This past Saturday, I dragged myself out of my cozy bed at 9 AM and drove to Bellefonte at 10 AM to meet one of my oldest girl friends at Formalities, a bridal shop/all-things-wedding-planning boutique. She's been engaged for the past two years and has thus been planning her dream wedding for the past one and half. As you might guess, I wasn't thrilled to be driving an hour in each direction on one of the most valuable final-studying days of the semester, but I went anyway because I am in the wedding party and had to be measured for my dress (which I am told I have to pay for, by the way...?!) and also because I've known her since we were six and she's depending on me during this whole ordeal (not sure why...)
Anyway, I was doubly un-psyched to be doing this because I knew that her super hyper, just-engaged, wedding-crazed cousin would be there, too. I had been to Formalities before--in July--to see my friend's dress, and knew what to expect...so for the duration of the hour-long drive, I was mentally and spiritually prepping myself for the fake-tanned (all female) employees to bombard me with "girl talk" as well as with their chemically-whitened smiles, perfect hair, and skin-tight clothes. And good thing I was, because they did exactly as I expected: all three women asked me what I thought of the dress materials and colors (wedding dress and bride's maids' dresses), my friend's fiance, their chosen venue, their potential honeymoon locations, their "save-the-dates" and invitations, my ideas for the bachellorette party, and four thousand other things about which I frankly don't give a damn. I mustered as much fake peppiness that I could and was quite pleasant considering the circumstances, if I do say so myself.
Soon after escaping the clutches of the wedding-crazed loonies, my friend looked at me and excitedly asked, "Hannah, why don't you just follow us to the State College Mall so I can have your input for my registry?! We get to use one of those GUNS!!!" And I thought: What the hell is a registry? It clicked...only because I've seen "The Wedding Planner" with Jennifer Lopez. Then I thought: How am I going to get out of this? It seems like torture...as IF using a "gun" to walk around for hours on end scanning tens of thousands of dollars worth of superfluous kitchen supplies and tacky home decor is going to make my day...
I went.
It was torture...(I wouldn't have survived if I hadn't been able to run to Barnes&Noble cafe for a coffee!)
I'm really sorry to be such a cynic, but I DO NOT UNDERSTAND America's modern and ever-growing-out-of-control wedding industry! It's just such a joke! I'm not trying to make fun of my friend (or anyone else), and she knows my attitude towards it all. So if she's reading this: no offense. I love you. Your wedding will be as beautiful as you want it to be...and it will be YOU! It's just so weird to me...
A wedding is basically the bride's call, at least in this case. My friend, like the majority of today's American brides, is spending SO much money on ONE day's worth of activities. She has a tiara, a special be-jeweled veil, matching (expensive!) bridesmaids dresses, flower girls and boys, wedding bands and rings and the like, special unnaturally-colored flowers for all of us to hold, a cake to feed her 300+ guests, and a registry that includes at least $5,000 worth of stuff.
The whole time I was at the fitting/register outing I kept wondering where in the world is her fiance? Does he not have an opinion on their future house decor or kitchen supplies? Does he not want to have his favorite colors incorporated in his special day, too? It's just weird to me that wedding planning has generally become the sole duty of the bride and her mom/girl friends. Websites, tv shows (Bridezillas, Say Yes to the Dress), and magazines like "The Knot" are aimed specifically at brides like my friend. I'm not saying that it's wrong or pathetic to be excited about your wedding (it's a really important, exciting day!) but it's just not my taste to go all-out on this frilly, white-dress, huge-cake mania. I think I'll probably catch at least a bit of the "wedding fever" when/if I get married, but God help me if I turn into a maniac about it.
Also on my mind this past Saturday: wedding stores, books, magazines, etc. allow virtually no room for anything but heterosexual marriage. It's so dichotomous! Brides like x, grooms like y. End of story. I kept waiting to see something that wasn't so gender-specific, but never saw it. The guy at Bed, Bath, and Beyond who helped my friend register at that store, said to all three of us girls as we were about to embark on our grand scanning adventure, "Oh, girls! Don't let her hold back! You're the bride...it's your job!" It's her job to do what?! Where are these stereotypes coming from?
Anyway, "Best Wishes."
Monday, December 13, 2010
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Gender Identities Presentation
Thursday's presentation on gender identities by Toria and Hilary was completely eye-opening to me, especially because Andie got a chance to explain her transgender experiences and everyday life. I think the subject of gender identities, especially out of the "norm," is very uncomfortable for some people because they aren't able to put themselves outside of the "box" enough to appreciate and/or accept others' unique identities. It's unfortunate that our society lacks language and understanding of transgender identities and people, but I think that presentations like this one are quite necessary for spreading the knowledge and subsequent appreciation and understanding of the issue, especially at Juniata.
I was very impressed by the new gender model that Toria and Andie have been developing. It seems so involved, but really is applicable to almost every gendered situation (which is basically everything...). The fact that they identify gender and sexuality as fluid is really interesting...because I'd never really considered it before; sometimes I live to express my femininity and other times I like to dress more masculinely and act less femininely. The distinctions of each "type" of gender--ascribed, expressed, and identity--were also very interesting to consider. I have reflected on my (and society's) tendency to automatically ascribe genders to people I see (I think it's pretty normal), but have never really considered how my expression and identity change on a daily basis to fit the gender people ascribe.
Through this presentation I was also made brutally aware of how uneducated I am about gender in general. Like, I think I'm definitely still stuck in the male/female, opposite gender world. It takes a lot for me to push past that, not because I'm afraid of or made uncomfortable by it, but just because I'm a product of American society. I had no idea what some of the terms meant, like "cisgender" and "intersex" (instead of hermaphrodite). I really would love to learn more about gender issues, especially transgender issues.
Ultimately, the presentation was eye-opening and very inspiring. I give Andie and Toria so much credit for just having the courage to be themselves and love each other for exactly who they are.
I was very impressed by the new gender model that Toria and Andie have been developing. It seems so involved, but really is applicable to almost every gendered situation (which is basically everything...). The fact that they identify gender and sexuality as fluid is really interesting...because I'd never really considered it before; sometimes I live to express my femininity and other times I like to dress more masculinely and act less femininely. The distinctions of each "type" of gender--ascribed, expressed, and identity--were also very interesting to consider. I have reflected on my (and society's) tendency to automatically ascribe genders to people I see (I think it's pretty normal), but have never really considered how my expression and identity change on a daily basis to fit the gender people ascribe.
Through this presentation I was also made brutally aware of how uneducated I am about gender in general. Like, I think I'm definitely still stuck in the male/female, opposite gender world. It takes a lot for me to push past that, not because I'm afraid of or made uncomfortable by it, but just because I'm a product of American society. I had no idea what some of the terms meant, like "cisgender" and "intersex" (instead of hermaphrodite). I really would love to learn more about gender issues, especially transgender issues.
Ultimately, the presentation was eye-opening and very inspiring. I give Andie and Toria so much credit for just having the courage to be themselves and love each other for exactly who they are.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Oppression Revisited
Well, I was basically just as confused after ending our class' second oppression discussion on Tuesday. I just keep blurring the lines between discrimination and oppression and, come to think of it, don't know if I can really find a definition of oppression that I'm 100% comfortable with. I know that oppression can cause mental, psychological, physical, etc. harm and that individuals who are oppressed experience oppression because they belong to a larger group that is oppressed. Oppressors usually benefit at the expense of the oppressed because they gain power by restricting others' options and privileges.
The poems were a nice way to revisit the issue of oppression...it was a breath of fresh air compared to the readings and presentations we've had lately. All of the poems were very powerful in my opinion and helped to express oppression at an individual level (even though we talked about, and I might have even agreed with the idea, that oppression cannot happen to the individual). I think I misunderstood that, though, because oppression obviously affects the individual, but only because that specific, oppressed individual belongs to a larger group that is oppressed.
The Bridge Poem was the poem to which I most related...even though I'm White, I could really empathize with Donna Kate Rushin because she wrote about how sick she gets of having to worry about pleasing everyone, especially when it comes to her friends and loved ones of different races. I don't have many minority friends, most likely as a product of growing up and continuing to live and study in Huntingdon, but I also feel the pressure as a "bridge" between my friends from different realms of my life. When, for example, my friends from high school come back from their distant colleges and universities and want to catch up, I feel like I should invite my current friends from Juniata. It gets so sticky, though, because my Juniata friends and my high school friends are just different people and know different Hannahs. So I feel this pressure to relate them to each other and entertain and prevent awkward silences and it just gets so damn overwhelming! I don't think this is oppression because it's just something about my personality that gets me anxious and overwhelmed about my different realm friends.
I thought Rushin's last stanza was the most inspirational: "I must be the bridge to nowhere/ But my true self/ And then/ I will be useful"
I feel kind of stupid relating my previously-mentioned experience to Rushin's clearly more dire situation...I think she has a harder struggle for sure.
Also during this class discussion, I kept feeling really uneasy because it struck me that I could actually be (and am most likely) oppressing someone. I really don't want to do that, but (and though it might sound selfish) I don't want to be oppressed either.
I'll snap my fingers and just get rid of oppression/oppressors altogether.
(snap).
The poems were a nice way to revisit the issue of oppression...it was a breath of fresh air compared to the readings and presentations we've had lately. All of the poems were very powerful in my opinion and helped to express oppression at an individual level (even though we talked about, and I might have even agreed with the idea, that oppression cannot happen to the individual). I think I misunderstood that, though, because oppression obviously affects the individual, but only because that specific, oppressed individual belongs to a larger group that is oppressed.
The Bridge Poem was the poem to which I most related...even though I'm White, I could really empathize with Donna Kate Rushin because she wrote about how sick she gets of having to worry about pleasing everyone, especially when it comes to her friends and loved ones of different races. I don't have many minority friends, most likely as a product of growing up and continuing to live and study in Huntingdon, but I also feel the pressure as a "bridge" between my friends from different realms of my life. When, for example, my friends from high school come back from their distant colleges and universities and want to catch up, I feel like I should invite my current friends from Juniata. It gets so sticky, though, because my Juniata friends and my high school friends are just different people and know different Hannahs. So I feel this pressure to relate them to each other and entertain and prevent awkward silences and it just gets so damn overwhelming! I don't think this is oppression because it's just something about my personality that gets me anxious and overwhelmed about my different realm friends.
I thought Rushin's last stanza was the most inspirational: "I must be the bridge to nowhere/ But my true self/ And then/ I will be useful"
I feel kind of stupid relating my previously-mentioned experience to Rushin's clearly more dire situation...I think she has a harder struggle for sure.
Also during this class discussion, I kept feeling really uneasy because it struck me that I could actually be (and am most likely) oppressing someone. I really don't want to do that, but (and though it might sound selfish) I don't want to be oppressed either.
I'll snap my fingers and just get rid of oppression/oppressors altogether.
(snap).
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Womedia
The most recent presentation dealt with the way in which women, particularly Black and Latina women, are portrayed in the media. I must confess that I often let the media's representation of women get to me...in the back of my mind I think that all Latina (/Spanish-speaking/looking) women are generally hot-tempered and sassy in a "spicy" kind of way. Similarly, although Black women exhibit a different kind of sassy-ness, I still think (as a result of the media's portrayal and influence) that they have huge attitudes and express themselves very dramatically. On the opposite side of the spectrum, Asian women are portrayed as quiet, coy seductresses, or "china dolls" who act shy and cute but are actually well-experienced sexual beings, or even predators.
Of course I feel like an idiot trying to explain this...I sound so racist! But I think it's just proof of our society's ongoing struggle against the media's influence. While I watch much less television than I used to, I still see advertisements and observe real-life situations that lead to stereotyping Latina/Black/Asian/Whatever women.
It was interesting to consider that the more races a woman in advertising, movies, television, etc. can "play," the more job opportunities she has and the more successful she becomes. Jessica Alba has played Black, Latina, and White roles and is famously successful. Same goes for Jennifer Lopez...truthfully, it was strange for me to really consciously consider the fact that Jennifer Lopez is Puerto Rican and not Black or White like the roles she often fills. Weird!
Our conversation about skin lightness or darkness was also quite interesting...it's so funny to think that very little women are actually happy with their natural skin tones. Since I've been abroad, I was aware of other women's desires to have skin and hair lighter than their natural color. In Greece, so many of the olive-skinned, dark-haired women dyed their hair bleach-blonde to look more "American" or "European." The most successful models and tv stars were blonde (fake or otherwise) with light, porcelain-looking skin. The whole thing seemed so crazy to me...I was thinking: "I'd kill for their beautiful olive-colored skin, darker hair, and bold features!" I think ethnic-looking women are so strikingly beautiful...I feel plain and boring next to them! While women overseas are lightening their skin and hair, women in the United States are killing themselves in tanning beds and having hair-dye or fake-tan catastrophes while attempting to make themselves look darker and exotic.
We're so messed up!
Of course I feel like an idiot trying to explain this...I sound so racist! But I think it's just proof of our society's ongoing struggle against the media's influence. While I watch much less television than I used to, I still see advertisements and observe real-life situations that lead to stereotyping Latina/Black/Asian/Whatever women.
It was interesting to consider that the more races a woman in advertising, movies, television, etc. can "play," the more job opportunities she has and the more successful she becomes. Jessica Alba has played Black, Latina, and White roles and is famously successful. Same goes for Jennifer Lopez...truthfully, it was strange for me to really consciously consider the fact that Jennifer Lopez is Puerto Rican and not Black or White like the roles she often fills. Weird!
Our conversation about skin lightness or darkness was also quite interesting...it's so funny to think that very little women are actually happy with their natural skin tones. Since I've been abroad, I was aware of other women's desires to have skin and hair lighter than their natural color. In Greece, so many of the olive-skinned, dark-haired women dyed their hair bleach-blonde to look more "American" or "European." The most successful models and tv stars were blonde (fake or otherwise) with light, porcelain-looking skin. The whole thing seemed so crazy to me...I was thinking: "I'd kill for their beautiful olive-colored skin, darker hair, and bold features!" I think ethnic-looking women are so strikingly beautiful...I feel plain and boring next to them! While women overseas are lightening their skin and hair, women in the United States are killing themselves in tanning beds and having hair-dye or fake-tan catastrophes while attempting to make themselves look darker and exotic.
We're so messed up!
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Oppression
The Tuesday before Thanksgiving break, we had small group/class discussions about oppression. I knew I should have blogged about this before everything we talked about left my mind, but I didn't. Now I'm struggling to read the scribbles that are my class notes to come up with something to say about the subject. Not that the struggle's too hard because oppression is a pretty easy topic to write about if I put my mind to it (and just ramble about it...like I do about pretty much everything else).
I liked the way Marnie put it in our small group: Oppression is anything that limits or takes away someone's power/agency. It can effect one psychologically, emotionally, physically, etc., and has a lot to do with equality and where one falls on the "power spectrum." Regardless of the way its manifested (psychologically, emotionally, etc.), I think it's quite obvious that oppression is a negative thing...no one ever benefits from having their power taken away from them. Furthermore, oppression is more often than not exercised in an unjust or even cruel manner by those at the top of the power pyramid. I also think it's very possible for the oppressed to be unaware of their oppression and powerlessness, particularly its origin; whether or not the oppressed remain intentionally unaware is another thing to think about. If I felt oppressed but knew I had absolutely no power to do anything about it, I don't know if I'd see the point in fighting it. That makes me sound pretty pathetic and pessimistic (oh well...that's kind of how my mood is right now :-X).
On another note, it was important for me to recognize the distinction between discrimination and oppression. I think the major difference between the two is that discrimination can and does happen at the individual level in a specific situation. Oppression has more to do with a group identity...one can, in fact, be born into oppression (race, class, gender, etc.)...but then again, those groups are also discriminated. My mind's going around in circles with these two terms.
I think I'll stop while I'm ahead...and maybe listen to Ben Harper's "Oppression/Get Up, Stand Up", which has these lyrics:
oppression
you seek population control
oppression
to divide and to conquer is your goal
oppression
I swear that hatred is your home
oppression
you just won't leave bad enough alone
but oppression
I won't let you near me
oppression
you shall learn to fear me
I liked the way Marnie put it in our small group: Oppression is anything that limits or takes away someone's power/agency. It can effect one psychologically, emotionally, physically, etc., and has a lot to do with equality and where one falls on the "power spectrum." Regardless of the way its manifested (psychologically, emotionally, etc.), I think it's quite obvious that oppression is a negative thing...no one ever benefits from having their power taken away from them. Furthermore, oppression is more often than not exercised in an unjust or even cruel manner by those at the top of the power pyramid. I also think it's very possible for the oppressed to be unaware of their oppression and powerlessness, particularly its origin; whether or not the oppressed remain intentionally unaware is another thing to think about. If I felt oppressed but knew I had absolutely no power to do anything about it, I don't know if I'd see the point in fighting it. That makes me sound pretty pathetic and pessimistic (oh well...that's kind of how my mood is right now :-X).
On another note, it was important for me to recognize the distinction between discrimination and oppression. I think the major difference between the two is that discrimination can and does happen at the individual level in a specific situation. Oppression has more to do with a group identity...one can, in fact, be born into oppression (race, class, gender, etc.)...but then again, those groups are also discriminated. My mind's going around in circles with these two terms.
I think I'll stop while I'm ahead...and maybe listen to Ben Harper's "Oppression/Get Up, Stand Up", which has these lyrics:
oppression
you seek population control
oppression
to divide and to conquer is your goal
oppression
I swear that hatred is your home
oppression
you just won't leave bad enough alone
but oppression
I won't let you near me
oppression
you shall learn to fear me
Gendered Drinks
Well, this Thanksgiving break was the first one where all of my friends from high school (including me, one of the youngest) are finally 21. Naturally, "hanging out" with old friends over breaks no longer involves only going out together for dinner, movies, and the like, but is instead rather excitingly supplemented with (well...kind of dominated by) going out to the bar(s). I got a little taste of "bar-hopping" at summer's end because my sister and I turned 21 on August 22, only a few days before everyone else "of age" were heading back to their schools. Over the past weekend, I went out with a few friends who were home and since I'm now almost constantly thinking about gender roles, I finally noticed the gendered drinks phenomenon.
I'm not saying that I wasn't aware of "the great divide" before this weekend; obviously attending school here has taught me a lot about American college students' alcohol culture. Anyway, I was at boxer's splitting a pitcher of some kind of light beer (I'm really no expert, but I think it was Yuengling) between five girls, two of whom I didn't know, and two of the girls kept complaining about drinking beer because they really just wanted to have girly drinks (as a side-note, I later found out that this meant dumping cheap whiskey into a whiskey sour mixer bottle and drinking it from the pouring nozzle. Uh, yeah...super girly!)
But all this got me thinking about how weird it is that our society has "girly" drinks and "manly drinks." Girly drinks are the ones that are fruity, garnished, and fancy-looking. Manly drinks, I guess, are basically anything not girly. Isn't that the truth about everything "manly," though: To be a man, negate what it means to be a woman and you've got it! (credit to Valenti). There exists this great divide, though. Some guys think it's awesome if a girl loves beer (the darker and hoppy-er, the better in my experience), so really...women have a lot more options when it comes to drinking alcohol without being judged by others. Guys, on the other hand, are criticized for wanting to consume "girly" drinks. Same old, same old.
Here's a funny link that explains, for guys, what NEVER to order at a bar (if you want to keep your masculinity).
http://www.justnews.com/slideshow/entertainment/13648473/detail.html
Cheers!
I'm not saying that I wasn't aware of "the great divide" before this weekend; obviously attending school here has taught me a lot about American college students' alcohol culture. Anyway, I was at boxer's splitting a pitcher of some kind of light beer (I'm really no expert, but I think it was Yuengling) between five girls, two of whom I didn't know, and two of the girls kept complaining about drinking beer because they really just wanted to have girly drinks (as a side-note, I later found out that this meant dumping cheap whiskey into a whiskey sour mixer bottle and drinking it from the pouring nozzle. Uh, yeah...super girly!)
But all this got me thinking about how weird it is that our society has "girly" drinks and "manly drinks." Girly drinks are the ones that are fruity, garnished, and fancy-looking. Manly drinks, I guess, are basically anything not girly. Isn't that the truth about everything "manly," though: To be a man, negate what it means to be a woman and you've got it! (credit to Valenti). There exists this great divide, though. Some guys think it's awesome if a girl loves beer (the darker and hoppy-er, the better in my experience), so really...women have a lot more options when it comes to drinking alcohol without being judged by others. Guys, on the other hand, are criticized for wanting to consume "girly" drinks. Same old, same old.
Here's a funny link that explains, for guys, what NEVER to order at a bar (if you want to keep your masculinity).
http://www.justnews.com/slideshow/entertainment/13648473/detail.html
Cheers!
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Gender Roles in (heterosexual, white, middle-class) Marriage
Even though the guys who presented on Gender Roles in Marriage seemingly neglected to consider other races, social classes, and sexual orientations in their studies, I don't think they were as neglecting as some of my classmates perceived. In fact, I think they did a great job presenting valuable information that obviously generated a lot of (heated) class discussions and got me thinking.
The presentation included almost all graphs and other statistic visuals, which was indeed necessary for us to understand the main points of their topic, but I was and always have been very easily deterred, bored, and often overwhelmed by tons of graphs and charts. Anyway, I was able to keep myself together enough to enjoy the presentation and learn a few things about my fellow classmates. The guys' survey was an awesome idea! It was interesting to learn how the guys promoted their survey (email, arch, facebook), and even though some of the data was skewed as a result of vague or confusing questioning, it was cool to see how the majority of Juniata students perceive gender roles in marriages.
I thought it was important when Celia pointed out that surveys generally measure peoples' attitudes (not actual behaviors!) about certain things, and this survey probably was no exception.
As far as my own input on gender roles in marriage, my parents did not fulfill "traditional" or "egalitarian" gender roles. Until my parents split up when I was a senior in high school, my dad cooked dinner most of the time, except if my mom declared it a "gumbo" or "etouffe" night, in which case it was as important to attend as Christmas or New Year's dinner (it seemed and still seems like my dad's main purpose for living was to cook HUGE Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners...) My dad always got us cereal for breakfast on school days and brought it into my sister and I while we watched Scooby Doo on the couch; he made "BB" most every Saturday or Sunday, which stands for "Big Breakfast" and was either pancakes/waffles, bacon/sausage, dippy/scrambled eggs (I don't know how my sister and I managed to escape childhood obesity...) My friends always thought it was funny that my dad cooked the meals because whenever I spent the night at their houses, their moms made the meals.
Come to think of it, I guess we had some traditional family roles, too: my mom did most of the house cleaning, but was and is always very dramatic about it. My sister and I would help her out most of the time and fight over who got to clean what/where. Sometimes I would pretend to have forgotten the right way to sweep the kitchen floor because I knew my mom would grab the broom to demonstrate and end up doing the job for me...I also remember calling dibs on cleaning the bathrooms because after I scrubbed everything with chemicals I could believably fake a pretty serious headache. That's so off-topic and just revealing to everyone what a manipulative little brat I was...anyway:
My dad gardened, mowed, etc., and sometimes washed the dishes (which took him hours because he's obsessed with saving energy/water). I can remember raking leaves until I had blisters and weeding my dad's garden and digging up potatoes one summer. I also remember the day that my dad taught us how to wash dishes and clothes the summer between third and fourth grades...ugh. As my sister and I grew up, we took on more of the house cleaning and yard responsibilities, especially because my mom worked very time-consuming jobs and my dad commutes from Huntingdon to Indiana, PA as a Biology professor at IUP.
I think that most healthy families (with either heterosexual or homosexual parents) figure out which roles work best for them (within reason), and just kind of...settle. And then it either works out or it doesn't, right? Because we all have different experiences as a result of how our families settle, it seems kind of unfair for one person to judge the way another person's works.
The presentation included almost all graphs and other statistic visuals, which was indeed necessary for us to understand the main points of their topic, but I was and always have been very easily deterred, bored, and often overwhelmed by tons of graphs and charts. Anyway, I was able to keep myself together enough to enjoy the presentation and learn a few things about my fellow classmates. The guys' survey was an awesome idea! It was interesting to learn how the guys promoted their survey (email, arch, facebook), and even though some of the data was skewed as a result of vague or confusing questioning, it was cool to see how the majority of Juniata students perceive gender roles in marriages.
I thought it was important when Celia pointed out that surveys generally measure peoples' attitudes (not actual behaviors!) about certain things, and this survey probably was no exception.
As far as my own input on gender roles in marriage, my parents did not fulfill "traditional" or "egalitarian" gender roles. Until my parents split up when I was a senior in high school, my dad cooked dinner most of the time, except if my mom declared it a "gumbo" or "etouffe" night, in which case it was as important to attend as Christmas or New Year's dinner (it seemed and still seems like my dad's main purpose for living was to cook HUGE Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners...) My dad always got us cereal for breakfast on school days and brought it into my sister and I while we watched Scooby Doo on the couch; he made "BB" most every Saturday or Sunday, which stands for "Big Breakfast" and was either pancakes/waffles, bacon/sausage, dippy/scrambled eggs (I don't know how my sister and I managed to escape childhood obesity...) My friends always thought it was funny that my dad cooked the meals because whenever I spent the night at their houses, their moms made the meals.
Come to think of it, I guess we had some traditional family roles, too: my mom did most of the house cleaning, but was and is always very dramatic about it. My sister and I would help her out most of the time and fight over who got to clean what/where. Sometimes I would pretend to have forgotten the right way to sweep the kitchen floor because I knew my mom would grab the broom to demonstrate and end up doing the job for me...I also remember calling dibs on cleaning the bathrooms because after I scrubbed everything with chemicals I could believably fake a pretty serious headache. That's so off-topic and just revealing to everyone what a manipulative little brat I was...anyway:
My dad gardened, mowed, etc., and sometimes washed the dishes (which took him hours because he's obsessed with saving energy/water). I can remember raking leaves until I had blisters and weeding my dad's garden and digging up potatoes one summer. I also remember the day that my dad taught us how to wash dishes and clothes the summer between third and fourth grades...ugh. As my sister and I grew up, we took on more of the house cleaning and yard responsibilities, especially because my mom worked very time-consuming jobs and my dad commutes from Huntingdon to Indiana, PA as a Biology professor at IUP.
I think that most healthy families (with either heterosexual or homosexual parents) figure out which roles work best for them (within reason), and just kind of...settle. And then it either works out or it doesn't, right? Because we all have different experiences as a result of how our families settle, it seems kind of unfair for one person to judge the way another person's works.
Sex Ed.
The Sex Ed. presentation last Tuesday was quite entertaining! I loved the old, black-and-white video the girls used to begin the class discussion. It was hysterical to see how menstruation and girls' adolescence was viewed so many years ago (the 1950s?). While I think some people, even back then, would have rolled their eyes at the corny-ness of the film, I do think that some of the issues covered were indeed popularly believed back then, like that a period is "a curse," (some of us may still think so today) and that you can't do any strenuous activity or swim while menstruating. I think it's obvious that we've come a long way since then as far as debunking period myths and developing the products women use for their periods...I honestly don't know what I would do if I weren't allowed to swim/run around (or square dance!!!) when I had my period, or if pads ("sanitary napkins") were still as big as tissue boxes and had to be worn with an elastic belt!
As far as today's schools' sex education programs are concerned, I think there's a lot of room for improvement. I was shocked to find out that it was Clinton, and not Bush, who started the federal funding for abstinence-only education (instead of sex education)...I'm glad Obama did away with that; the number of teenage moms today kind of shows that an abstinence-only approach wasn't really working for everyone. Also, the girls discussed the fact that those teens who pledge abstinence are more likely to contract STDs because using a condom is admitting to the act of having sex. Also, some teens who pledge abstinence are sexually active in other ways, including having oral sex (high risk for STDs) and anal sex (STDs and still a possibility of pregnancy if no protection is used). It all seems pretty messed up to me! I think that sexual curiosity is only natural for teenagers, and that the more it is forbidden (like anything else forbidden to a teenager), the more teens are going to want to and find ways to do it. Generating awareness about STDs and pregnancy and teaching teens how to prevent both is what really needs to happen.
The movie Juno MTV shows like 16 and Pregnant and Teen Mom seem to be popularizing teenage pregnancy and motherhood; a number of the teenage girls who were on the first seasons of 16 and Pregnant are now being glorified on popular magazine covers and in commercials, as if to tell other teen girls "hey...if you get pregnant and get on an Mtv show, you'll have it made!" While I think it's good that some of the episodes show viewers the hardships of (often single) teenage motherhood, many girls who watch the shows are still horribly uneducated and unaware of the consequences of teenage pregnancy and motherhood. Did shows like these drive the Massachusetts high school girls to form their "pregnancy pact?" or was it the other way around?
Here's the link to the Times' article about the teens at Gloucester High School and their "Pregnancy Pact": Pregnancy Boom at Gloucester High
It was interesting to hear other people's experiences with their high school's sex education classes (or lack thereof). I can't believe the lies that some religious schools tell their students in an attempt to increase abstinence; it's all just scare tactics. Like I said before, what schools really need to do is educate about STDs and pregnancy and the ways students can go about preventing them. Any way you slice it, our country's schools need to figure some things out about sex ed.!
As far as today's schools' sex education programs are concerned, I think there's a lot of room for improvement. I was shocked to find out that it was Clinton, and not Bush, who started the federal funding for abstinence-only education (instead of sex education)...I'm glad Obama did away with that; the number of teenage moms today kind of shows that an abstinence-only approach wasn't really working for everyone. Also, the girls discussed the fact that those teens who pledge abstinence are more likely to contract STDs because using a condom is admitting to the act of having sex. Also, some teens who pledge abstinence are sexually active in other ways, including having oral sex (high risk for STDs) and anal sex (STDs and still a possibility of pregnancy if no protection is used). It all seems pretty messed up to me! I think that sexual curiosity is only natural for teenagers, and that the more it is forbidden (like anything else forbidden to a teenager), the more teens are going to want to and find ways to do it. Generating awareness about STDs and pregnancy and teaching teens how to prevent both is what really needs to happen.
The movie Juno MTV shows like 16 and Pregnant and Teen Mom seem to be popularizing teenage pregnancy and motherhood; a number of the teenage girls who were on the first seasons of 16 and Pregnant are now being glorified on popular magazine covers and in commercials, as if to tell other teen girls "hey...if you get pregnant and get on an Mtv show, you'll have it made!" While I think it's good that some of the episodes show viewers the hardships of (often single) teenage motherhood, many girls who watch the shows are still horribly uneducated and unaware of the consequences of teenage pregnancy and motherhood. Did shows like these drive the Massachusetts high school girls to form their "pregnancy pact?" or was it the other way around?
Here's the link to the Times' article about the teens at Gloucester High School and their "Pregnancy Pact": Pregnancy Boom at Gloucester High
It was interesting to hear other people's experiences with their high school's sex education classes (or lack thereof). I can't believe the lies that some religious schools tell their students in an attempt to increase abstinence; it's all just scare tactics. Like I said before, what schools really need to do is educate about STDs and pregnancy and the ways students can go about preventing them. Any way you slice it, our country's schools need to figure some things out about sex ed.!
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Women & War
Surprisingly enough, I had never actually considered everything that women have to deal with during wartime, particularly rape used exclusively as a weapon or power tactic. I thought last Thursday's presenters did a great job narrowing down their broad topic into U.S. women soldiers, women suicide bombers, and women who were raped during war. My small group talked about the NPR article concerning U.S. women soldiers as victims of sexual assault by their fellow male soldiers (so absurd!).
To begin, it seems most tragic to me that our country's military has such a weak program to aid women who've been or are continually being sexually assaulted by their fellow (male) soldiers who're of higher rank. It's so unfair that female soldiers must deal on a daily basis with threats of enemy attacks as well as threats of sexual attacks by their own comrades...no wonder these poor women suffer from PTSD upon returning home!
Something that I thought of during my group's discussion on this topic: If U.S. soldiers are assaulting their fellow U.S. soldiers, are some also assaulting foreign female civilians? If this is the case (doesn't seem too impossible), wouldn't it increase the rate of sexually transmitted diseases among Americans? It seems so backwards...some men (stereotypically macho men who are...(big surprise)...in the military) have this belief that rape and sexual assault stems from males' biological/evolutionary need to pass on their genes. Personally, I think that's a ton of bullshit.
It seems like the U.S. Military is doing a little bit about the problem, but I feel like they'll have to do more if they expect a real change. Women soldiers are still afraid to go around the chain of command to report a sexual assault because they are, more often than not, demoted in rank while their offenders get a mere slap on the wrist on their way to prey on another female comrade. Strong-willed men in leadership roles who respect women (some MUST be out there...) need to stand up and set an example for everyone else. They need to raise awareness, because the stuff that's happening is bound to eventually end pretty badly.
To begin, it seems most tragic to me that our country's military has such a weak program to aid women who've been or are continually being sexually assaulted by their fellow (male) soldiers who're of higher rank. It's so unfair that female soldiers must deal on a daily basis with threats of enemy attacks as well as threats of sexual attacks by their own comrades...no wonder these poor women suffer from PTSD upon returning home!
Something that I thought of during my group's discussion on this topic: If U.S. soldiers are assaulting their fellow U.S. soldiers, are some also assaulting foreign female civilians? If this is the case (doesn't seem too impossible), wouldn't it increase the rate of sexually transmitted diseases among Americans? It seems so backwards...some men (stereotypically macho men who are...(big surprise)...in the military) have this belief that rape and sexual assault stems from males' biological/evolutionary need to pass on their genes. Personally, I think that's a ton of bullshit.
It seems like the U.S. Military is doing a little bit about the problem, but I feel like they'll have to do more if they expect a real change. Women soldiers are still afraid to go around the chain of command to report a sexual assault because they are, more often than not, demoted in rank while their offenders get a mere slap on the wrist on their way to prey on another female comrade. Strong-willed men in leadership roles who respect women (some MUST be out there...) need to stand up and set an example for everyone else. They need to raise awareness, because the stuff that's happening is bound to eventually end pretty badly.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
The Terrors of Trafficking
First off, good job to everyone who presented on Tuesday...really creative, informative, and well put together! I have a heightened sense of respect for all of you because I don't think there's any way I'd be able to handle reading/watching the articles/videos that you described. The video played at the presentation admittedly brought tears to my eyes...it really scares me to think of what humans are capable of doing to one another. It was truly devastating for me to consider the atrocities, and I walked away from the presentation wishing there were something I could do to instantly and completely rid the world of this unspeakably inhumane and disgusting phenomenon.
I was absolutely shocked by some of the statistics presented, like that the human trafficking industry makes more money annually than Nike, Google, etc. (what the hell is wrong with our world?!) The fact that children as young as FIVE(!?) make up 50% of the trafficking population is completely horrifying, but the fact that 70% of those trafficked are women didn't come as a surprise. It's very frightening to think that many children and women are tricked into this terrible industry by people promising them a better life. I feel spoiled and stupid for having all that I do when there are things like this going on in the world. I'm getting worked up about it again...ugh.
As a side note, I do think that we tend to speak jokingly or insincerely about human sex trafficking to mask the horrifying reality of what's actually happening...(it kind of relates to the article about "nuclear language," right?) In class, we played a game as part of the presentation, but I think that was a bit insensitive. If there were a sexual assault victim among us (not impossible), I think making a game of things would be very disturbing. I know that wasn't the group's intention...just something to consider.
Overall, the presentation was super successful because it heightened my awareness of human sex trafficking and instantly made me want to do something to help. I plan to read more about it as soon as I can to find out how I can make a difference.
I was absolutely shocked by some of the statistics presented, like that the human trafficking industry makes more money annually than Nike, Google, etc. (what the hell is wrong with our world?!) The fact that children as young as FIVE(!?) make up 50% of the trafficking population is completely horrifying, but the fact that 70% of those trafficked are women didn't come as a surprise. It's very frightening to think that many children and women are tricked into this terrible industry by people promising them a better life. I feel spoiled and stupid for having all that I do when there are things like this going on in the world. I'm getting worked up about it again...ugh.
As a side note, I do think that we tend to speak jokingly or insincerely about human sex trafficking to mask the horrifying reality of what's actually happening...(it kind of relates to the article about "nuclear language," right?) In class, we played a game as part of the presentation, but I think that was a bit insensitive. If there were a sexual assault victim among us (not impossible), I think making a game of things would be very disturbing. I know that wasn't the group's intention...just something to consider.
Overall, the presentation was super successful because it heightened my awareness of human sex trafficking and instantly made me want to do something to help. I plan to read more about it as soon as I can to find out how I can make a difference.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Toys-R-Us
Last weekend, I went with my boyfriend to Standing Stone Coffee Company to get some coffee and do some homework. It was packed, so we ended up sitting down at the bar until a table opened up. I began reading a book, but was soon distracted by the Toys-R-Us "2010 Great Big Christmas Book" that Nick was flipping through (I rarely go a day now without seeing/hearing/thinking of something that relates to what we've discussed in class...it's annoying sometimes).
Anyway, the "book" was SO sexist! I don't know why I was surprised, but it just seemed so outrageous. Every single photo in the catalog was gender-specific. Young boys were dressed in blue jeans or khakis and wore striped polo shirts, and modeled "masculine" toys, like tool sets, hotwheels tracks, nerf balls and guns, etc. Girls were dressed in obnoxious amounts of pink, or wore skirts and ribbons in their hair, and were shown playing with distinctly "feminine" toys, such as easy bake ovens, dolls, kitchen sets, etc.
The young boys and girls were rarely shown modeling the same toy; when they were, however, it was still extremely sexist and gender-ized. See:
In this picture, the boy is grilling (because that's our society's masculine way of cooking...and, come to think of it, is rather off-limits to women) and the girls are far removed from the grill. One (in a short skirt) is leaning against the refrigerator, as if waiting for her pie to bake, while the other girl (with bows in her hair) is washing dishes.
In this advertisement, the girl (in pink), is cooking/preparing food for the boy (in jeans), who sits out of the kitchen eating.
I remember being a little girl and looking through the Christmas catalogs, circling the toys I wanted (admittedly, the girly ones). My little brother, Max (he's 7), was recently looking through a Halloween costume catalog and really wanted to be a Egyptian princess because the girls' costumes were so much prettier than the boys. He said he would never ever be an Egyptian princess because everyone would make fun of him.
Genderizing begins at such a young age!
Anyway, the "book" was SO sexist! I don't know why I was surprised, but it just seemed so outrageous. Every single photo in the catalog was gender-specific. Young boys were dressed in blue jeans or khakis and wore striped polo shirts, and modeled "masculine" toys, like tool sets, hotwheels tracks, nerf balls and guns, etc. Girls were dressed in obnoxious amounts of pink, or wore skirts and ribbons in their hair, and were shown playing with distinctly "feminine" toys, such as easy bake ovens, dolls, kitchen sets, etc.
The young boys and girls were rarely shown modeling the same toy; when they were, however, it was still extremely sexist and gender-ized. See:
In this picture, the boy is grilling (because that's our society's masculine way of cooking...and, come to think of it, is rather off-limits to women) and the girls are far removed from the grill. One (in a short skirt) is leaning against the refrigerator, as if waiting for her pie to bake, while the other girl (with bows in her hair) is washing dishes.
In this advertisement, the girl (in pink), is cooking/preparing food for the boy (in jeans), who sits out of the kitchen eating.
I remember being a little girl and looking through the Christmas catalogs, circling the toys I wanted (admittedly, the girly ones). My little brother, Max (he's 7), was recently looking through a Halloween costume catalog and really wanted to be a Egyptian princess because the girls' costumes were so much prettier than the boys. He said he would never ever be an Egyptian princess because everyone would make fun of him.
Genderizing begins at such a young age!
Security [si-kyoor-i-tee] noun: ...uh...ummm?
At some point last week we discussed security. As we got in small groups, I felt like an idiot. The only thing I could come up with at first was "safety." I really had to take a deep breath, close my eyes, and ask myself "what is security?" After a while, we started throwing out more synonyms, phrases, and criteria necessary for generating a feeling of security. We basically came up with: to be secure, one must not feel or be vulnerable, which necessarily means that he/she must have a sense of protection. Hilary mentioned that real security means you feel protected and secure no matter what (in war AND in peace), and I mentioned that it's really all about trust. A major part of security is depending on others to make you feel safe, so without trust, security is almost impossible. Also, security means completely different things depending on whether an individual, group, country, etc. is being discussed.
One idea that stuck with me after class was how differently men and women construct security for themselves. I think that men depend on physical objects; guns, knives, big muscles, a strong punch, etc. create a sense of safety. For women, I think it's a lot about who we're around...in a word, people. I feel much safer going somewhere unknown with someone I know (I suppose safer still if that person I know happens to be a secure-feeling male). I unfortunately fit the stereotype about women and weaponry; I don't really know how to use a gun/knife or how to physically fight. I'm hoping some kind of super-human strength would take the wheel if I ever find myself unsecured and in a life-or-death situation.
Growing up as an identical twin, I always felt secure in the most foreign circumstances because Sophie was always right beside me. We could (and still can) sense each others' comfort in a new situation and use one another as a crutch, especially in social circumstances. As the newcomers to our 6th grade class, we used each other as armor in the battle to find the "right" group of friends, and continued to do so well after 6th grade. As we grew up and went to different colleges, it was (and still is) much harder for me to feel secure as a person around new things and people (using "secure" in more of a "confidence" way). Most people learn to make friends at a very young age, but I didn't really learn how to do it by myself until I was 19...I think I'm finally getting the hang of it.
Anyway, security also has to do with how secure those around you feel, or at least pretend to feel. When I'm on an airplane, for example, I feel pretty secure as long as the flight attendants look calm. If we hit turbulence or if anything else slightly unexpected/scary happens, I immediately look for the flight attendants and begin reading their emotions as best as I can. Thank goodness they've always been calm (are they trained to be this way? Is my entire system useless?!). If the flight attendants ever started freaking out, my feeling of security would undoubtedly disappear. I hope this is normal.
I keep rambling.
Our small group devoted much of our discussion time to talking about how we think about defining security. Ultimately, we decided that power is a huge advantage. I kept thinking about how those with power (the government, decision/policy makers, dominant groups, the wealthy, etc.) are supposed to make everyone else feel protected...but they don't! I have less and less faith in our country's government, and I feel like I couldn't really ever trust anyone with tons of money. I think I feel pretty secure most of the time (as far as my safety is concerned), but I do get anxious pretty easily. I guess I have a hard time trusting people.
After last week...I think my feeling of security is kind of an illusion most of the time, and I'm ok with that.
One idea that stuck with me after class was how differently men and women construct security for themselves. I think that men depend on physical objects; guns, knives, big muscles, a strong punch, etc. create a sense of safety. For women, I think it's a lot about who we're around...in a word, people. I feel much safer going somewhere unknown with someone I know (I suppose safer still if that person I know happens to be a secure-feeling male). I unfortunately fit the stereotype about women and weaponry; I don't really know how to use a gun/knife or how to physically fight. I'm hoping some kind of super-human strength would take the wheel if I ever find myself unsecured and in a life-or-death situation.
Growing up as an identical twin, I always felt secure in the most foreign circumstances because Sophie was always right beside me. We could (and still can) sense each others' comfort in a new situation and use one another as a crutch, especially in social circumstances. As the newcomers to our 6th grade class, we used each other as armor in the battle to find the "right" group of friends, and continued to do so well after 6th grade. As we grew up and went to different colleges, it was (and still is) much harder for me to feel secure as a person around new things and people (using "secure" in more of a "confidence" way). Most people learn to make friends at a very young age, but I didn't really learn how to do it by myself until I was 19...I think I'm finally getting the hang of it.
Anyway, security also has to do with how secure those around you feel, or at least pretend to feel. When I'm on an airplane, for example, I feel pretty secure as long as the flight attendants look calm. If we hit turbulence or if anything else slightly unexpected/scary happens, I immediately look for the flight attendants and begin reading their emotions as best as I can. Thank goodness they've always been calm (are they trained to be this way? Is my entire system useless?!). If the flight attendants ever started freaking out, my feeling of security would undoubtedly disappear. I hope this is normal.
I keep rambling.
Our small group devoted much of our discussion time to talking about how we think about defining security. Ultimately, we decided that power is a huge advantage. I kept thinking about how those with power (the government, decision/policy makers, dominant groups, the wealthy, etc.) are supposed to make everyone else feel protected...but they don't! I have less and less faith in our country's government, and I feel like I couldn't really ever trust anyone with tons of money. I think I feel pretty secure most of the time (as far as my safety is concerned), but I do get anxious pretty easily. I guess I have a hard time trusting people.
After last week...I think my feeling of security is kind of an illusion most of the time, and I'm ok with that.
"Patting" the bomb
I absolutely love reading about and studying linguistics; since taking Sociolinguistics last year, I can't stop analyzing peoples' language and how differently we all communicate with one another. I think I freak people out sometimes because I tend to blatantly watch, listen to, and analyze their interactions (a goal of mine is to develop a more inconspicuous method...)
Anyway, this background info explains why I was instantly intrigued by the title of Carol Cohn's article about "Nuclear Language." I thought it was a very interesting article, but must admit that I was a little bit disappointed because it was all about nuclear science and bombs and things (which goes a bit over my head). At any rate, there were a few laugh-out-loud moments for me...especially the cartoon of the man "patting" the bomb like a pet made me laugh.The sexual imagery involved in nuclear science was outrageous to consider, but I thought it was taken a little bit too far...I couldn't make the parallel between nuclear science and sex in some of her examples.
I give Carol Cohn a hell of a lot of credit for immersing herself in the male-dominated filed of nuclear developments/defense. It was very interesting to read about how she primarily thought "how can they think that way" (regarding the male scientists' jargon that distances them from the death and destruction they produce and research), but within weeks of being exposed to the jargon necessarily picked it up and began to think in an identical way to her male counterparts.
To think about the strength of language is a bit scary...Cohn illustrates how easy it was for her to adopt the language and thus distance herself from the seriousness of the field. The language used by nuclear scientists and researches helps distance the workers from the reality of destruction and death associated with nuclear bombs, which removes the heaviness of what they're actually researching/producing. Some of the vocabulary worth mentioning includes:
Cohn explains, "no matter how firm my commitment to staying aware of the bloody reality behind the words, over and over I found that I could not keep human lives as my reference point" (Cohn, 1987). Cohn says that no matter how educated she was or how much insight she provided, her co-workers treated her as if she were uneducated/ignorant if she failed to speak to them in their "Nuclear Language." Cohn and her colleagues were able to work in such a field and talk about nuclear weapons day after day (and maintain their sanity) solely because the language/jargon skewed their perception of the reality of nuclear weaponry. That's so powerful!
A sentence toward the end generated a "?!" thought: "The aggressor ends up worse off than the aggressed because he has fewer weapons left; any other factors, such as what happened where the weapons landed, are irrelevant to the calculus of gain and loss" (Cohn, 1987). That sentence made me shake my head and think "WHAT?!" Ok, so you've all removed yourselves SO far from the reality of what your weapons do to people just like you that you can't even consider human death (er..."collateral damage") as something significant in calculating the wins/losses of war??
Speechless!
Anyway, this background info explains why I was instantly intrigued by the title of Carol Cohn's article about "Nuclear Language." I thought it was a very interesting article, but must admit that I was a little bit disappointed because it was all about nuclear science and bombs and things (which goes a bit over my head). At any rate, there were a few laugh-out-loud moments for me...especially the cartoon of the man "patting" the bomb like a pet made me laugh.The sexual imagery involved in nuclear science was outrageous to consider, but I thought it was taken a little bit too far...I couldn't make the parallel between nuclear science and sex in some of her examples.
I give Carol Cohn a hell of a lot of credit for immersing herself in the male-dominated filed of nuclear developments/defense. It was very interesting to read about how she primarily thought "how can they think that way" (regarding the male scientists' jargon that distances them from the death and destruction they produce and research), but within weeks of being exposed to the jargon necessarily picked it up and began to think in an identical way to her male counterparts.
To think about the strength of language is a bit scary...Cohn illustrates how easy it was for her to adopt the language and thus distance herself from the seriousness of the field. The language used by nuclear scientists and researches helps distance the workers from the reality of destruction and death associated with nuclear bombs, which removes the heaviness of what they're actually researching/producing. Some of the vocabulary worth mentioning includes:
- "countervalue attacks" means incinerating cities
- "collateral damage" means number of dead humans
- a "bus" "delivers" the bombs to the target instead of them being "dropped" on the target.
- Nuclear missiles are based in "silos," and when they're ready to be launched, the weapons are in the "Christmas tree farm."
Cohn explains, "no matter how firm my commitment to staying aware of the bloody reality behind the words, over and over I found that I could not keep human lives as my reference point" (Cohn, 1987). Cohn says that no matter how educated she was or how much insight she provided, her co-workers treated her as if she were uneducated/ignorant if she failed to speak to them in their "Nuclear Language." Cohn and her colleagues were able to work in such a field and talk about nuclear weapons day after day (and maintain their sanity) solely because the language/jargon skewed their perception of the reality of nuclear weaponry. That's so powerful!
A sentence toward the end generated a "?!" thought: "The aggressor ends up worse off than the aggressed because he has fewer weapons left; any other factors, such as what happened where the weapons landed, are irrelevant to the calculus of gain and loss" (Cohn, 1987). That sentence made me shake my head and think "WHAT?!" Ok, so you've all removed yourselves SO far from the reality of what your weapons do to people just like you that you can't even consider human death (er..."collateral damage") as something significant in calculating the wins/losses of war??
Speechless!
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Sojourner Truth, You Are Most Definitely a Woman.
I was really inspired by Sojourner Truth's "Ain't I a Woman" speech. The introduction and description of her speech made all the more powerful as I was able to consider how crazy it must have been to be a woman (especially a Black woman) during the 1800s. I truthfully hadn't previously considered how far back women have been fighting for equal rights. In my head (and I'm sure in many others'), feminism is more of a 20th century thing: the right to vote, equal rights in the working world, etc. It's so empowering to imagine the strength and motivation of some of the women's rights activists in the 1800s, but it's also important to remember that a lot of women's rights activists were also extremely racist. It was obviously a tough time for women and slaves, and those who came together to fight the oppression were extremely heroic.
I loved reading the speech in phonetics...I could more easily imagine Sojourner Truth speaking, which only enhanced the empowering effects of her speech. Also, in the introduction, a very vivid picture is painted by Frances Gage's description of the event, the people involved, and Sojourner's intimidating nature.
It's so powerful that Sojourner turned the tables on the men and their justifications for oppressing women and slaves during that time. More important is that she confronts the women who were fighting for women's rights, but still oppressing women slaves...they're women, too! "I have ploughed, and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And a'n't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man--when I could get it--and bear de lash as well! And a'n't I a woman?" Sojourner Truth is stronger, more powerful, and more experienced than a lot of men ever could be...she is most definitely a woman.
Sojourner calls out a priest in the audience for justifying women's oppression because God says so. She repeatedly asks him where his God came from, and finally and matter-of-factly bellows, "from God and a woman! Man had nothin’ to do wid Him." If I were there, I feel like I'd have to scream "So in-your-face!" after I ran up and gave Truth a hug or high-five.
I find it really interesting that Sojourner's physical appearance is anything but womanly, but to me she seems more of a woman than the womanliest of women. She shows her physical strength and talks about all of the hard labor she does and the things she's had to go through (having 13 kids sold to slavery), but demands nevertheless that she is a woman. It's an 1800s "screw you!" to gender constructs.
Go girl!
I loved reading the speech in phonetics...I could more easily imagine Sojourner Truth speaking, which only enhanced the empowering effects of her speech. Also, in the introduction, a very vivid picture is painted by Frances Gage's description of the event, the people involved, and Sojourner's intimidating nature.
It's so powerful that Sojourner turned the tables on the men and their justifications for oppressing women and slaves during that time. More important is that she confronts the women who were fighting for women's rights, but still oppressing women slaves...they're women, too! "I have ploughed, and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And a'n't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man--when I could get it--and bear de lash as well! And a'n't I a woman?" Sojourner Truth is stronger, more powerful, and more experienced than a lot of men ever could be...she is most definitely a woman.
Sojourner calls out a priest in the audience for justifying women's oppression because God says so. She repeatedly asks him where his God came from, and finally and matter-of-factly bellows, "from God and a woman! Man had nothin’ to do wid Him." If I were there, I feel like I'd have to scream "So in-your-face!" after I ran up and gave Truth a hug or high-five.
I find it really interesting that Sojourner's physical appearance is anything but womanly, but to me she seems more of a woman than the womanliest of women. She shows her physical strength and talks about all of the hard labor she does and the things she's had to go through (having 13 kids sold to slavery), but demands nevertheless that she is a woman. It's an 1800s "screw you!" to gender constructs.
Go girl!
HOlloween
Ok...I'm sure someone's probably already blogged about it and Celia touched on it a little bit on Thursday, but since when did Halloween turn into a night (or weekend, in Juniata's case) of girls vying for "sluttiest _______" award? We should officially change the name to "HO-lloween." It reminded me so much of the Mean Girls scene that describes the rules of Halloween (follow the link below!)
I took my little brother, Max, trick-or-treating up and down Mifflin Street on Wednesday. I honestly could not believe some of the teenage girls' costumes (I'm talking like, 10 to 13 years old). They were dressed as Disney princesses, but wore the tiny, low-cut versions of the princess' dresses that showed off their boobs and butt cheeks. We trick-or-treated behind a group of middle-school girls and boys...the girls were slutty witches, cats, fairies, or princesses, and the guys were bloody monsters (creative...) As I walked up and down Mifflin Street I really could not believe how young some of the HO-lloweeners were! It's like we've been talking about in class--girls are pressured by media at younger and younger ages to be "the virgin AND the slut" and don't really realize how crazy it is because that's what's popular and gets you noticed. I can't help but wonder what these middle-school girls will be dressing up as in college...I don't know how it could get much worse!
Friday and Saturday nights showcased Juniata girls' hidden abilities to transform even the most innocent of costumes into the most revealing and objectifying. On campus I saw a handful of slutty sailor girls, a few seductive dogs and cats, a number of female super heroes who never would've been able to fight crime or save the world in their too-tight leotards, and a ton of other "sluttified" costumes. Thankfully, there were a number of girls who neglected to jump on the HO-lloween bandwagon. They made me feel more comfortable.
Lack of motivation and time, along with some tough personal issues over the past week resulted in my not giving damn about dressing up this year...but I feel embarrassed to say that I have given into the "ok...I'll be ____, but I'm going to need leggings and a low-cut shirt to pull it off." I was one of the three blind mice with two of my other friends Freshman year and wore just that: black leggings and a black, lacy camisole (so...basically a black, skin-tight body suit), and black pumps; of course homemade fuzzy black ears on a headband, a tail, and some generic eye-liner whiskers and lip-stick nose completed the costume. I was so uncomfortable the entire night...I suffered from a stomach ache from constantly feeling as though I had to "suck in" to look good (my two mice counterparts are toothpicks). Sophomore year was more reserved: I was a gypsy, but I piled on makeup and (again) wore a tight, low-cut shirt with my big gypsy skirt, headscarf, and (obviously) black pumps. Halfway through the night I decided I was no longer comfortable and sick and tired to death of feeling exposed; I changed into brown corduroy pants and a white button-down shirt, threw on my brown chuck-taylors, and called myself milk-chocolate. People thought it was a little lame, but as soon as I felt a little more covered I was able to relax. This year, I wore the clothes I'd been wearing all day (jeans, scarf, shirt, cardigan, flats...the staples) and put on some non-prescription glasses that my friend bought from Urban Outfitters over the summer. When people asked what I was, I simply replied "I'm a vegetarian." A lot of people laughed and said "you look like a vegetarian!" to which I wanted to respond, "uh, thank you...? It may or may not be because I am..."
I guess we'll see what next year brings...
Mean Girls Halloween
I took my little brother, Max, trick-or-treating up and down Mifflin Street on Wednesday. I honestly could not believe some of the teenage girls' costumes (I'm talking like, 10 to 13 years old). They were dressed as Disney princesses, but wore the tiny, low-cut versions of the princess' dresses that showed off their boobs and butt cheeks. We trick-or-treated behind a group of middle-school girls and boys...the girls were slutty witches, cats, fairies, or princesses, and the guys were bloody monsters (creative...) As I walked up and down Mifflin Street I really could not believe how young some of the HO-lloweeners were! It's like we've been talking about in class--girls are pressured by media at younger and younger ages to be "the virgin AND the slut" and don't really realize how crazy it is because that's what's popular and gets you noticed. I can't help but wonder what these middle-school girls will be dressing up as in college...I don't know how it could get much worse!
Friday and Saturday nights showcased Juniata girls' hidden abilities to transform even the most innocent of costumes into the most revealing and objectifying. On campus I saw a handful of slutty sailor girls, a few seductive dogs and cats, a number of female super heroes who never would've been able to fight crime or save the world in their too-tight leotards, and a ton of other "sluttified" costumes. Thankfully, there were a number of girls who neglected to jump on the HO-lloween bandwagon. They made me feel more comfortable.
Lack of motivation and time, along with some tough personal issues over the past week resulted in my not giving damn about dressing up this year...but I feel embarrassed to say that I have given into the "ok...I'll be ____, but I'm going to need leggings and a low-cut shirt to pull it off." I was one of the three blind mice with two of my other friends Freshman year and wore just that: black leggings and a black, lacy camisole (so...basically a black, skin-tight body suit), and black pumps; of course homemade fuzzy black ears on a headband, a tail, and some generic eye-liner whiskers and lip-stick nose completed the costume. I was so uncomfortable the entire night...I suffered from a stomach ache from constantly feeling as though I had to "suck in" to look good (my two mice counterparts are toothpicks). Sophomore year was more reserved: I was a gypsy, but I piled on makeup and (again) wore a tight, low-cut shirt with my big gypsy skirt, headscarf, and (obviously) black pumps. Halfway through the night I decided I was no longer comfortable and sick and tired to death of feeling exposed; I changed into brown corduroy pants and a white button-down shirt, threw on my brown chuck-taylors, and called myself milk-chocolate. People thought it was a little lame, but as soon as I felt a little more covered I was able to relax. This year, I wore the clothes I'd been wearing all day (jeans, scarf, shirt, cardigan, flats...the staples) and put on some non-prescription glasses that my friend bought from Urban Outfitters over the summer. When people asked what I was, I simply replied "I'm a vegetarian." A lot of people laughed and said "you look like a vegetarian!" to which I wanted to respond, "uh, thank you...? It may or may not be because I am..."
I guess we'll see what next year brings...
Mean Girls Halloween
Saturday, October 30, 2010
The Agressive Feminine
Our discussion on Thursday centered around the way in which female aggression is defined and portrayed. It was especially interesting to me to revisit a favorite childhood movie--Snow White--and view it in an alternative light. Like the majority of kids who grew up watching Disney movies without a second thought to deeper meaning, I was at first shocked when confronted with the "Disney is sexist" argument (probably sometime in early high school). It's now very interesting for me to consider the argument in context with our current quest to get to the bottom of how femininity (and masculinity) is constructed.
It was great to watch the clips from Snow White and compare the Evil Queen/Stepmother's physical appearance and portrayal of aggression/femininity with Snow White's. The Queen/Stepmother is physically dominant over all around her, even over the Huntsman, whom we might otherwise consider the manliest of men. She is covered from head to toe in dark or black colors and speaks with a very low but powerful voice. These seemingly manly characteristics serve to completely diminish her sexual identity and allow her (a woman) to be villainous. I can't help but think that if her hair, cleavage, shoulders, arms, and/or neck line were visible, her physical appearance would completely prevent her from seeming scary or threatening; she must necessarily be covered to be evil. Someone in class also made the comment that the Queen/Stepmother takes up much more physical space than do any of the other characters...this relates to our society's common perception that a man must be taller than his girlfriend or wife to be seriously masculine (see Amidia's blog!).
Snow White, in stark contrast to the Queen/Stepmother, takes up little space, has a dress that seriously embellishes her tiny waistline, shows much more skin, has a high, girlie voice, and reacts to things in a typically-female way (screams and collapses in desperation when she's scared, giggles and sings to make herself feel better, etc.). Her physical appearance is in no way scary or aggressive. We discussed toward the end of class how ridiculous it is that Snow White apologizes for being upset and losing her composure when she's scared for her life. When you're scared and upset, just sing. Uh...what?!
Unfortunately, I'm like Snow White in this aspect. I always feel I'm at fault for things that aren't really my fault. If, for example, someone charges me too much for something I buy and I don't catch it until a while later, I feel I do not have to right to go back in and negotiate the difference because it's completely my fault for not being attentive enough. If I'm at a restaurant and they bring out the wrong order, I cannot imagine confronting the waiter about it because I must have done something to confuse them. What is wrong with me?!
I also often feel that I can't be upset about things...like I don't have the right to be mad about something. In these situations, I seriously think to myself: I must have done something that created the situation in the first place, so really I should be mad at myself. There's no one to blame for my unhappiness other than me...sorry, sorry, sorry to everyone who's having to be around me when I'm upset and see me at my worst...etc. Crazy! What.the.hell?! I've talked to my mom about this and she says she has the same complex...so how did we get this way? Should we all be angry with Snow White? Why was she created that way? Where did this definition of femininity originate and why is it still so ingrained in everyone? I want to be more like the Queen/Stepmother...!
On a completely different note, I read a few chapters from Natalie Angier's "Woman" and in one part she talks about someone's theory that women subconsciously wear lipstick so that their facial lips will mimic their vaginal lips and consequently sexually attract men. Because humans (especially women) show little physical evidence of sexual arousal compared to other primate species, the lipstick theorist (his name escapes me) says that amplifying the shape and color of the facial lips with lipstick is an outward way of imitating the way the vaginal lips are amplified in shape and color during arousal. Snow White, the Queen/Stepmother, and so many other Disney princesses and female villains wear red lipstick...is everyone just really horny?
It was great to watch the clips from Snow White and compare the Evil Queen/Stepmother's physical appearance and portrayal of aggression/femininity with Snow White's. The Queen/Stepmother is physically dominant over all around her, even over the Huntsman, whom we might otherwise consider the manliest of men. She is covered from head to toe in dark or black colors and speaks with a very low but powerful voice. These seemingly manly characteristics serve to completely diminish her sexual identity and allow her (a woman) to be villainous. I can't help but think that if her hair, cleavage, shoulders, arms, and/or neck line were visible, her physical appearance would completely prevent her from seeming scary or threatening; she must necessarily be covered to be evil. Someone in class also made the comment that the Queen/Stepmother takes up much more physical space than do any of the other characters...this relates to our society's common perception that a man must be taller than his girlfriend or wife to be seriously masculine (see Amidia's blog!).
Snow White, in stark contrast to the Queen/Stepmother, takes up little space, has a dress that seriously embellishes her tiny waistline, shows much more skin, has a high, girlie voice, and reacts to things in a typically-female way (screams and collapses in desperation when she's scared, giggles and sings to make herself feel better, etc.). Her physical appearance is in no way scary or aggressive. We discussed toward the end of class how ridiculous it is that Snow White apologizes for being upset and losing her composure when she's scared for her life. When you're scared and upset, just sing. Uh...what?!
Unfortunately, I'm like Snow White in this aspect. I always feel I'm at fault for things that aren't really my fault. If, for example, someone charges me too much for something I buy and I don't catch it until a while later, I feel I do not have to right to go back in and negotiate the difference because it's completely my fault for not being attentive enough. If I'm at a restaurant and they bring out the wrong order, I cannot imagine confronting the waiter about it because I must have done something to confuse them. What is wrong with me?!
I also often feel that I can't be upset about things...like I don't have the right to be mad about something. In these situations, I seriously think to myself: I must have done something that created the situation in the first place, so really I should be mad at myself. There's no one to blame for my unhappiness other than me...sorry, sorry, sorry to everyone who's having to be around me when I'm upset and see me at my worst...etc. Crazy! What.the.hell?! I've talked to my mom about this and she says she has the same complex...so how did we get this way? Should we all be angry with Snow White? Why was she created that way? Where did this definition of femininity originate and why is it still so ingrained in everyone? I want to be more like the Queen/Stepmother...!
On a completely different note, I read a few chapters from Natalie Angier's "Woman" and in one part she talks about someone's theory that women subconsciously wear lipstick so that their facial lips will mimic their vaginal lips and consequently sexually attract men. Because humans (especially women) show little physical evidence of sexual arousal compared to other primate species, the lipstick theorist (his name escapes me) says that amplifying the shape and color of the facial lips with lipstick is an outward way of imitating the way the vaginal lips are amplified in shape and color during arousal. Snow White, the Queen/Stepmother, and so many other Disney princesses and female villains wear red lipstick...is everyone just really horny?
What a Girl Wants...
Tuesday's video, "What a Girl Wants," was just another reaffirmation that women of all ages are influenced and defined by the media (which is in turn governed by the same old patriarchal ideals we've been discussing). While the video was a bit dated (citing pre-psychotic, childless Britney Spears, tiny teenager Christina Aguliera, pre-Nick Lache/Newlyweds Jessica Simpson, etc.), it was still valuable for our discussions and readings about femininity.
Most of the girls interviewed in the 2001 documentary were between the ages of 10 and 14 (a few younger, a few older); since I was 11/12 in 2001, I found I could easily recall the music videos, movies, fashions, diet fads, commercials, etc. that influenced how girls my age felt, looked, and acted. Like the pre-teens interviewed, I thought nothing of the effects the media had on me and just went along with anything that the popular girls wore or did.
As I finished 6th grade and entered the junior/senior high school as a timid 7th grader in 2001, I quickly learned that being taken seriously as a junior-high girl meant trading in all of my comfortable Nike and Adidas t-shirts and sweatshirts and my generic, baggy jeans or wind-breaker pants (in 6th grade we called them "swishy pants") for bell-bottom jeans that glittered or had flowers in just the right places; my twin sister and I fought every week over whose turn it was to wear a pair of bell-bottoms that was suggestively laced from waist to ankle. As far as puberty and developing hips and boobs, I was a (very) late bloomer and everything happened (very) slowly. Junior high was grueling.
Thank God for twin sisters.
I remember my sister and I obsessing endlessly in front of the mirror over how "boxy" our hips were and how flat-chested we were. I really can't imagine getting through adolescence without her. While all of the popular girls in our class had magically developed in the summer between 6th and 7th grades (or else had taken to wearing padded bras), Sophie and I just...didn't. Our awkward bodies didn't stop us from begging our mom to buy us the latest American Eagle and Aeropostale clothes and sneaking off to buy them and other popular clothing if she refused (I think I bought my first thong in 7th grade because all of the popular girls in my gym class had made fun of my "granny panties" when we were changing). They wore thongs because of Sisqo's "Thong Song" music video and other advertisements that showed girls' thongs pulled up above their jeans...just like in the documentary. I didn't want to be wearing these outrageously uncomfortable underwear or shirts that advertised "hidden" sexual meanings, but I did it because it's what was popular and I saw that the girls who conformed to latest fads (prescribed by media) got the most attention.
Like some of the girls interviewed, I really don't remember being concerned with or thinking about sex at that age. I remember in 8th grade one of my friends told me that her older (9th grade) sister had given a blow job to her boyfriend. I had absolutely no idea what a blow job was, so she told me; all I remember thinking is why on earth would anyone ever put their mouth on that?! You have to swallow WHAT?! It seemed utterly disgusting and made-up to me. Of course my mom had talked to us about sex and I'd had tons of crushes and flings with boys my age who'd kissed me on the cheek, but sex seemed the least of my worries until about 9th grade when I became friends with a senior who spared no detail in telling me all about her sex life. I got a boyfriend in the middle of 9th grade and was overcome with the pressure put on couples that age and expectations that everyone had them.
Bottom-line, I was exactly like the girls in "What a Girl Wants." Even though I knew and felt how unfair it was that molding to media's looks and behaviors determined the amount of attention you got from boys (as well as your status among girls), I still conformed. It seemed impossible not to... programs and advertisements on Mtv and Vh1 forced girls my age to grow up faster... to buy and wear clothes that promoted objectification and act a certain way so that boys were intrigued and attracted and not scared or repulsed. To tell you the truth, I don't think I really stopped conforming until late in high school. Ugh! I wonder who I really was all those years.
Most of the girls interviewed in the 2001 documentary were between the ages of 10 and 14 (a few younger, a few older); since I was 11/12 in 2001, I found I could easily recall the music videos, movies, fashions, diet fads, commercials, etc. that influenced how girls my age felt, looked, and acted. Like the pre-teens interviewed, I thought nothing of the effects the media had on me and just went along with anything that the popular girls wore or did.
As I finished 6th grade and entered the junior/senior high school as a timid 7th grader in 2001, I quickly learned that being taken seriously as a junior-high girl meant trading in all of my comfortable Nike and Adidas t-shirts and sweatshirts and my generic, baggy jeans or wind-breaker pants (in 6th grade we called them "swishy pants") for bell-bottom jeans that glittered or had flowers in just the right places; my twin sister and I fought every week over whose turn it was to wear a pair of bell-bottoms that was suggestively laced from waist to ankle. As far as puberty and developing hips and boobs, I was a (very) late bloomer and everything happened (very) slowly. Junior high was grueling.
Thank God for twin sisters.
I remember my sister and I obsessing endlessly in front of the mirror over how "boxy" our hips were and how flat-chested we were. I really can't imagine getting through adolescence without her. While all of the popular girls in our class had magically developed in the summer between 6th and 7th grades (or else had taken to wearing padded bras), Sophie and I just...didn't. Our awkward bodies didn't stop us from begging our mom to buy us the latest American Eagle and Aeropostale clothes and sneaking off to buy them and other popular clothing if she refused (I think I bought my first thong in 7th grade because all of the popular girls in my gym class had made fun of my "granny panties" when we were changing). They wore thongs because of Sisqo's "Thong Song" music video and other advertisements that showed girls' thongs pulled up above their jeans...just like in the documentary. I didn't want to be wearing these outrageously uncomfortable underwear or shirts that advertised "hidden" sexual meanings, but I did it because it's what was popular and I saw that the girls who conformed to latest fads (prescribed by media) got the most attention.
Like some of the girls interviewed, I really don't remember being concerned with or thinking about sex at that age. I remember in 8th grade one of my friends told me that her older (9th grade) sister had given a blow job to her boyfriend. I had absolutely no idea what a blow job was, so she told me; all I remember thinking is why on earth would anyone ever put their mouth on that?! You have to swallow WHAT?! It seemed utterly disgusting and made-up to me. Of course my mom had talked to us about sex and I'd had tons of crushes and flings with boys my age who'd kissed me on the cheek, but sex seemed the least of my worries until about 9th grade when I became friends with a senior who spared no detail in telling me all about her sex life. I got a boyfriend in the middle of 9th grade and was overcome with the pressure put on couples that age and expectations that everyone had them.
Bottom-line, I was exactly like the girls in "What a Girl Wants." Even though I knew and felt how unfair it was that molding to media's looks and behaviors determined the amount of attention you got from boys (as well as your status among girls), I still conformed. It seemed impossible not to... programs and advertisements on Mtv and Vh1 forced girls my age to grow up faster... to buy and wear clothes that promoted objectification and act a certain way so that boys were intrigued and attracted and not scared or repulsed. To tell you the truth, I don't think I really stopped conforming until late in high school. Ugh! I wonder who I really was all those years.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Give Up on "Man-Up!"
The two recent articles (Newsweek and Washington Post) we were assigned to read went really well with our discussion of masculinity and the idea of dumping the traditional patriarchal definition of "masculine/manly/man" and redefining it in a more contemporary. While women definitely suffer from the patriarchy's definition and expectations of what it means to be a "man" (see previous blog), men do, too!
The patriarchy stuffs men in a box where they are robbed of activities, behaviors, and experiences because they're dubbed too "girly." When it comes to parenting and home life, men are robbed of quality time with (and the general up-bringing of) their children because they are expected to be professionally successful and primarily devoted to the working world instead of their home lives (wife & kids). Women, in turn, suffer from this as well: they're burdened with the conventional work of being good mothers and wives, but are now also burdened with the expectation that they work full-time professional jobs. When it comes down to it, the children of such families are robbed of real parents. It's a lose-lose-lose situation!
Some people are claiming that masculinity is "dead" because women (who are usually single and child-less)are currently and increasingly surpassing men in attending graduate school and securing high-paying jobs in professional fields that were once dominated by men (many women are now teachers, CEOs, soldiers, etc.). Sadly, men remain on top when it comes to "alcoholism, suicide, homelessness, violence, and criminality." That must be kind of discouraging for men; to get them "back on track" (i.e. back in the "box"), America has come up with TV shows (Dirty Jobs, Deadliest Catch, etc.), books (The Dangerous Book for Boys [my little brother has this book!]), and other forms of media that feature rough and tough men who epitomize the patriarchy's traditional definition of masculinity and, in essence, covertly re-teach men how to be..."men." The box seems inescapable!
To combat the problem of "the box," men (and women!) need to work together to redefine "masculinity" by absolutely abandoning past definitions and expanding/redefining the definition to include "household" activities along with the work-world activities. Men should actually be able to actively ENJOY being fathers, right?
With respect to paternity and spousal activities, Sweden knows what's up. Dads (and moms) are given paid paternity (and maternity) leave to promote their roles as parents who are actually present in their childrens' lives. Men in Sweden work less and father more...which has, in time, redefined "masculinity" so that men are competent at raising their children and have more active roles at home. WIN-WIN. The situation seems to be completely reversed: if Swedish men don't stay home on paid paternity leave, they're negatively judged by fellow MEN, as well as by women (employers, co-workers, friends, etc.). It seems like a dream!
Fortunately, some US states are slowly inching toward similar legislation; I think it will be a long, long time until the expectations and norms in the US are reversed like they are in Sweden. Even though men are taking on jobs that were traditionally feminine (nurse, teacher, etc.), they must cover it up by renaming it to sound and make them feel more masculine: ER nurse instead of pediatric nurse, gym teacher instead of English teacher, etc. Language is powerful!
Reading over the evolution of "the man" and looking at the timeline that was passed around in yesterday's class makes me interested to see what "the man" will be in ten years. Hopefully, he's more like his Swedish counterpart.
The patriarchy stuffs men in a box where they are robbed of activities, behaviors, and experiences because they're dubbed too "girly." When it comes to parenting and home life, men are robbed of quality time with (and the general up-bringing of) their children because they are expected to be professionally successful and primarily devoted to the working world instead of their home lives (wife & kids). Women, in turn, suffer from this as well: they're burdened with the conventional work of being good mothers and wives, but are now also burdened with the expectation that they work full-time professional jobs. When it comes down to it, the children of such families are robbed of real parents. It's a lose-lose-lose situation!
Some people are claiming that masculinity is "dead" because women (who are usually single and child-less)are currently and increasingly surpassing men in attending graduate school and securing high-paying jobs in professional fields that were once dominated by men (many women are now teachers, CEOs, soldiers, etc.). Sadly, men remain on top when it comes to "alcoholism, suicide, homelessness, violence, and criminality." That must be kind of discouraging for men; to get them "back on track" (i.e. back in the "box"), America has come up with TV shows (Dirty Jobs, Deadliest Catch, etc.), books (The Dangerous Book for Boys [my little brother has this book!]), and other forms of media that feature rough and tough men who epitomize the patriarchy's traditional definition of masculinity and, in essence, covertly re-teach men how to be..."men." The box seems inescapable!
To combat the problem of "the box," men (and women!) need to work together to redefine "masculinity" by absolutely abandoning past definitions and expanding/redefining the definition to include "household" activities along with the work-world activities. Men should actually be able to actively ENJOY being fathers, right?
With respect to paternity and spousal activities, Sweden knows what's up. Dads (and moms) are given paid paternity (and maternity) leave to promote their roles as parents who are actually present in their childrens' lives. Men in Sweden work less and father more...which has, in time, redefined "masculinity" so that men are competent at raising their children and have more active roles at home. WIN-WIN. The situation seems to be completely reversed: if Swedish men don't stay home on paid paternity leave, they're negatively judged by fellow MEN, as well as by women (employers, co-workers, friends, etc.). It seems like a dream!
Fortunately, some US states are slowly inching toward similar legislation; I think it will be a long, long time until the expectations and norms in the US are reversed like they are in Sweden. Even though men are taking on jobs that were traditionally feminine (nurse, teacher, etc.), they must cover it up by renaming it to sound and make them feel more masculine: ER nurse instead of pediatric nurse, gym teacher instead of English teacher, etc. Language is powerful!
Reading over the evolution of "the man" and looking at the timeline that was passed around in yesterday's class makes me interested to see what "the man" will be in ten years. Hopefully, he's more like his Swedish counterpart.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Boys DO Cry (or should!)
Naturally, I skimmed the assigned masculinity readings and couldn't resist reading Valenti's first...I already know that I've spoiled myself as far as reading and comprehending the rest of the assignments. But she's just SO easy to read...it's more like having a conversation than reading a chapter.
Anyway.
I basically learned from Boys Do Cry that the guys need help from us (women)! It's not news to me that our patriarchal society's gendered prescriptions hurt men, too. But I was thinking, and the definitions of "man" that damage both men and women isn't reversible. Ugh, that's confusing. What I mean is that what it means to be a "woman" doesn't damage both sexes (at least not physically). I suppose it promotes the popularly unfair stereotypes of men and women, which is harmful, but I think men rarely experience physical harm like women do from men. Does that make any sense? It seems obvious enough to me that not all (or not any) men are born to be tough, violent, emotionally-void creatures, but act like this (i.e. put on the "tough guise") because that's what society says they have to do to be seriously considered "manly." And that's where the harm comes from; women are raped, beaten, and exploited by men who're trapped in the "man" box because they (the men) grow up thinking it's the only way to act. Any way you slice it, defeating the patriarchal definitions of "man" and "woman," which is what most feminists desire and advocate, would reap benefits for both men and women...whoever said feminism was anti-male was seriously mistaken.
If a man finds his way out of this box, we all know what he's called: woman, girl, pussy, pansy, etc., because masculinity is defined by whatever isn't feminine. Valenti claims that the only way men can survive this crazy definition of masculinity is if they're 1.) open to feminism and help from women and 2.) if women, particularly radical/revolutionary feminists, have enough trust and faith to let men in on their battle against patriarchy. If change is to come about, younger boys and young adult men need older, wiser mentors who are able to see through the fog of patriarchy's "man" and have broken free from the box.
Another bottom-line: masculinity is a performance! Males properly embody "men" if and only if they act un-girly. It's like they're constantly actors in a play...isn't that tiring?? What really got me about this reading is the discussion about men acting like boys and the resurgence of boyhood as "cool." Since it's no longer cool to be a family man or take on any adult responsibilities, women are screwed. If men stay "boys," their girlfriends and wives become the "mother" figures whose job it is to nag their "boys" and suck the fun out of everything. It's annoying that this is the most recent trend...while women take on the double load of being wife/mother and professional careerist all at the same time, men/"boys" act like children in an adult world (they make money and have sex and personal freedom, but have little if any adult responsibilities). Annoying.
I think that Robert Jensen (whom Valenti quotes on page 196) says it best: "[the system] keeps us from the rich connections with others...that make life meaningful but require vulnerability."
Anyway.
I basically learned from Boys Do Cry that the guys need help from us (women)! It's not news to me that our patriarchal society's gendered prescriptions hurt men, too. But I was thinking, and the definitions of "man" that damage both men and women isn't reversible. Ugh, that's confusing. What I mean is that what it means to be a "woman" doesn't damage both sexes (at least not physically). I suppose it promotes the popularly unfair stereotypes of men and women, which is harmful, but I think men rarely experience physical harm like women do from men. Does that make any sense? It seems obvious enough to me that not all (or not any) men are born to be tough, violent, emotionally-void creatures, but act like this (i.e. put on the "tough guise") because that's what society says they have to do to be seriously considered "manly." And that's where the harm comes from; women are raped, beaten, and exploited by men who're trapped in the "man" box because they (the men) grow up thinking it's the only way to act. Any way you slice it, defeating the patriarchal definitions of "man" and "woman," which is what most feminists desire and advocate, would reap benefits for both men and women...whoever said feminism was anti-male was seriously mistaken.
If a man finds his way out of this box, we all know what he's called: woman, girl, pussy, pansy, etc., because masculinity is defined by whatever isn't feminine. Valenti claims that the only way men can survive this crazy definition of masculinity is if they're 1.) open to feminism and help from women and 2.) if women, particularly radical/revolutionary feminists, have enough trust and faith to let men in on their battle against patriarchy. If change is to come about, younger boys and young adult men need older, wiser mentors who are able to see through the fog of patriarchy's "man" and have broken free from the box.
Another bottom-line: masculinity is a performance! Males properly embody "men" if and only if they act un-girly. It's like they're constantly actors in a play...isn't that tiring?? What really got me about this reading is the discussion about men acting like boys and the resurgence of boyhood as "cool." Since it's no longer cool to be a family man or take on any adult responsibilities, women are screwed. If men stay "boys," their girlfriends and wives become the "mother" figures whose job it is to nag their "boys" and suck the fun out of everything. It's annoying that this is the most recent trend...while women take on the double load of being wife/mother and professional careerist all at the same time, men/"boys" act like children in an adult world (they make money and have sex and personal freedom, but have little if any adult responsibilities). Annoying.
I think that Robert Jensen (whom Valenti quotes on page 196) says it best: "[the system] keeps us from the rich connections with others...that make life meaningful but require vulnerability."
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Tough Guise
I walked out of class on Tuesday and was bothered for the rest of the day by the issues brought up in "Tough Guise." I found the film a little bit hard to sit through (not only because scene after scene was just a shot of Jackson, the narrator, talking, but also) because of then nature of the images shown and the issues being discussed. It's so unfair for men to feel like they have no other choice than to put on this "tough guise" to gain respect and be seen as a "man." It's valuable for everyone to recognize that as much as our patriarchal society controls images of women, it also controls images of men. Men are just as likely to crack under society's and media's pressure to be rough and tough as women are to crack under the same pressures that force us to be dainty and delicate.
I thought the part about "passive language" was very interesting. I'd never really considered the way rape is publicly reported: "She was raped" instead of "he raped her." Huge issue.
The part of the video about the school shootings chilled me. It should be the BIGGEST red flag in the world that 11 and 12 year old boys are committing such atrocities (even though I feel like middle/high school shootings have stopped for now, college shooting seem to be the more recent trend, as with Virginia Tech.). When the various shooters' childhood pictures and yearbook pictures were shown, I couldn't help but think of my little brother, Max, who is only 7 but is no doubt exposed to similar societal expectations of violent, tough-guy masculinity. How can we stop this craziness?!
Howard Stern's rape joke about the attractive female students running out of the Columbine shooting scene infuriated me. I can't even bring myself to blog about it! He is a disgrace to men. Period.
I thought the part about "passive language" was very interesting. I'd never really considered the way rape is publicly reported: "She was raped" instead of "he raped her." Huge issue.
The part of the video about the school shootings chilled me. It should be the BIGGEST red flag in the world that 11 and 12 year old boys are committing such atrocities (even though I feel like middle/high school shootings have stopped for now, college shooting seem to be the more recent trend, as with Virginia Tech.). When the various shooters' childhood pictures and yearbook pictures were shown, I couldn't help but think of my little brother, Max, who is only 7 but is no doubt exposed to similar societal expectations of violent, tough-guy masculinity. How can we stop this craziness?!
Howard Stern's rape joke about the attractive female students running out of the Columbine shooting scene infuriated me. I can't even bring myself to blog about it! He is a disgrace to men. Period.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Care Focused Feminism: Maternal Ethics (are complex!)
In preparing to discuss Tong's Chapter 5: Care Focused Feminism, I concentrated on the Maternal Ethics and the Ethics of Healthcare section. Most of it covered ideas proposed and critiqued by Sara Ruddick, who identified the cultural and biological aspects of mothering. Culturally, both men and women alike can learn how to be "mothers," but men are limited in the biological aspect in that only women can bear children (duh). It is the biological ability, however, that leads to the patriarchal-prescribed idea that all women are born as (and wish to be) mothers. As a result, child-rearing is most frequently perceived as "women's work," the majority of women develop what Ruddick calls "maternal practice" (which is notably different from the "institution of motherhood").
Ruddick stresses that maternal practice should not be trivialized. "Maternal thinking," which is the unity of the reflections, judgments, and emotions involved in maternal practice, is learned (not all women are natural-born mothers, and men can learn to mother in the same way that women can), it is hard work, and it requires special abilities, thoughts, and behaviors. The goal of any mother who practices maternal thinking is to preserve the life of their children, as well as to foster growth (physical/psychological/emotional) and social acceptance.
Ruddick compares the "institution of motherhood" with "maternal practice." The institution of motherhood, which is defined by patriarchal standards, portrays all mothers as female, heterosexual, self-sacrificial, and non-adventurous individuals. Mothers in the institution of motherhood must literally live for and through their children, as they can not (and should not desire to) leave the home. Conversely, maternal practice identifies mothers as those individuals, male or female, who realize the dimensions of theirselves within and beyond their children. Maternal practice mothers successfully preserve the lives, growth, and social acceptability of their children.
As a result of such conflicting ideals, many mothers frequently feel overwhelmed by their maternal duties, while others just have good days and bad. To maintain sanity as a mother preserves her child's life, an individuals needs to balance several virtues, including scrutiny, humility, and cheerfulness. Scrutiny includes adequately surveying the environment for possible dangers, but not so much as to invent dangers in every situation; humility refers to ability of the mother to recognize that s/he cannot protect their child from everything (a scraped knee does not equate immediate death); cheerfullness is virtue one must have to realize that there is always a way to cope with a bad situation.
To ensure the growth of one's child, it is important that a mother not set unrealistic expectations of his/her child. To hlep a child in socializing, it is important to stress social norms, but not in an overly-conforming light. It is important for all mothers in maternal practice to decide when and when not to let their own personal values guide their child-rearing practices, which often means making decisions with their children so that the social values are agreed upon instead of forced upon.
Basically, mothering is the most complex job in the world. Truthfully, reading about the importance of balancing all the virtues involved in preserving life and fostering growth/social acceptance stressed me out! I don't know if I agree with all of this black-and-white, clearly-defined mothering structure. Maybe it becomes more of a natural thing as you encounter each phase of a child's growth. I'm sure when/if I become a mother, I'll experience times where I'd just rather give up...hopefully I'll have Tong's book around to help me find balance ;)
Ruddick stresses that maternal practice should not be trivialized. "Maternal thinking," which is the unity of the reflections, judgments, and emotions involved in maternal practice, is learned (not all women are natural-born mothers, and men can learn to mother in the same way that women can), it is hard work, and it requires special abilities, thoughts, and behaviors. The goal of any mother who practices maternal thinking is to preserve the life of their children, as well as to foster growth (physical/psychological/emotional) and social acceptance.
Ruddick compares the "institution of motherhood" with "maternal practice." The institution of motherhood, which is defined by patriarchal standards, portrays all mothers as female, heterosexual, self-sacrificial, and non-adventurous individuals. Mothers in the institution of motherhood must literally live for and through their children, as they can not (and should not desire to) leave the home. Conversely, maternal practice identifies mothers as those individuals, male or female, who realize the dimensions of theirselves within and beyond their children. Maternal practice mothers successfully preserve the lives, growth, and social acceptability of their children.
As a result of such conflicting ideals, many mothers frequently feel overwhelmed by their maternal duties, while others just have good days and bad. To maintain sanity as a mother preserves her child's life, an individuals needs to balance several virtues, including scrutiny, humility, and cheerfulness. Scrutiny includes adequately surveying the environment for possible dangers, but not so much as to invent dangers in every situation; humility refers to ability of the mother to recognize that s/he cannot protect their child from everything (a scraped knee does not equate immediate death); cheerfullness is virtue one must have to realize that there is always a way to cope with a bad situation.
To ensure the growth of one's child, it is important that a mother not set unrealistic expectations of his/her child. To hlep a child in socializing, it is important to stress social norms, but not in an overly-conforming light. It is important for all mothers in maternal practice to decide when and when not to let their own personal values guide their child-rearing practices, which often means making decisions with their children so that the social values are agreed upon instead of forced upon.
Basically, mothering is the most complex job in the world. Truthfully, reading about the importance of balancing all the virtues involved in preserving life and fostering growth/social acceptance stressed me out! I don't know if I agree with all of this black-and-white, clearly-defined mothering structure. Maybe it becomes more of a natural thing as you encounter each phase of a child's growth. I'm sure when/if I become a mother, I'll experience times where I'd just rather give up...hopefully I'll have Tong's book around to help me find balance ;)
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Thoughts on Tong's Thoughts
So, somehow I managed to read chapter 2 along the way...even though Celia said it wasn't assigned. I think it's my fateful punishment for having half-assed one of the other reading assignments... :X
As a general note, I think Tong succeeds in dividing her chapters into logical sections; chapter 2 was basically divided along the lines of the two "camps" of radical feminism--the radical-libertarian feminists and the radical-cultural feminists--and explains how both schools of thought (although they share a common theory) have multiple conflicts in pursuing their goals.
Radical-libertarian feminists, for example, aim to abolish the concept of "femininity" (mother, wife, subservient counterpart, etc.) to achieve their ultimate goal: androgynous societies (and individuals) that combine the characteristics of both genders.
Radical-cultural feminists, however, encourage women to reject masculinity in favor of a super-duper-femininity (all female, all the time). Radical-cultural feminists want to know why masculinity is the desirable gender trait...why do we want to be equal to men? In a way, I wonder how this is at all liberating to women...if we each harness our own perception of super-duper femininity, I think that'd be great, but we don't. I feel like the majority of women would instead reject masculinity for the femininity that the male patriarchy prescribes. Ick.
Radical feminists claim that societies' prescribed sex/gender roles are the ultimate cause of women's oppression, exploitation, etc. I definitely agree with this...but I guess because feminism and "radical" acts have been done before (when they were revolutionary), I don't necessarily earn the title "radical feminist." I think it's pretty interesting that today's feminists who participate in movements to raise awareness about gender inequality issues would have been considered "radical" in the '60s and '70s, but are no longer seen as such because the movement's not really as much of a revolution anymore...this was discussed in one of our previous readings, I think.
Like Celia, I found the bit about pornography especially fascinating (and frustrating). While some radical-libertarian feminists see pornography as a way for females to control and/or take charge of their own sexualities ("just because a woman wants to explore whether power games are part of what makes sex 'sexy' for her does not mean she wants to serve as an object for male violence in real life" [p. 68]), other radical-cultural feminists see it as disgustingly demeaning; On page 68 Tong outlines radical-culturalists' claims that "there is no difference between gender discrimination against women in the boardroom and the sexual objectification of women in the bedroom." I'm definitely taking the side of the cultural feminists on this one! Pornography skews just about everyone's perception of sex, from how long sex should be to what should be said or what sounds should be made, to what types of clothing/props should be used during the act. Ultimately, I think pornography it demeans women (women demean themselves by acting the way pornography tells us to--silent, victimized, servant/slave, etc.) and also encourages men to act like what they see (rough, aggressive, harmful, etc.). It's disgusting! Sex, at least for our generation, needs to be relearned...
As a general note, I think Tong succeeds in dividing her chapters into logical sections; chapter 2 was basically divided along the lines of the two "camps" of radical feminism--the radical-libertarian feminists and the radical-cultural feminists--and explains how both schools of thought (although they share a common theory) have multiple conflicts in pursuing their goals.
Radical-libertarian feminists, for example, aim to abolish the concept of "femininity" (mother, wife, subservient counterpart, etc.) to achieve their ultimate goal: androgynous societies (and individuals) that combine the characteristics of both genders.
Radical-cultural feminists, however, encourage women to reject masculinity in favor of a super-duper-femininity (all female, all the time). Radical-cultural feminists want to know why masculinity is the desirable gender trait...why do we want to be equal to men? In a way, I wonder how this is at all liberating to women...if we each harness our own perception of super-duper femininity, I think that'd be great, but we don't. I feel like the majority of women would instead reject masculinity for the femininity that the male patriarchy prescribes. Ick.
Radical feminists claim that societies' prescribed sex/gender roles are the ultimate cause of women's oppression, exploitation, etc. I definitely agree with this...but I guess because feminism and "radical" acts have been done before (when they were revolutionary), I don't necessarily earn the title "radical feminist." I think it's pretty interesting that today's feminists who participate in movements to raise awareness about gender inequality issues would have been considered "radical" in the '60s and '70s, but are no longer seen as such because the movement's not really as much of a revolution anymore...this was discussed in one of our previous readings, I think.
Like Celia, I found the bit about pornography especially fascinating (and frustrating). While some radical-libertarian feminists see pornography as a way for females to control and/or take charge of their own sexualities ("just because a woman wants to explore whether power games are part of what makes sex 'sexy' for her does not mean she wants to serve as an object for male violence in real life" [p. 68]), other radical-cultural feminists see it as disgustingly demeaning; On page 68 Tong outlines radical-culturalists' claims that "there is no difference between gender discrimination against women in the boardroom and the sexual objectification of women in the bedroom." I'm definitely taking the side of the cultural feminists on this one! Pornography skews just about everyone's perception of sex, from how long sex should be to what should be said or what sounds should be made, to what types of clothing/props should be used during the act. Ultimately, I think pornography it demeans women (women demean themselves by acting the way pornography tells us to--silent, victimized, servant/slave, etc.) and also encourages men to act like what they see (rough, aggressive, harmful, etc.). It's disgusting! Sex, at least for our generation, needs to be relearned...
Thursday, September 30, 2010
So.
I just spent the last hour or two reading over Valenti's "Pop Culture Gone Wild" and blogging about it...and when I clicked "PUBLISH POST," it took me to a page that said "We're sorry, but we're unable to process your request at this time."
I could cry. Maybe I don't look sexy enough for my blog to be published tonight (I am, in fact, in the cozy computer lab in Good typing away wondering if anyone's on the other end of the creepy built-in camera above my screen...it's probably Mr. Media and he's probably punishing me for researching the ideal femme and refusing to conform (well...it's an impossible ideal, anyway!)) Now I sound crazy. It's just one of those days, I guess.
The blog that is supposed to be in place of this one was kick-ass and really long and involved and I poured my energy into speaking my mind about women's exploitation in advertising and the way in which media (/men) define our sexuality for us (to please themselves), but that we're the ones who in fact act it out and put on shows to get attention. I covered the GGW and Playboy Bunny stuff...how insane it is to put on these shows for 15 minutes of fame so that guys can drool and other girls can hate you. I gave a detailed account of my high school days that were full of girls (even me, sometimes) who "performed" for the guys they wanted to attract. Giggling really loudly at things that weren't funny, changing personalities when a cute guy was within a 20 foot radius, etc. It was a common occurrence for girls to test the limits of the school dress code or break it altogether ... come to think of it...it was more of a game, really (who can wear the shortest skirt/lowest shirt and get away with it?!)
Perform, perform, perform!
Uh, so...I'm really just too pissed off and tired to dredge up some energy and attempt a complete re-blog.
Basically, I didn't read Valenti until after class today and was shocked and somewhat embarrassed that I hadn't because it went so well with the argument I analyzed for my paper.
Bottom lines: sex sells, men define sexy for their own benefit, girls perform and act the way men prescribe in hopes of attracting their attention, it's really hard to win this battle.
Hmph.
I just spent the last hour or two reading over Valenti's "Pop Culture Gone Wild" and blogging about it...and when I clicked "PUBLISH POST," it took me to a page that said "We're sorry, but we're unable to process your request at this time."
I could cry. Maybe I don't look sexy enough for my blog to be published tonight (I am, in fact, in the cozy computer lab in Good typing away wondering if anyone's on the other end of the creepy built-in camera above my screen...it's probably Mr. Media and he's probably punishing me for researching the ideal femme and refusing to conform (well...it's an impossible ideal, anyway!)) Now I sound crazy. It's just one of those days, I guess.
The blog that is supposed to be in place of this one was kick-ass and really long and involved and I poured my energy into speaking my mind about women's exploitation in advertising and the way in which media (/men) define our sexuality for us (to please themselves), but that we're the ones who in fact act it out and put on shows to get attention. I covered the GGW and Playboy Bunny stuff...how insane it is to put on these shows for 15 minutes of fame so that guys can drool and other girls can hate you. I gave a detailed account of my high school days that were full of girls (even me, sometimes) who "performed" for the guys they wanted to attract. Giggling really loudly at things that weren't funny, changing personalities when a cute guy was within a 20 foot radius, etc. It was a common occurrence for girls to test the limits of the school dress code or break it altogether ... come to think of it...it was more of a game, really (who can wear the shortest skirt/lowest shirt and get away with it?!)
Perform, perform, perform!
Uh, so...I'm really just too pissed off and tired to dredge up some energy and attempt a complete re-blog.
Basically, I didn't read Valenti until after class today and was shocked and somewhat embarrassed that I hadn't because it went so well with the argument I analyzed for my paper.
Bottom lines: sex sells, men define sexy for their own benefit, girls perform and act the way men prescribe in hopes of attracting their attention, it's really hard to win this battle.
Hmph.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
The Dolce&Gabbana Woman
Ok, sorry for having not yet blogged about any of last week's readings, but I've been kept fully frustrated analyzing my argument: Madonna's ad campaign for Dolce&Gabbana. While reading various articles about the designers, I found their description of "The Dolce&Gabbana Woman."
What I recently pulled from their website (it's excerpts from the entire description) and am incorporating in my paper follows:
”The Dolce & Gabbana woman is strong: she likes herself and knows she is liked...A woman who indifferently wears extremely sexy or bras that can be seen under sheer clothes...She always wears very high heels which, in any case, give her both an extremely feminine and sexy way of walking and unmistakable posture...She can indifferently be a manager, wife, mother or lover but she is always - and in whatever case - thoroughly a woman.”
Ugh.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Today's Whirlwind of a Class
Today's class left me feeling like I'd gulped way too much coffee in way too little time--and not in a good, oh-wow-I-have-so-much-energy way, but more like the clouded, headache, all-I'd-like-to-do-is-sleep kind of way. I remembered Celia saying on Tuesday that Dr. Widman would be coming in to talk about biopsychology and the like, but I completely forgot.
Admittedly, I was a little grumpy/frustrated (sleepy, mostly) at the beginning of class because I'd woken up early to finish today's assigned readings only to discover that my early-morning scramble was sort of unnecessary. Okay, I suppose the Clatterbaugh reading was pertinent, but I had learned a lot about sociobiology and its controversies in Xinli's Human Nature class last year. In any case, I don't think reading the articles/chapters was a total waste; at least I'll have something more to blog about later :)
What interested me most in class today was:
Reflections on the readings to follow...
Admittedly, I was a little grumpy/frustrated (sleepy, mostly) at the beginning of class because I'd woken up early to finish today's assigned readings only to discover that my early-morning scramble was sort of unnecessary. Okay, I suppose the Clatterbaugh reading was pertinent, but I had learned a lot about sociobiology and its controversies in Xinli's Human Nature class last year. In any case, I don't think reading the articles/chapters was a total waste; at least I'll have something more to blog about later :)
What interested me most in class today was:
- Dr. Widman seems super intelligent in his field. It seems like he loves what he does (both teaching and researching), and that made his lecture all the more enjoyable.
- I appreciated his confidence. Toria (I'm not calling you out, girl!) gave him a run for his money, and their arguments were entertaining, but he held his ground (and so did she, for that matter). Maybe if there hadn't been an issue raised after every sentence Dr. Widman said (semi-frustrating after the first few times), we could've covered more or perhaps covered it in a more organized manner, but that's okay. Like I said, the arguments were entertaining. I'm also grateful that some comedy was added by members of the class and by Celia and Dr. Widman throughout the lecture (i.e. Amidia's comment that skinny, blonde girls are mean because they're hungry) to make light of the moderate tension I (and anyone else?) felt while Toria was arguing with Dr. Widman. I really don't mean to insult Toria, but I just didn't understand why she was so defensive. I didn't feel like Dr. Widman was saying anything too controversial (he seemed very open-minded and all-inclusive [culture counts for something most of the time]) and she just kept arguing. Oh well...
- I liked how Dr. Widman stressed the importance of biology AND culture in shaping an individual's personality. I think professors in certain fields often tend to ignore the importance other fields have one theirs. Basically, everything's a mix!
- I had no idea about all of the differences in brain psychology/biology between males and females (and even homosexual males!) Okay, so rats aren't humans, but that's so interesting! I'd be open to learning more about this.
- I liked the discussion about "attractiveness" with respect to an evolutionary/biological standpoint. That males generally prefer different sizes of women--different hip-to-waist ratios for different purposes (one-night stand vs. marriage)--is crazy to consider. Even the places where women store fat can be attractive or unattractive! I had never really considered this so explicitly. And! Smarter children from fatter-hipped women? So interesting!
Reflections on the readings to follow...
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Peace Is SO Complicated!
I was completely overwhelmed by the Women and Peace reading! I had never before taken time to contemplate anything too serious about the meaning of peace...to me, peace means, well, peace. Ah! It sounds so dull, but before I read (/skimmed :X) The Meaning of Peace for Women, I suppose I equated peace with harmony, happiness, calmness, security, etc.; good feelings generated and felt as a result of nothing bad or violent happening (peace is not conflict/violence). My brain was writhing inside my head attempting to understand the complexity of peace! Positive, negative?! Direct and Indirect violence and the affects each can have on the individual and/or collective levels (micro/macrolevel)?! Unorganized and organized?! Damn, peace is so involved! It seems to me that defining peace would be a life-long process, especially considering the numerous cultural and societal variances that wold need to be taken into account.
I really liked the "Women's Rights are Human Rights" article...reading about everything these women have been fighting for makes me want to give them all huge hugs. I'm so grateful (and often take for granted the fact) that I have never really had to deal with violence against women in a very direct way. I admire the women who fought/fight for women's rights in countries all over the world and feel like I need to go do my part somehow! It's amazing to read about the transformation of women's rights over the past decade, and I couldn't agree more that women's right are human rights! I think that increased public awareness of women's rights and increased education about women's terrible, oppressed, exploited, etc. situations around the world has finally led to the beginnings of a revolution. While change will inevitably come over time, shifting the worldwide perceptions of international women's rights is a work in progress that will only improve as more governments begin following and respecting the demands of the UN and other organization devoted to ending violence against women.
I really liked the "Women's Rights are Human Rights" article...reading about everything these women have been fighting for makes me want to give them all huge hugs. I'm so grateful (and often take for granted the fact) that I have never really had to deal with violence against women in a very direct way. I admire the women who fought/fight for women's rights in countries all over the world and feel like I need to go do my part somehow! It's amazing to read about the transformation of women's rights over the past decade, and I couldn't agree more that women's right are human rights! I think that increased public awareness of women's rights and increased education about women's terrible, oppressed, exploited, etc. situations around the world has finally led to the beginnings of a revolution. While change will inevitably come over time, shifting the worldwide perceptions of international women's rights is a work in progress that will only improve as more governments begin following and respecting the demands of the UN and other organization devoted to ending violence against women.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Hatty & Hooks
I think the Hooks reading has been my favorite so far--as far as explaining and describing feminism, she's found the perfect balance between Valenti's moderately crass, in-your-face style of expression and the hum-drum, professionally written (almost banal) delivery. Her definition of feminism is genderless, which I think is very important. So many women (and men) think that the feminist movement serves to blame all men for oppressing women, and is even "anti-male." But Hooks makes explicit the fact that women can be as sexist and oppressive (towards other women!) as men can be, and that men can be as feminist (and seemingly anti-male) as female feminists! Furthermore, her definition of feminism is ageless. I think our society's "feminist" stereotype encompasses a small range of women, from young adult to middle-aged; from hairy, lesbian, hippie chick to a more traditional wealthy, White woman. In reality, however, I think Hooks sums it up best when she writes, "sexist thinking and action is the problem, whether those who perpetuate it are female or male, child or adult." None of our readings thus far have succeeded in stripping the stereotypical feminist identity so bare.
I found it interesting that reformist feminists, who were primarily concerned with gaining gender equality in the current patriarchy actually came second to the revolutionary feminists, whose anger toward male domination ignited the rebellion and resistance that fed the contemporary women's liberation. The revolutionaries' (justified) anger at gender injustice and their urge to completely transform the current patriarchy put them at odds with the reformists. I hadn't previously considered that within feminism, there were different, often conflicting goals that caused two distinct feminist groups to form. Interestingly enough, Hooks points out that reformist feminism was the only (sub)group that surfaced in public; radical/revolutionary feminism only surfaced in academia. Because reformist feminism was easier to accept for both men and women (feminist or not) and was thus more successful than its radical counterpart, reformist feminists (some who had switched from revolutionary feminism...ouch!) stopped considering revolutionary goals and even wished to silence the revolutionaries. Shockingly, the majority of our society hasn't rejected revolutionary feminism because, in reality, we don't know what it is! It was kept under wraps because reformists began to gain gender equality in the existing patriarchy, and that was good enough...it's like a huge government secret that's kept from the masses.
I love how Hooks says "that there could be as many versions of feminism as there were women," which I think goes well with Valenti's idea that, "at the end of the day, feminism is really something you define yourself." Further, I agree with Hooks' claim that a woman's politics define her degree (if any) of feminism, i.e. "one cannot be anti-choice [pro-life] and be a feminist."
In her closing paragraph (Ch.1), she says that "feminist politics is losing momentum because feminist movement has lost clear definitions," but when did this happen? And how? And why did we let it?
In Hooks' chapter 12 excerpt, I think one of the most valuable points made is that feminist reform is not at the individual level. Male domination and female oppression and exploitation remain alive even when/if individual men stop practicing and supporting the patriarchy and its sexist ideals. Hooks explains the way in which the conservative mass media's stereotypical portrayals of feminists as lesbians and the feminist movement as "anti-male" scare people away (by feeding into preexisting notions of homophobia) and prevent the true goals of the feminist movement from being fulfilled.
It was refreshing when she pointed out the the patriarchy also hurts men by defining rigid sex roles and forcing men to feel as though they have to conform to the "ideal male," who unfortunately dominates women. Patriarchy strips individual males from their true identity because they feel pressure to adopt a sexist, masculine gender identity. Because this pressure, accepting and supporting feminism and the feminist movement became risky for men, who often shy away from standing up for what they believe in (whether it's pro-feminism or not), ultimately fueling the patriarchy fire.
The "men's liberation movement" seems a bit ridiculous; perhaps the men were merely trying to call attention the fact that they felt some (radical) feminists were acting too negatively toward individual men because of their severe generalizations about male domination. I couldn't tell if it was a joke or not!
Lastly, I thought it was important that Hooks emphasized the fact that the feminist theory failed to provide an alternative or better-suited patriarchy and masculinity. In a way, it seems like some feminists in the movement only hated on the current situation and generated no motivating alternatives to end sexism, oppression, and/or exploitation of women.
As we continue discussing the definitions of conflict, violence, and aggression in class, I'll consult the Hatty reading with greater depth (it's soooo long!) and blog about that and our other readings in the days to come :)
I found it interesting that reformist feminists, who were primarily concerned with gaining gender equality in the current patriarchy actually came second to the revolutionary feminists, whose anger toward male domination ignited the rebellion and resistance that fed the contemporary women's liberation. The revolutionaries' (justified) anger at gender injustice and their urge to completely transform the current patriarchy put them at odds with the reformists. I hadn't previously considered that within feminism, there were different, often conflicting goals that caused two distinct feminist groups to form. Interestingly enough, Hooks points out that reformist feminism was the only (sub)group that surfaced in public; radical/revolutionary feminism only surfaced in academia. Because reformist feminism was easier to accept for both men and women (feminist or not) and was thus more successful than its radical counterpart, reformist feminists (some who had switched from revolutionary feminism...ouch!) stopped considering revolutionary goals and even wished to silence the revolutionaries. Shockingly, the majority of our society hasn't rejected revolutionary feminism because, in reality, we don't know what it is! It was kept under wraps because reformists began to gain gender equality in the existing patriarchy, and that was good enough...it's like a huge government secret that's kept from the masses.
I love how Hooks says "that there could be as many versions of feminism as there were women," which I think goes well with Valenti's idea that, "at the end of the day, feminism is really something you define yourself." Further, I agree with Hooks' claim that a woman's politics define her degree (if any) of feminism, i.e. "one cannot be anti-choice [pro-life] and be a feminist."
In her closing paragraph (Ch.1), she says that "feminist politics is losing momentum because feminist movement has lost clear definitions," but when did this happen? And how? And why did we let it?
In Hooks' chapter 12 excerpt, I think one of the most valuable points made is that feminist reform is not at the individual level. Male domination and female oppression and exploitation remain alive even when/if individual men stop practicing and supporting the patriarchy and its sexist ideals. Hooks explains the way in which the conservative mass media's stereotypical portrayals of feminists as lesbians and the feminist movement as "anti-male" scare people away (by feeding into preexisting notions of homophobia) and prevent the true goals of the feminist movement from being fulfilled.
It was refreshing when she pointed out the the patriarchy also hurts men by defining rigid sex roles and forcing men to feel as though they have to conform to the "ideal male," who unfortunately dominates women. Patriarchy strips individual males from their true identity because they feel pressure to adopt a sexist, masculine gender identity. Because this pressure, accepting and supporting feminism and the feminist movement became risky for men, who often shy away from standing up for what they believe in (whether it's pro-feminism or not), ultimately fueling the patriarchy fire.
The "men's liberation movement" seems a bit ridiculous; perhaps the men were merely trying to call attention the fact that they felt some (radical) feminists were acting too negatively toward individual men because of their severe generalizations about male domination. I couldn't tell if it was a joke or not!
Lastly, I thought it was important that Hooks emphasized the fact that the feminist theory failed to provide an alternative or better-suited patriarchy and masculinity. In a way, it seems like some feminists in the movement only hated on the current situation and generated no motivating alternatives to end sexism, oppression, and/or exploitation of women.
Publish Post
As we continue discussing the definitions of conflict, violence, and aggression in class, I'll consult the Hatty reading with greater depth (it's soooo long!) and blog about that and our other readings in the days to come :)
Friday, September 10, 2010
Week 2 Readings & Thursday's Class
Get ready (it's long).
I made the mistake of reading Full Frontal Feminism first. I say mistake because the Valenti reading was probably one of the easiest things I've ever read, which made reading the Connell article only a little more pleasant than reading the dictionary. Jessica Valenti's crass, laid-back, informal writing style made reading this piece more like listening to a conversation (it was a nice break!).
I hadn't previously considered "female/girl" as the ultimate insult, but after reading the first paragraph of Valenti it completely makes sense. And, yeah, that's a little ridiculous. I like to think of myself as a feminist, but (like Valenti says) I don't think of myself as ugly, hairy, or anti-male. I really think "feminism" is defined by the particular feminist contemplating herself and her ideals. In some cases, extreme "feminists" take it to far (in my opinion) and do become unimaginably negative toward men, sex, etc. (isn't that the other side of sexism? Is being anti-male as bad as being anti-female? Uh...yeah. It's just not as common, and some of us tend to view it as a just punishment for men being so damn sexist toward women. That kind of bothers me!)
In any case, I think I'm in the process of figuring out that there's not as much wrong with me as I tend to think (like Valenti says on page 7, "There is nothing wrong with you."), but I'm definitely not quite there yet (I still act/don't act certain ways around certain people because I'm afraid of what they'll think; I still have body image problems because I don't have the "ideal body").
While Valenti curses and uses comedy as a way of holding the readers' attention, I think it's a little overdone. I'm not saying I hated reading it, but by the end I was kind of like, "okay, I get it..." (don't get me wrong, I'd rather read Valenti-type stuff over 15-page PDF or Connell-kind of stuff!)
I do agree that women are afraid of being feminists as a result of their being perceived as ugly or old fashioned or anything else "negative," and that's a shame. The stereotypes that exist about feminists/feminism are unfortunate, like Rush Limbaugh's claim that feminism is only around so that ugly women can gain access to the mainstream of society, and the "rich-whitey" stereotype as a consequence of feminism in the '60's and '70s. The "atrocities" feminism is supposedly accountable for made me laugh. It's ridiculous that feminism is to blame for promoting promiscuity, man-hating, and feminization of men, unfairness to Micheal Jackson, and an increase in the number of women criminals...what?!
Valenti hit the nail on the head on page 13 where she talks about the people (media) who win when we feel like shit about ourselves. I have and imagine I always will struggle with feeling comfortable in my own skin, and so the more products I buy to help cover that up, the more I'm just adding to my own defeat...ugh. We covered this aspect of gender as a social structre (industry/media influence, as well as how products and ideals are represented) in class on Tuesday.
Eek, I had a ton to say about Valenti...but won't have as much to say about Connell. Sure, it was a valuable read...but so dry compared to Valenti. I did find the assumption of the gender/sex dichotomy interesting, "two types of bodies...sharply distinct from each other--indeed apposed to each other." It's so funny to take a minute and think about how weird it is that we as humans (generally) group ourselves into only two, opposite sexes and genders when there are literally millions of differend kinds of bodies/personalities/genders out there. It was also strange to consider how Western culture grossly amplifies the relatively minor physical differences between the human sexes (relative to all other mammals/animals/plants)...we're not as poorly matched as I'd previously thought.
We talked a bit in class on Thursday about body reflective practice, which is discussed in Connell's reading. I'd never (so directly) considered the way our bodies are physically and socially constructed. The dieting, plastsic surgery, and gendered decoration didn't really surprise me, but reading about the reasons behind women's increased life expectancy really shocked me. Men's bodies (in general) are physically tried past their thresholds because men are expected to "suck it up" when it comes to hard work and pain; they're also less likely to visit the doctor for any ailments. Otherwise, they'd be sissies (girls! Valenti would be so pissed at me!).
The section about Identities went in one ear and out the other. I'd heard a lot of the theories (Freud/Erikson) in psychology, but not as focused on gender identities. I'm not sure if I agree with Stoller's veiws on identity--there's no way that I had the basis of my personality when I was two or three. I think my personality developed in adolescence and is constantly changing back and forth from situation to situation and day to day (will it ever stop?!) I do, however, like how Stoller views gender identity as only one aspect of a person--not as a whole like Erikson did--and how it's important to understand other various identities (racial, generational, class, etc.) before one attempts to understand gender identity.
I was floored/confused by the Lorber (1994) calculations that there are "five sexes (based on genitalia), three sexual orientations, five gender displays, six types of relationships, and ten self-identifications."
The Sexualities section was interesting to me, especially when Western ideals of homosexuality were compared to medieval and early modern European society and the Javanese waria.
Since a lot of this article confused me (perhaps merely bored me after reading Full Frontal Feminism), I'm looking forward to discussing it's concepts and terms in more depth in upcoming classes. In any case, I think I get the jist :)
I made the mistake of reading Full Frontal Feminism first. I say mistake because the Valenti reading was probably one of the easiest things I've ever read, which made reading the Connell article only a little more pleasant than reading the dictionary. Jessica Valenti's crass, laid-back, informal writing style made reading this piece more like listening to a conversation (it was a nice break!).
I hadn't previously considered "female/girl" as the ultimate insult, but after reading the first paragraph of Valenti it completely makes sense. And, yeah, that's a little ridiculous. I like to think of myself as a feminist, but (like Valenti says) I don't think of myself as ugly, hairy, or anti-male. I really think "feminism" is defined by the particular feminist contemplating herself and her ideals. In some cases, extreme "feminists" take it to far (in my opinion) and do become unimaginably negative toward men, sex, etc. (isn't that the other side of sexism? Is being anti-male as bad as being anti-female? Uh...yeah. It's just not as common, and some of us tend to view it as a just punishment for men being so damn sexist toward women. That kind of bothers me!)
In any case, I think I'm in the process of figuring out that there's not as much wrong with me as I tend to think (like Valenti says on page 7, "There is nothing wrong with you."), but I'm definitely not quite there yet (I still act/don't act certain ways around certain people because I'm afraid of what they'll think; I still have body image problems because I don't have the "ideal body").
While Valenti curses and uses comedy as a way of holding the readers' attention, I think it's a little overdone. I'm not saying I hated reading it, but by the end I was kind of like, "okay, I get it..." (don't get me wrong, I'd rather read Valenti-type stuff over 15-page PDF or Connell-kind of stuff!)
I do agree that women are afraid of being feminists as a result of their being perceived as ugly or old fashioned or anything else "negative," and that's a shame. The stereotypes that exist about feminists/feminism are unfortunate, like Rush Limbaugh's claim that feminism is only around so that ugly women can gain access to the mainstream of society, and the "rich-whitey" stereotype as a consequence of feminism in the '60's and '70s. The "atrocities" feminism is supposedly accountable for made me laugh. It's ridiculous that feminism is to blame for promoting promiscuity, man-hating, and feminization of men, unfairness to Micheal Jackson, and an increase in the number of women criminals...what?!
Valenti hit the nail on the head on page 13 where she talks about the people (media) who win when we feel like shit about ourselves. I have and imagine I always will struggle with feeling comfortable in my own skin, and so the more products I buy to help cover that up, the more I'm just adding to my own defeat...ugh. We covered this aspect of gender as a social structre (industry/media influence, as well as how products and ideals are represented) in class on Tuesday.
Eek, I had a ton to say about Valenti...but won't have as much to say about Connell. Sure, it was a valuable read...but so dry compared to Valenti. I did find the assumption of the gender/sex dichotomy interesting, "two types of bodies...sharply distinct from each other--indeed apposed to each other." It's so funny to take a minute and think about how weird it is that we as humans (generally) group ourselves into only two, opposite sexes and genders when there are literally millions of differend kinds of bodies/personalities/genders out there. It was also strange to consider how Western culture grossly amplifies the relatively minor physical differences between the human sexes (relative to all other mammals/animals/plants)...we're not as poorly matched as I'd previously thought.
We talked a bit in class on Thursday about body reflective practice, which is discussed in Connell's reading. I'd never (so directly) considered the way our bodies are physically and socially constructed. The dieting, plastsic surgery, and gendered decoration didn't really surprise me, but reading about the reasons behind women's increased life expectancy really shocked me. Men's bodies (in general) are physically tried past their thresholds because men are expected to "suck it up" when it comes to hard work and pain; they're also less likely to visit the doctor for any ailments. Otherwise, they'd be sissies (girls! Valenti would be so pissed at me!).
The section about Identities went in one ear and out the other. I'd heard a lot of the theories (Freud/Erikson) in psychology, but not as focused on gender identities. I'm not sure if I agree with Stoller's veiws on identity--there's no way that I had the basis of my personality when I was two or three. I think my personality developed in adolescence and is constantly changing back and forth from situation to situation and day to day (will it ever stop?!) I do, however, like how Stoller views gender identity as only one aspect of a person--not as a whole like Erikson did--and how it's important to understand other various identities (racial, generational, class, etc.) before one attempts to understand gender identity.
I was floored/confused by the Lorber (1994) calculations that there are "five sexes (based on genitalia), three sexual orientations, five gender displays, six types of relationships, and ten self-identifications."
The Sexualities section was interesting to me, especially when Western ideals of homosexuality were compared to medieval and early modern European society and the Javanese waria.
Since a lot of this article confused me (perhaps merely bored me after reading Full Frontal Feminism), I'm looking forward to discussing it's concepts and terms in more depth in upcoming classes. In any case, I think I get the jist :)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)