ProfWeek4

Over the past couple of weeks we have studied several anthropologists. What does one do to become a famous anthropologist? Are there certain qualities that draw the line between good and great anthropologists? Or is the success of an anthropologist based on his/her field work which at times can come down to pure luck (being in the right place at the right time)? Additionally, every year thousands of students across the nation/world obtain their degrees in anthroplogy but we know that not all of them continue with this career path. Other than academia and field work (within academia) what can one do with a degree in anthropology? Essentially, if you don't plan on working in the field is it really worth having this degree? [] []

Why do people always have to criticize cultures that do things very differently than their own? People make a big deal about the veiling of women in the Muslim religion, but isn't it nice to see that some traditions maintain the same for generations and not see western opinion influence other cultures?

What does it say about our own culture that we're so quick to assume that the burqas are an evil form of female oppression in the middle east? While we may not execute it in the same ways, we definitely have enforced modesty in our own society. For example, most people would not find it appropriate to wear a swimsuit to class. There is a proper way to dress when in a work environment, and what is considered appropriate definitely varies from workplace to workplace. Why then are we so close to assume that a particular form of dress is a symbol of oppression? --- In "The Muslim Woman" article, there is an idea on page 3, "... when these forms of dress had become so conventional that most women gave little thought to their meaning".

There is a great quote in the Architecture building that says "Seeing is forgetting the name of the thing one sees". I feel that this quote could have great potency in the field of anthropology as a whole, but I am curious as to whether anyone has studied this concept? Or maybe I'm interested in ideas about convention? What makes a group of people forget meaning? And how can they lose a meaning, for something that is so present in their lives [for instance: clothing, architecture, even words/language today have origins that we are now oblivious to]? Are there things that we have forgotten globally? Across many or all cultures? ---

While reading the article "The Muslim Woman" it struck me that US culture is similar in the regard that we create strange requirements of what is polite to wear and what isn't. Why is it that it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to go to the beach in a bikini but if she were to be seen in her underwear and bra this would be scandalous. Why? They're essentially the same thing. How is the wearing of a burqa, or not wearing it, any different from seemingly random social constructions we are subject to? --- The author of the article "The Muslim Woman" does a great job in my opinion giving reasons why Muslim women wearing burqas isn't as oppressive as western societies believe it to be but what about the fact that it still kind of is? I googled Muslim women just to see what would show up and the author was right about it being 90% of women in black full body clothing and only their eyes visible, but what I also saw was a picture of a woman in a bikini wearing a Miss Indonesia sash. When I clicked on the picture the caption read, "Miss Indonesia Universe 2006 received threatening calls from Islamic parties because of her bikini act." If this young lady received threatening calls because she wore what she wanted to for her own reasons, then isn't part of the reason why Muslim woman still wear burqas is because it is not socially acceptable to wear revealing clothes? If they did choose to wear what they felt like, wouldn't people who disagree with them say nasty things to them or even go as far as to possibly harm them to teach them a lesson? --- When people from western countries are wondering and even feel shocked why Muslim women need to cover their hair, face, or even the whole body, why don‚t they ever question why the women in their own countries like to expose their body or even naked(especially those celebrities)? (I know this is not true for everyone, not every woman likes to expose their body; but this is how we judge other culture that we don‚t really clear about it.) When we see Muslim women as live under oppression and need us to save them out, do we ever ask them how do they think about us? I have some female Muslim friends, they actually criticize the attire of American girls as inappropriate and unethical. From their perspective, wearing sexy clothes is a form of disrespect to themselves. Again, this shows that we shouldn‚t judge other cultures based on our own perspectives. We should respect their cultures instead of trying to make them follow ours.

The chapter discussed the views on premarital sex held by the Muslims in the town of Zawiya, Morocco.

"...a bride's virginity is highly valued, whereas that of the groom is ignored. Most brides conform to the ideal. Some unmarried young women do engage in premarital sex, however. If they choose to have a traditional wedding, they must somehow meet the requirement of producing blood-stained wedding sheets after the first night. If the bride and groom have been having premarital sexual relations, the groom may assist in the deception by nicking a finger with a knife and bloodying the sheets himself. Another option is to buy fake blood sold in drugstores."

I'm wondering the protocol of checking the wedding sheets. Who is given the job of making sure they are blood-stained? What is done in situations when the virgin bride happens to not bleed (as sometimes happens)? What is done if it is discovered that the girl wasn't a virgin? And why, if it's such an important part of 'traditional' wedding ceremonies, would drugstores sell fake blood and make it easier to fake a girl's virginity?

In the textbook Barbara Miller describes the practice of female genitalia cutting in various cultures. Under modern western views this practice is inhumane and violates the very rights of human beings. However, could arguments based on absolute cultural relativism or perhaps cultural constructionism validate such practices.

According to evolution, men (and women) are not designed for monogamy. In order to further the species, reproduction needed to happen frequently, and monogamous relationships would not have allowed that. Today, the world's population is nearly too large. Thanks to medical technology, lives can be saved much more readily than in prehistoric times, therefore the world's population is expanding. China's one child per family rule is an example of population control, as is some religions encouraging monogamy. However, certain religions have maintained conservative practices which are becoming more and more invalid. The Catholic church, while banning condom use and abortions, is playing with fire not only from a pregnancy standpoint, but of STDs as well. Why is it that these religions get away with such conservative traditions and beliefs?

"If one constructs some women as being in need of pity or saving, one implies that one not only wants to save them from something but wants to save them for something ˆ a different kind of world and set of arrangements." (Abu-Lughod 2006) Where is the line between pity and concern for others? One does not have to have a "superiority" complex to wish for others to have happy lives. "These liberal feminists" do not live within these cultures and may only be getting information from biased sources; they may not fully understand the situation. Why not give them the chance to learn how the women in these societies truly feel before judging them? I understand that it is not appropriate to force a culture on someone who does not want it, those who wish for change must at least get a chance to pose questions about the culture in order to learn more.

While reading about the Ju/'hoansi people and their means of collecting food by foraging, it made me envious of them. Why did my ancestors from long, long ago have to choose to become "advanced" and move away from this way of survival? It's easy to argue if we had remained foragers, we would be without the presence of books, formal education, and other various parts of American culture, but aren't there unpleasant aspects of society that have been caused by the development of our society that we could easily live without? The Ju/'hoansi have no worries of terrorists, car accidents, or many other events that threaten us daily. What would the world be like if we were like the Ju/'hoansi people? It would almost be like living on another planet.

Pg 89: In a study, it shows that when women are mainly occupied in the home, children tend to develop personalities that are more dependent-dominant (involves fewer acts of caregiving, more acts that assert dominance over other children, and more need for care by adults) since they have fewer tasks and less responsibility. Some Western child experts are worried that this dependent-dominant personality will develop into a narcissistic personality. So, does it mean that parents should not be too concern about their children? Should they leave their children alone or let their children go out to work so that they can learn to be independent?

In the text it was mentioned that criminal subcultures were largely not studied, and that this was due to ethical and safety issues. Considering the possible gains from understanding these groups, would this be a more appropriat occasion to practice armchair anthropology? Are there any studies being done with that in mind?

http://crookedtimber.org/2011/02/04/gender-divides-in-philosophy-and-other-disciplines/

[]