down an entire town to quell a revolt by the Muslim Brotherhood. Assad's brother, Rifaat, Commanding General at the time bragged that they killed 38,000 people including men, women, and children. Looking at our definitions in class this event definitely seems like a terrorist attack. It was a group using terror systematically to intimidate a group and serve a political agenda. But I question whether it was a single isolated event or whether it was just part of a war. According to my Middle Eastern class and the stipulation about being a single event in time I am not sure that this would be terrorism. The civil war in Syria has been going on for years. This brings up the argument of whether acts of violence in wars are considered terrorism or just part of the war. This causes me to think that terrorism is really defined according to which group is defining the incident. Assad may have considered it a price of war which may be different to terrorism. To the Muslim brotherhood this would definitely be terrorism. It depends on how you define terrorism and which group is presenting the information.

            Ultimately, I do not think that the specific definition of terrorism really matters. What matters is that groups or countries should be held accountable for their actions and analyze the moral implications of their actions before they carry out their actions. Whether terrorism or just an act of war, people should know that it is wrong to murder civilians and should count the cost.

The Primative Western World

            A few weeks ago my group had a debate on colonialism. My group was defending the idea that colonialism is bad. I thought that this was going to be very easy because when one is against colonialism, that person can always just point the finger and say that big mean Western countries simply exploited and crushed smaller less-developed regions of the World. However, the debate was not as easy as I thought it would be because the other group had many well-formed ideas and there were about four of them who seemed to have opinions on every issue. Despite this, I think my group did a pretty good job.

            After forming my arguments and even after the debate was over, I still have not decided what my views on colonialism are. The term of colonialism is so loose that it could simply mean a government’s influence over a certain country. I do not believe that mistreating humans and exploiting their land could ever be looked at as a good thing even if in the long run there are good outcomes out of it. However, there are cases where a country could influence another country in a positive way, especially in terms of economics. So, I suppose I have mixed views on the subject.

            One argument I made during the debate, I simply have to analyze further. The argument was made by the Pro-side that colonialism helps societies advance. I counter-argued that the West should not always be looked upon as this great model for advancement. There are some things the West does that could be viewed at as very primitive to others parts of the world, for instance the use of abortion: the outright murder of babies. As a good Catholic it is my duty to draw attention to this issue whenever I can and I admit I am very biased. But I believe it is a valid argument in this situation. The West itself should not be held as a beacon of light for other countries to follow if we continue to murder our babies. This is very primitive to me: to kill a baby for your own selfish desires and your own economic reasons.

            If one looks at a map of which countries allow abortion one can see that the Western world is primarily the leader in this aspect. Yes China and India also fall into this category though I would argue that this is the West’s influence on them. Most of the primarily Catholic countries, the Muslim countries, and African countries value the dignity of life. I think this is because of their religions’ effect on them, but also because poor people understand the value in a human person and a human person cannot simply be disposed of like an unwanted piece of fruit. For a person in inner Africa to even think about getting rid of one of their children would be unheard of. They know that life is precious.

            Now, of course one could argue that it is because of lack of abortion that these countries are poor but I think it is more because of governmental instability and poor distribution of wealth that poverty occurs.

            Another aspect in which the Western world could be viewed as primitive is in our treatment of our elderly. In many Western countries when a person gets too old we simply stick them in a nursing home. In countries in the Middle East and South America, you take care of your parents for life. This is another way in which these countries express a respect for life that is far superior and advanced in my opinion to the Western world.