Why consent is not a cup of tea.

                      If you haven't watched the consent as a cup of tea metaphor video, then go watch it and come back to read this post. I despise the consent as a cup of tea metaphor becomes it is the continuation of an unsettling trend I've seen in many discussions around sexuality and consent. Often people feel there is so much ambiguity around what consent is and what healthy sex looks like that we as a community need to come up with a way to simplify many of the concepts we created to talk about sex. The issue is sex can often be complicated. Sex means a lot of different things for a lot of different people and while the "cup of tea" metaphor might seem like an apt introduction to the concept of consent, it actually inhibits one from deeply considering the importance of consent and the act of sex in general. Furthermore, when we consider the audience for this video, we realize it's actually just pandering to a group of (mainly men) men who try to find grey areas within definitions of sex in order to continue acting like pigs. "But we were both drunk they," say! "She didn't say she did not want it," they exclaim! Buddies, buddies, remember the cup of tea analogy? What we really need to say to these individuals is a conversation similar to the one had in this comic strip. Misogynistic men don't need hand holding, they just need some real talk.
                People might rail back claiming that the video wasn't "that big of a deal", but it cheapens the way we discuss these issues. Different people have different levels of comfortableness with sex and sex as an action is something we have differing opinions on. Tea is a beverage. Sex is something that can be incredibly passionate and often involves a degree of emotional and physical vulnerability. Tea comes hot and cold. Sex can often proceed months of build up or can be a spur of the moment endeavor for an individual, leading to huge differences on the importance and significance of sex for individuals. Tea sometimes requires hot water. Sex is something people often do exclusively and sometimes can be shared with multiple partners, regardless the rate of engagement differs significantly according to person. I can get tea at home or I can walk four blocks up to the diner and have tea served there. If someone tells me they want sex and at the moment we are about to have it, they have second thoughts, I won't become disgruntled as I understand it's an incredibly personal act. If you ask for a cup of tea and I make it for you and you don't drink it, I'm going to be peeved.
          So yea, can we stop it with the simplistic explanations for what is honestly something that we should be giving some degree of thought to. Also, if you don't understand that you need to make sure someone is ok with sex before having it, then you're an inconsiderate ass. I doubt the video is going to make any difference. So I say more sex and less tea! Or at least more discussion about sex and I guess tea itself can remain, just stay out of our metaphors, though I guess it's better than the getting a cup of coffee euphemism. Ok maybe instead of saying you got a cup of coffee, you can say you got a cup of tea?

Legend of Korra: the long wait till the avatar finally does something

      I was so excited for the 4th season of Legend of Korra. I thought that the series (and Korra) was going through a period of maturation as it geared up for a new world riddled with political turmoil and strife. But Korra's journey from her disability and traumatic experience was devoid of deep meaning. Symbolically it was confusing as Korra did not overcome the disability by herself or with the help of a sage character (two to be exact), or through the love and acceptance of her friends. Instead she sought out the source of the disability, an evil source, and in a few moments of dialogue resolved all the issues with him. It just didn't make sense. I believe that had an entire episode been devoted to a spiritual awakening that stood in for the acceptance of her disability not as a hurdle to be overcame, but as a piece of her to be acknowledged and adjusted for, then I would not have been disappointed. But the show doesn't seem to be making any commentary. Instead it just felt like they needed her better and Zaheer was the only deus ex machina left. Even if they were going to go through the trouble of making her better, it has now been two episodes and Korra is MIA in terms of definitive action. She is on the sidelines while others are making moves. The Avatar should be integral to the process, it should never feel as if everyone else is more significant than the avatar, and yet I feel like Korra isn't even necessary. I'm sure the show will come up with some reason to make her necessary (cue the super weapon that can't be stopped), but for two episodes, I honestly cared more about Toph and Bolin than I did about Korra. I'm going to organize my thoughts a bit more. I don't have time to organize this into a well sculpted essay, so a list will have to do.

1. Characters- Characters in Korra never complete their character arcs. The show has developed some amazing characters: Korra, Bolin, Janorra, Kai, etc. But the show hasn't leveraged the character arcs in this current season. We need to see characters change, but it feels as if the only character who has significantly changed was Korra. All other characters have pretty much remained static. A great example of this is Bolin. Bolin foolishly joins Kuevera thinking he is contributing to the greater good and eventually turns his back on his friends and family in devotion to this facade. When the facade comes tumbling down he takes it lightly. Sure he shows remorse, but it's as if he disassociated himself with the tragedy. The work camps and reeducation camps described in the show are reminiscent to Japanese internment and the Holocaust, yet Bolin absolves himself of direct responsibility. It would have been nice to see him become frustrated and a tad consumed with guilt. Then his friends and his eventual resolution with Opal could help him forgive himself for the atrocities he accidentally supported. Also, why is it that Kai has basically been MIA for the majority of this season? The budding romance between Janorra and Kai is an important tool to be used. Their naivety and youth reminds us of the old avatar squad and could have easily been juxtaposed with Korra's group to make an interesting meta commentary of the differences between the two shows. Instead Kai, who in my opinion has developed nicely in the previous season, is completely missing and Janorra is still just as prominent. Also, the drama between Bei Fong, her sister and Toph was good, but lacked the emotional depth to be compelling. That episode where she forgives Toph felt unrealistic. One act of remorse is not enough to mend years of neglect.

2. Universe Logic- In every great fantasy series there is a logic that the universe follows which allows fantastical things to be significant and meaningful to us. In star wars, the metaphorical significance of light saber fights as a method of expressing personal discord was evident in the original series. In the original avatar the spirit world as a source of wisdom, but also mystique and danger. This trope of a wise yet dangerous spirit world was logic put into place. But with the convergence of the spirit world and human world there is massive confusion. First, why was the spirit world ever merged? This question is never answered. Second, why did the airbenders get their powers through this convergence? You can suspend disbelief for it, but why do so when you can construct a logic to explain the phenomenon, while also developing a more believable universe for your audience. You see the spirit world in the human world, but not the human world in the spirit world. Why is that the case? Also, with all the past avatar's dead is there any way to get them back? If there is anything the show needs to deus ex machina it is that. The process of looking back on past lives was symbolically powerful in the first series. To lose that is to lose  a powerful moment in the show. As the show continues we see the spirits unwilling to engage in the human conflict. Why? What possibly could be this holier than thou attitude the spirits have. That's the issue the spirits and humans in the Legend of Wan arc did not merely act holier than thou, but instead acted with genuine distrust. The spirits in the old avatar and in the first two seasons of the new have consistently acted holier than thou. Interactions or discussions about the spirit world also had this holier than thou feel. You can't add a religiosity to a show and then dismiss its religious element when it is convenient. Even arguing the difference between spirituality and religiosity is moot. We revere the spiritual world because it's a source of wisdom, therefore the convergence of the human and spirit world just seems disrespectful and more analogous to a tower of babel type tale.

3. Political banter- the political undertones of the show are too broad. Of course you want to use a political archetype as the basis of your show to draw audiences in and provide a bedrock for narrative complexity, but eventually this must be nuanced. Kuevera is a general, but what does she do that makes her so fearsome? She has labor camps. Show them. I want to see the plight. She steals resources. Show that. You need to be able to see why Kuevera is that big of a threat. Instead the show took their favorite "let's turn the main baddie into a raving lunatic approach." The ending of season 3 was so great because you knew Zaheer wasn't just some raving lunatic. He had a logic behind his actions and there were even times where we could take a second and sympathize with his loss. Also, I felt like Korra was thematically taking on flawed views of government. Amon- Racist dictatorship, Unalaq- Monarchy/Theocracy, Zaheer- Anarchy, and Kuevera- military dictatorship. But the way they dispose these governments are essentially the same. The leaders end up being psychologically disposed. Desperation does not always breed such rash judgement. For example, Kuevera killing her fiance seemed to make very little sense. Why did she press so quickly when she could have easily waited sent a team to extract him out? Sure, she might view him as an asset, but he was a very strong asset as he was the one who constructed the super weapon. She had the full advantage and it wasn't like he was disloyal. 

Transformative teaching is sustainable teaching

                   A month into my first year of teaching, I talked to a veteran teacher who also taught my students for English. I told him about the horror stories TFA teachers have to deal with, describing one instance where a corp member had a chair thrown at them, but returned the next day with their head held high. What I expected was a nod of approval and possibly an affirmation of how tough the job can be. Instead the veteran teacher looked at me with an incredulous look. He asked me if what I was saying was true and I confirmed it, surprised by his reluctance to believe it. I followed it up by saying, " well that's part of the job." He then responded in a candid manner that opened my eyes to the true wonder of teaching. He told me "there needs to be an alternative to having a chair thrown at me."
        Teaching is supposed to be a selfless job. This perception is taken to the extreme, often recreated through compelling narratives of a single teacher who gives up their days, nights, lunches, bathroom breaks, their brother's wedding and their own physical safety in the hopes to compel their kids to academic success. This all or nothing attitude is glorified in the rank and file of Teach For America. Michelle Rhee, the famous education reformer and former corp member, described her first year as horrible experience and instead spent her entire summer working to get her kids to succeed. What is not given much thought is the fact that she was only able to keep this practice up for two years, after which she left her job to work in the field of education as a reformer. Is Michelle Rhee's story really what we should be striving for? Is it fair to our teachers to ask them to burn themselves out in order to teach our kids?
     When the veteran teacher candidly spoke about having standards for his work space, it was the first time a teacher had spoken about their profession with their own mental and physical health in mind. The entire time I saw the profession as a selfless endeavor people took on themselves until they couldn't muster the energy to do it any longer. Now I realize we need to stop promoting an unsustainable standard for teachers. Teachers are not only entitled to work hard, but they are also entitled to maintain their health while doing so. Over testing, high stakes evaluation systems, and ineffective administrations all contribute to a system that makes the teaching profession poisonous for mental health. Charters are not exempt from this poison, often seeing high turn over rates due to unrealistic expectations and unhealthy hours.
    It is national teacher appreciation week and I don't want you to appreciate me. I want you all to appreciate veteran teachers who have stood past the initial 5 years to devote their lives to a craft that is incredibly difficult and often over taxing. When cheering your favorite teacher on why not also show your support by saying no to many of the policies that cause them undue stress? Why not support for reform that does not punish teachers. Why not push for smaller class sizes? At the very least we can support a narrative that no longer glorifies an unsustainable model of teaching. Teachers need an alternative to having to burn themselves out in order to teach their kids. It's our job to push law makers to find that alternative. 

When confidence became stupidity

           This is going to be a short blog. When did confidence become an indicator of stupidity? I feel in the "age of introverts", we find that the extroverted bunch,who are typically quick to open their mouths for the slightest infraction, are portrayed as obnoxious and stupid. They are made out to be akin to an abrasive frat boy who won't shut up in his introduction to philosophy course even though he clearly did none of the reading. But just as introverts (and the whole introvert vs extrovert dichotomy is annoying and false, but whatevs pop culture) use silence and deep introspection as a way of digesting material, extroverts use social engagement and out loud thinking in order to form their opinions. I am the guy who will talk about a movie the minute the credits start rolling and then have a completely different opinion an hour or two later. The discussion I initially have helps me digest and reflect on the content of the art. In this same vein, when I write on my blog I do so confidently, leaving myself with little wiggle room in terms of backtracking. I've seen articles and critics be essentially lambasted for speaking in what amounts to absolutes. Sometimes absolutes are fun to talk in. We all know they aren't true and exceptions exist, but when I say if you enjoyed episode 2 of Star Wars then we can never be friends, I strongly believe that statement might be true (seriously, even I will have the power to keep people from caring). This runty rant (alliteration!) was brought about by the criticism surrounding Moviebob. His reviews are poignant and in your face, often taking the form of intense criticism that is typically hard to verify or falsify. His work is thought provoking, but is rarely apologetic about its critical framework. People take that as "him thinking he's smarter than he is." But it's called having a persona in your writing. Nobody wants to believe you if you write a post talking about how you may be right in a field that's subjective to begin with. So yea, I write as if I'm right. I acknowledge inconsistencies and possible areas of confusion where I can't explain myself completely, but if you want me and anyone else who is unabashedly confident in their work to begin "toning it down" in order to appear pensive, then you're going to be waiting for a long time.