http://www.newsweek.com/id/236384
In the present day Queer movement, same sex marriage remains one of the key struggles that activists battle in the movement-and so is same sex divorce. In the article The Right to Love- and Loss, Eve Conant (1989) claims that while same sex couples are struggling with the right to marry they are also struggling with the right to divorce. In terms of marriage, only a handful of the civil states legally recognize same sex marriage. When divorce comes into play the statistics are about the same or less. While the struggle for same sex marriage is a hardship among same sex couples, same sex divorce presents even more hardships for same sex couples that decide to separate. I argue that same sex marriage-and divorce-is challenged due to the fact that the history behind the traditional marriage intended between a man and a woman is at the root of the many struggles that same sex couples face in marriage and divorce.
Conant (1989) discusses the issue that a lesbian couple in Dallas, Texas is facing in receiving a divorce. Since the state of Texas does not recognize same sex marriage as a legal status, the state will not grant the couple a divorce. Since the couple married in Massachusetts, the state argued that they would have to move back to Massachusetts to receive a divorce. This presented a dilemma because the couple had established themselves in Texas and to move would have been costly and unnecessary. Also, for them to receive a divorce in the state of Massachusetts, they would have to be residents of the state for al least six months (Conant 1989).
Same sex marriage as become one the most politically charged issues within our country. As the opponent side of same sex marriage argues, marriage is traditionally meant for a man and a woman. Looking at history, one cannot deny that marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman. However, this can, and should, be analyzed and explored to further understand the reasoning and purpose of a traditional marriage being defined between a man and a woman. I propose the question as to why is it traditional for marriage to be between a man and a woman. From what I understand, much of it rests on the socialization of gender roles within our society.
In her article, Since When is Marriage a Path to Liberation, Paula Ettelbrick (1989) states that the institution of marriage is “one of the most vulnerable, impenetrable institutions in modern society,” (Ettelbrick 1989: 305). She goes on to claim that marriage is an institution that gives those who marry a powerful status. However, it is important to realize that the institution of marriage is embedded deep within a patriarchal system. Ettelbrick (1989) describes it as a system where men are given power over women and women are the property of men (Ettelbrick 1989: 306). Women are forced into a subservient role as wife and mother while men are granted power and control over them. It is for these reasons that Ettelbrick (1989) challenges the notion that marriage is liberating and denotes that same sex marriage will solve all of the problems that same sex couples face.
Ettelbrick (1989) offers valid points in her argument. For one, marriage is deeply rooted within the patriarchal system. As tradition has it, the man is suppose to propose to the woman and the father of bride is suppose to give her to the husband at the wedding. Ideally, the wife should seek to bear children and then become a stay at home parent, while the husband maintains a job and it titled as the head of the household. Same sex marriage challenges this system established upon gender roles and forces society to rethink the function gender roles play in our society. Based on these notions, I can understand Ettelbrick’s argument that marriage is not liberating after all.
While Ettelbrick (1989) makes a good argument against marriage, I argue that for same sex couples, it can be liberating, whether it be in marriage or divorce. As it stands, same sex couples are denied many of the rights and protections that are established and offered to opposite sex couples. For example, opposite sex couples that are married are given tax incentives, both by the state and federal governments and can file jointly. They can receive their partner’s social security, pension, and have visitation rights for hospital visits. Same sex couples are not offered this protection. Divorce can be just as messy. In a divorce, same sex couples experience hardships when it comes to dividing assets and tax consequences are very high, all because they do not enjoy the protections established under marriage (Conant 2010).
Based on the stated facts, it is hard to completely agree with Ettelbrick (1989). Her view that marriage is nothing more than a product of the heterosexist and patriarch system is understandable and recognizable. It is valid to rally for a move to oppose marriage. Yet, one cannot deny the many protections and rights that same sex couples would gain in a marriage and in divorce.
Another issue that traditional marriage proposes to same sex marriage is child rearing. Many believe that child rearing should be done only in a marriage that is between a man and a woman. Once again, gender roles can be said to play a major role in this ideology. Women are supposed to be the caretakers of children, not men. There are also false beliefs that if same sex couples are allowed to raise children, that the children will turn out “gay” and abnormal. Statistics and studies show that this is not the case and that children raised by same sex couples are just as normal as children raised in a traditional marriage. Same sex marriage challenges the establishment of children rearing between man and woman. As Nancy Naples (2004) states in her article Queer Parenting in the New Millennium, queer parenting challenges the heteronormativity of child rearing by heterosexual couples.
I also think of the two alumnae who came to visit Colgate recently. Yana Kadiysha and Jennifer M. Colon are self identified lesbians and mothers of two young healthy boys. In a Brown Bag, they discussed the challenges and hardships, as well as the triumphs that they faced as lesbian mothers in America. Throughout their talk, it was clear that they were breaking down the many barriers of heteronormativity and traditional marriage. However, they were more focused on whether or not the young two year old needed his diaper changed.
As the struggle for same sex marriage-and divorce rights continues, it will be interesting to see how the traditional marriage is challenged and disfigured. While I do agree that marriage is a hetero-normative institution, it cannot be denied that it offers great status and privilege to couples. Instead of denying the institution all together, I believe that the movement should work to reform it through challenging the traditional heteronormativity. It is clear that the institution has its inherent flaws. However, as established earlier, there is much to be gained.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Newsflash: Porn, Good for Us?
Would you agree with a person who told you pornography is good for us? Well after reading Milton Diamond’s "Porn: Good for us?" in The Scientist, you might question your original beliefs about porn. Diamond’s article examines the common beliefs “that ready access to pornography disrupts social order, encouraging people to commit rape, sexual assault, and other sex-related crimes. And even if pornography doesn’t trigger a crime…it contributes to the degradation of women.” However, even though the social research is purported to show evidence for the “goodness” in porn, the degradation and objectification of women overrides these findings.
Diamond throughout his article tears a part many of the common assumptions regarding the porn industry. To demystify the belief that watching porn leads to violence, especially since many of the videos and movies show violent acts, Diamond counters by saying some believe watching porn is a way to satisfy sexual arousal, thus becomes an alternative to sexual aggression. All of the studies that analyzed the correlation between porn and sex crimes have found that an increase in availability of porn corresponds to decreased or constant levels of sex crimes. This holds up in studies in Denmark, Sweden, Japan, Finland, the Czech Republic, and the United States. Another interesting finding is that rapists and child molesters, when compared to a group of “normal” males, use less porn; which is a surprise because some rapists and molesters recreate a fantasy and act in a similar fashion. Finally, Diamond cites that “calloused attitudes toward women” do not correlate to one’s exposure to porn. The whole article is brought together at the end, when Diamond mentions that there is no evidence supporting the claims that porn causes the above behaviors made by women’s shelters and other venues.
Levy’s Female Chauvinist Pigs is the perfect starting point for providing evidence to Diamond’s contrary. One of the strongest points Levy makes in her book occurs early on, “How is resurrecting every stereotype of female sexuality that feminism endeavored to banish good for women?” (Levy, pg4) This quote directly relates to porn and the broader category of raunch culture, in which it falls, because porn is basically female performance of sexuality for the pleasure of men. In addition, raunch culture is the mainstream appearance of women exposing their bodies in order to gain some type of liberation and confidence. Many women cite empowerment, gaining approval, and desire not to be excluded as reasons they participate in something so demeaning to their sex. Levy goes on to say that "it is not enough to be [a] successful, rich and accomplished" woman anymore (pg33). Even if women believe they are showing how confident they are in their own skin, they are actually neutralizing the talent and power they possess. This is further supported by the fame women get when they pose in Playboy or other magazines aimed at men’s pleasure. Amanda Beard is now more popular for her center page spread, than her swimming abilities. Is this what women have come to in order to get similar attention as men do without exposing their downstairs? Women are basically being encouraged to transform themselves into what mainstream society wants, instead of being themselves.
The fact that the sexual revolution, also known as raunch culture, coincided with the women’s liberation is interesting because both movements were fighting to liberate woman, but did so in conflicting ways. Feminists used tactics that didn’t involve using the female body for the pleasure of men, while those involved in the sexual revolution took full advantage of a naked woman. They believe this revolution displays their freedom; they are able to do whatever they desire with their bodies. One of the initial goals of women’s liberation was advancing “women’s sexual pleasure and satisfaction” (Levy, pg54) , which brought a completely different perspective to the 2nd wave of feminism and allowed Hugh Hefner to use them to create the sexual revolution, a movement that “seemed to apply only to men” (Levy, pg58). Hefner’s influence was greatly felt as a fraction in the women’s liberation movement formed; anti-porn vs. the freedom to look at or partake in porn. Even though the feminism movement became torn, there was still strong support against the porn industry because of how it simplifies a woman into what she will do for man’s attention.
The statement porn decreases rape and other sexual assaults against women is alarming. Rape culture, a culture in which rape and other forms of violence against women are common and tolerated, as well as involving the presence of images depicting sex and violence, is a major issue affecting our society today. Today’s advertising uses scenes that show a woman being gang raped or her crotch positioned directly over a target. How do these images represent anything besides violence against women? Any porn video would easy display similar scenes and ideas involving aggressive and violent actions towards. The fact that rape has decreased ever since porn has invaded our country is skeptical. Rape is one of the hardest crimes to convict, if not the hardest, because it typically involves the victim’s story vs. her/his attacker’s. The conviction rates for this crime are awful, thus many women these days feel that the pain and embarrassment that coincides with reporting a rape is not worth it. Thus, Diamond’s statement that porn is good for us is debatable on this aspect as well.
The participation by women in porn, whether watching or flaunting their naked bodies, has allowed the porn industry to become as profitable as it is nowadays: it even “makes more than the top technology companies combined, including Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Amazon.” Thus, porn is more of a part of mainstream culture than many would think. Furthermore, 9.4 million women logged onto porn websites in one month alone. This is alarming because we cannot say that men are the only ones to blame for the existence of porn, women are fueling this industry’s existence as well. The involvement of women watching porn on such high levels brings in the topic of patriarchy because one’s identity is defined through this system. Therefore, porn is considered acceptable to all women, despite only a fraction of us participating in objectifying our sex. Even though many women disagree about what porn represents, they still take part, further supporting the inferiority of women. As Allan G. Johnson points out in “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us,” in order to change the way porn shapes our society, we have to first acknowledge that it exists, which can be hard since we are used to porn being a part of our culture.
Other critics of porn could reside in the middle by considering the context in which porn is viewed. Some couples or individuals watch porn—maybe not the violent type—to get aroused. However, others view it to get themselves aroused in order to rape or degrade women because believe women are inferior objects used for whatever a man desires. Furthermore, porn that involves violent acts against women, whether it is watched only to excite or as a stepping stone to rape, is wrong no matter the reason. Even though this stance takes elements of both anti-porn and pro-porn, this position still agrees with pro-porn advocates roughly half the time, thus is considering the context even a justification for participating in an industry so demeaning to women?
Even the thought of porn being good for society should immediately raise eyebrows. Some may find Diamond’s evidence convincing, but the evidence he provides does not acknowledge the extent of porn’s impact on the objectification of women, the role of a man in creating the sexual revolution, the commonplace of porn in today’s society as shown through advertising, or the role patriarchy plays in accepting it. Until supporters of porn consider the above aspects, there is no way watching women participate in sexual exploitation for the sole purpose of male pleasure is good for society!
Diamond throughout his article tears a part many of the common assumptions regarding the porn industry. To demystify the belief that watching porn leads to violence, especially since many of the videos and movies show violent acts, Diamond counters by saying some believe watching porn is a way to satisfy sexual arousal, thus becomes an alternative to sexual aggression. All of the studies that analyzed the correlation between porn and sex crimes have found that an increase in availability of porn corresponds to decreased or constant levels of sex crimes. This holds up in studies in Denmark, Sweden, Japan, Finland, the Czech Republic, and the United States. Another interesting finding is that rapists and child molesters, when compared to a group of “normal” males, use less porn; which is a surprise because some rapists and molesters recreate a fantasy and act in a similar fashion. Finally, Diamond cites that “calloused attitudes toward women” do not correlate to one’s exposure to porn. The whole article is brought together at the end, when Diamond mentions that there is no evidence supporting the claims that porn causes the above behaviors made by women’s shelters and other venues.
Levy’s Female Chauvinist Pigs is the perfect starting point for providing evidence to Diamond’s contrary. One of the strongest points Levy makes in her book occurs early on, “How is resurrecting every stereotype of female sexuality that feminism endeavored to banish good for women?” (Levy, pg4) This quote directly relates to porn and the broader category of raunch culture, in which it falls, because porn is basically female performance of sexuality for the pleasure of men. In addition, raunch culture is the mainstream appearance of women exposing their bodies in order to gain some type of liberation and confidence. Many women cite empowerment, gaining approval, and desire not to be excluded as reasons they participate in something so demeaning to their sex. Levy goes on to say that "it is not enough to be [a] successful, rich and accomplished" woman anymore (pg33). Even if women believe they are showing how confident they are in their own skin, they are actually neutralizing the talent and power they possess. This is further supported by the fame women get when they pose in Playboy or other magazines aimed at men’s pleasure. Amanda Beard is now more popular for her center page spread, than her swimming abilities. Is this what women have come to in order to get similar attention as men do without exposing their downstairs? Women are basically being encouraged to transform themselves into what mainstream society wants, instead of being themselves.
The fact that the sexual revolution, also known as raunch culture, coincided with the women’s liberation is interesting because both movements were fighting to liberate woman, but did so in conflicting ways. Feminists used tactics that didn’t involve using the female body for the pleasure of men, while those involved in the sexual revolution took full advantage of a naked woman. They believe this revolution displays their freedom; they are able to do whatever they desire with their bodies. One of the initial goals of women’s liberation was advancing “women’s sexual pleasure and satisfaction” (Levy, pg54) , which brought a completely different perspective to the 2nd wave of feminism and allowed Hugh Hefner to use them to create the sexual revolution, a movement that “seemed to apply only to men” (Levy, pg58). Hefner’s influence was greatly felt as a fraction in the women’s liberation movement formed; anti-porn vs. the freedom to look at or partake in porn. Even though the feminism movement became torn, there was still strong support against the porn industry because of how it simplifies a woman into what she will do for man’s attention.
The statement porn decreases rape and other sexual assaults against women is alarming. Rape culture, a culture in which rape and other forms of violence against women are common and tolerated, as well as involving the presence of images depicting sex and violence, is a major issue affecting our society today. Today’s advertising uses scenes that show a woman being gang raped or her crotch positioned directly over a target. How do these images represent anything besides violence against women? Any porn video would easy display similar scenes and ideas involving aggressive and violent actions towards. The fact that rape has decreased ever since porn has invaded our country is skeptical. Rape is one of the hardest crimes to convict, if not the hardest, because it typically involves the victim’s story vs. her/his attacker’s. The conviction rates for this crime are awful, thus many women these days feel that the pain and embarrassment that coincides with reporting a rape is not worth it. Thus, Diamond’s statement that porn is good for us is debatable on this aspect as well.
The participation by women in porn, whether watching or flaunting their naked bodies, has allowed the porn industry to become as profitable as it is nowadays: it even “makes more than the top technology companies combined, including Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Amazon.” Thus, porn is more of a part of mainstream culture than many would think. Furthermore, 9.4 million women logged onto porn websites in one month alone. This is alarming because we cannot say that men are the only ones to blame for the existence of porn, women are fueling this industry’s existence as well. The involvement of women watching porn on such high levels brings in the topic of patriarchy because one’s identity is defined through this system. Therefore, porn is considered acceptable to all women, despite only a fraction of us participating in objectifying our sex. Even though many women disagree about what porn represents, they still take part, further supporting the inferiority of women. As Allan G. Johnson points out in “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us,” in order to change the way porn shapes our society, we have to first acknowledge that it exists, which can be hard since we are used to porn being a part of our culture.
Other critics of porn could reside in the middle by considering the context in which porn is viewed. Some couples or individuals watch porn—maybe not the violent type—to get aroused. However, others view it to get themselves aroused in order to rape or degrade women because believe women are inferior objects used for whatever a man desires. Furthermore, porn that involves violent acts against women, whether it is watched only to excite or as a stepping stone to rape, is wrong no matter the reason. Even though this stance takes elements of both anti-porn and pro-porn, this position still agrees with pro-porn advocates roughly half the time, thus is considering the context even a justification for participating in an industry so demeaning to women?
Even the thought of porn being good for society should immediately raise eyebrows. Some may find Diamond’s evidence convincing, but the evidence he provides does not acknowledge the extent of porn’s impact on the objectification of women, the role of a man in creating the sexual revolution, the commonplace of porn in today’s society as shown through advertising, or the role patriarchy plays in accepting it. Until supporters of porn consider the above aspects, there is no way watching women participate in sexual exploitation for the sole purpose of male pleasure is good for society!
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Anti - Choice
No matter what the context, abortion is always a touchy subject. You always have those who are extreme pro - choice, extreme pro - life, or the people that are wavering in the middle. Various laws have been passed throughout history that have either legalized abortion or put some type of restriction on it. The article we read for today was about strong anti - abortion laws being put into place in Nebraska. In my opinion these laws that are being proposed are completely ridiculous. Im not sure what all goes through the mind of a woman that is getting an abortion, but I assume that they are probably confused and might not be completely certain about their decision. The laws that are being proposed would require doctors to give the women an evaluation about their mental health and decide wheter or not the women could undergo the abortion. Basically the doctors are boing forced to persuade the women into not gettin the abortions done. If nebraska is going to have abortion clinics I think it is absolutely ridiculous that they are forcing the doctors to persuade their clients into not going through with the act. In no way whatsoever am I rooting for abortion right now, but I also don't think its right that the doctors would try to influence their clients.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
On Ehrenreich and Critenden
Reading Barbara Ehrenreich's and Ann Critenden's articles were very informative and educated me on the struggles that women still endure in the labor market and in domestic life. Ehrenreich's article discussed the issue of domestic work being attributed to women. I found it interesting when she stated that it was belief that housework was a relationship between a man and a woman. I attribute this belief and stereotype to the fact that women are often seen as inferior to men and that they are often viewed as being incapable to to the jobs that are assigned to men. Thus, they are forced into domestic life to clean and care for home and family.
Critenden's article discussed the financial burden that was placed on women who were housewives and mothers. Interestingly enough, I found it intriguing how the whole family was affected and not just women in particular. If a wife was to leave her job and take care of the children as a housewife, the whole family would lose a considerable amount of income-the mommy tax. This can have burdening effects of the financial future of families.
One thing that I wished both authors would have gone into further detail about is how all of this really affects women within socioeconomic statuses. They touched briefly on it, but I think that if there was a more in depth analysis, then lines of comparison could have been drawn and we could more clearly see how women, particularly of the lower and working classes, are heavily burdened with the responsibilities of being a mother and maid/housewife.
Critenden's article discussed the financial burden that was placed on women who were housewives and mothers. Interestingly enough, I found it intriguing how the whole family was affected and not just women in particular. If a wife was to leave her job and take care of the children as a housewife, the whole family would lose a considerable amount of income-the mommy tax. This can have burdening effects of the financial future of families.
One thing that I wished both authors would have gone into further detail about is how all of this really affects women within socioeconomic statuses. They touched briefly on it, but I think that if there was a more in depth analysis, then lines of comparison could have been drawn and we could more clearly see how women, particularly of the lower and working classes, are heavily burdened with the responsibilities of being a mother and maid/housewife.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Marriage For All
Despite being written over 20 years ago, Ettelbrick’s “Since When is Marriage a Path to Liberation?” brings up a couple good points about this “institution.” I thought her strongest points were that marriage will “force our assimilation into the mainstream” and it further provides distinctions “between those who are married and those who are not married.” These points struck me because marriage is the traditional thing to do in order to begin a family. However, maybe this will change since our society’s divorce rates are increasing and less people are married overall. The second point was the most interesting because they are really a lot of differences when a couple who is married and one who has been together just as long, but hasn’t tied the knot yet. Why does our society see the need for a couple to go through this institution in order to get these benefits? Maybe we are trying to create relationships in which people are committed to each other. Ettelbrick stated that “gay liberation is inexorable linked to women’s liberation. Each is essential to the other.” This statement caught my attention as well, but I am still a bit confused as to all of the connections. I understand that women in our society are not yet equals to men and maybe Ettelbrick is trying to say that our society can kill two birds with one stone in the sense that if women gain more equality than people’s minds will be more open to gays as well.
Moving on to Naples’ “Queer Parenting in the New Millennium.” I was surprised to read that her partner and Naples picked a lesbian nurse midwife that worked in a Catholic Hospital. I always thought that Catholics and other religious groups were very anti-gay, so this point seemed a bit out of the ordinary. I was also shocked to learn about the process Naples would have to go through in order to adopt her partner’s child. No matter the sex and identity of a couple, if they want to raise a child in a healthy environment, all power to them. Where do people in our society feel the right to restrict what others can and cannot do? Every couple should be able to receive the same benefits after they get married or live together for a set period of time. It should not matter whether they are hetero- or homosexual.
Lastly, the FAQs about Same Sex Marriage mentioned many differences between marriage and civil union that I did not know existed. Basically, civil unions are a label and do not offer those have them really any extra benefits. The list of what same-sex couples lose out on because they can’t get married was appalling. They should have the right to everything on that list.
These articles were very eye-opening. I never considered that same-sex couples lose out on a lot of benefits that heterosexual couples take for granted! I think anti-gay groups should be exposed to information like this because is it really worth they fights to prevent citizens of our country from having benefits that others already have?
Moving on to Naples’ “Queer Parenting in the New Millennium.” I was surprised to read that her partner and Naples picked a lesbian nurse midwife that worked in a Catholic Hospital. I always thought that Catholics and other religious groups were very anti-gay, so this point seemed a bit out of the ordinary. I was also shocked to learn about the process Naples would have to go through in order to adopt her partner’s child. No matter the sex and identity of a couple, if they want to raise a child in a healthy environment, all power to them. Where do people in our society feel the right to restrict what others can and cannot do? Every couple should be able to receive the same benefits after they get married or live together for a set period of time. It should not matter whether they are hetero- or homosexual.
Lastly, the FAQs about Same Sex Marriage mentioned many differences between marriage and civil union that I did not know existed. Basically, civil unions are a label and do not offer those have them really any extra benefits. The list of what same-sex couples lose out on because they can’t get married was appalling. They should have the right to everything on that list.
These articles were very eye-opening. I never considered that same-sex couples lose out on a lot of benefits that heterosexual couples take for granted! I think anti-gay groups should be exposed to information like this because is it really worth they fights to prevent citizens of our country from having benefits that others already have?
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Various crimes for various reasons
I don't think I have ever heard of supremacy crimes before reading Steinem's article. At first I thought that this article was going to just be about bashing males and their "tendancy towards aggression", but I was happy (not happy that these events actually occured) to see that statistics about women and men of color were also thrown into the article. I find it interesting that she goes further than just the history of the people who commit the crime, and tries to see the social constructs that may have led them to committing these crimes. I would have to agree that many men do seem to have a superiority complex when it comes to interacting with women and other men, but this may just be from my own experiences.
I don't have a lot of knowledge on different crimes besides what I have seen on tv shows like csi or law and order, or the occasional cold case. While I know that these situations aren't based on a true story, many of the crimes are described as being crimes of power. One subject wants to dominate the other in order to have personal gratification. Before reading this article I wasn't aware that the norm of people who commit these crimes are white, heterosexual males. I dont agree that all men who fit into these categories have a superiority complex, but it would seem that these men, often times in the middle or upper class, would see themselves as being superior; not only because they are male, but also because they are white, and are financially stable. I can understand how being privelaged in all of these ways coud lead to feelings of superiority, but I also don't think that they should. Being white is no better than being of color; heterosexuality is not better than homosexuality; and being wealthy does not automatically make you better than someone who is less off.
The other article that really caught my attention was Myers article on sexual assault in war zones. I was honestly shocked when I read that article, apparently I was naive enough to think that sick crimes like these didn't happen military. In the article, it was stated that many people are afraid to report crimes like these in the military because they would be shook off. You are in the middle of a war, and someone sexually harrasses you, what would be more important? But I don't think it should be taken this way. Even in the midst of battle the act of sexually harrassing, stalking, or even groping someone should not be accepted. These people should not be granted a pass just because they are fighting in the war. They should be held to the same standards that non-soldiers are held to.
I don't have a lot of knowledge on different crimes besides what I have seen on tv shows like csi or law and order, or the occasional cold case. While I know that these situations aren't based on a true story, many of the crimes are described as being crimes of power. One subject wants to dominate the other in order to have personal gratification. Before reading this article I wasn't aware that the norm of people who commit these crimes are white, heterosexual males. I dont agree that all men who fit into these categories have a superiority complex, but it would seem that these men, often times in the middle or upper class, would see themselves as being superior; not only because they are male, but also because they are white, and are financially stable. I can understand how being privelaged in all of these ways coud lead to feelings of superiority, but I also don't think that they should. Being white is no better than being of color; heterosexuality is not better than homosexuality; and being wealthy does not automatically make you better than someone who is less off.
The other article that really caught my attention was Myers article on sexual assault in war zones. I was honestly shocked when I read that article, apparently I was naive enough to think that sick crimes like these didn't happen military. In the article, it was stated that many people are afraid to report crimes like these in the military because they would be shook off. You are in the middle of a war, and someone sexually harrasses you, what would be more important? But I don't think it should be taken this way. Even in the midst of battle the act of sexually harrassing, stalking, or even groping someone should not be accepted. These people should not be granted a pass just because they are fighting in the war. They should be held to the same standards that non-soldiers are held to.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Responding to: the sex culture and rape
The teen sex culture is something that I have always been very curious about. What is the "acceptable age" for children to start having sex? Who decided this was the right age? How do teens view sex? I would have to agree with Lee, and disagree with Levy by saying that while the media may play a large role in influencing young teen sexual lifestyles, the type of/ or lack of information that these students are being taught about sex also contributes.
Pictures of adults or teens dressed in risque clothing or doing risque things can be found all over the media; right there for young teens and children to see. The sex culture is waiting there, prowling, ready to bite into the young teen whenever they decide to take part. But what inspires teens to start having sex? What influences them into making decisions which promote a positive sexual experience and what negative information leads to tem having negative sexual experiences? I personally think its society and outside forces as well as half parental duty. If society is influencing a young teen into thinking that having sex and being crazy is the right thing to do, and their parents are not eaching them otherwise, then most likely the teen is going to do what they see.
http://www.thatvideosite.com/video/school_dances_sure_have_changed
For example, this video shows young children around the age of eight or nine dancing in a very provocative manner. Parents that allow their children to act like this at a young age can most likely expect them to not have a healthy outlook towards sex. They will probably be sucked into the sex culture at a young age and without parents there to guide them, it is hard to tell whether it will be a positive or negative experience.
Pictures of adults or teens dressed in risque clothing or doing risque things can be found all over the media; right there for young teens and children to see. The sex culture is waiting there, prowling, ready to bite into the young teen whenever they decide to take part. But what inspires teens to start having sex? What influences them into making decisions which promote a positive sexual experience and what negative information leads to tem having negative sexual experiences? I personally think its society and outside forces as well as half parental duty. If society is influencing a young teen into thinking that having sex and being crazy is the right thing to do, and their parents are not eaching them otherwise, then most likely the teen is going to do what they see.
http://www.thatvideosite.com/video/school_dances_sure_have_changed
For example, this video shows young children around the age of eight or nine dancing in a very provocative manner. Parents that allow their children to act like this at a young age can most likely expect them to not have a healthy outlook towards sex. They will probably be sucked into the sex culture at a young age and without parents there to guide them, it is hard to tell whether it will be a positive or negative experience.
Lead Post: The Sex Culture and Rape
Rape has become a fact of our society rather we are willing to admit it or not. Women, and men, around our country, around our world are subjected to sexual violence. How did we get to this point? Where is it going? Is there any hope for the future? These are just some of the questions that went racing through my mind.
Ariel Levy discusses a phenomenal sex culture that exists between pre teens and teens. She discusses how girls dressing as sluts and showing there bodies was part of a culture that was designed to attract the attention of young boys. She talks to many teens, boys and girls, who play into this sex culture. At the end of the chapter, I was left asking, what let to this culture?
Being a young twenty year old male, I understand and have lived within this teen sex culture. Levy seems to place it heavily on the media. While I do agree that the media does play a role, I don't think that full blame can be placed on the media. Just last week, we read articles and chapters that discussed how the untrained, unguided curiousity of young men and women can lead to a quest to find themselves and identity. I feel that the curiosity, if unguided, is also what as led to this sex culture among teens. Teens aren't thinking about being safe, being respectful, being aware. They just want to fit in and be cool. What is needed is better guidance and more discussion with teens on their sexuality and safe practices.
So, lets look at it. Levy presents to us a sex culture, rampant among teens. She blames the media, and I go further to claim that it is also curiosity, unguided, that has helped this culture to develop. However, where is the talk of positive sexuality? Are we talking to these young teens about their curiosity? Are we educating ourselves, and our young population on safe sexual practices? Are we helping them to understand their feelings and hormones? I say, no we're not. Teens are thus being forced to develop and create their own sexual world, culture, and feelings. This leads to misunderstandings, misconceptions, the sex culture that exist among teens, as Levy identifies. To me, Levy didn't really delve into the subject to me. However, Whitney Walker, presents an interesting perspective into it. She discusses her personal experience of sexual assault and how it affected her as a young feminists. She went on to discuss how the martial arts class she took empowered her to be stronger and more forceful.
So how does rape play in to all this and transcend the sex culture? Well, I'm still trying to understand that. The underlying theme that I get from both though is that we need to increase the talk about sex, sexual violence, assault, etc. There is a lack of discussion. The problem with the teens is they are not being viewed as sexual beings (which they are because they are human) and sex is "hidden" from them. This leads to ideology that sex is not meant to be discussed and leads to beliefs that rape and sexual assault should also not be discussed because it is viewed as inappropriate. Victims are thus forced to deal with their experiences in fear and alone instead of seeking out help for their ordeal.
Ariel Levy discusses a phenomenal sex culture that exists between pre teens and teens. She discusses how girls dressing as sluts and showing there bodies was part of a culture that was designed to attract the attention of young boys. She talks to many teens, boys and girls, who play into this sex culture. At the end of the chapter, I was left asking, what let to this culture?
Being a young twenty year old male, I understand and have lived within this teen sex culture. Levy seems to place it heavily on the media. While I do agree that the media does play a role, I don't think that full blame can be placed on the media. Just last week, we read articles and chapters that discussed how the untrained, unguided curiousity of young men and women can lead to a quest to find themselves and identity. I feel that the curiosity, if unguided, is also what as led to this sex culture among teens. Teens aren't thinking about being safe, being respectful, being aware. They just want to fit in and be cool. What is needed is better guidance and more discussion with teens on their sexuality and safe practices.
So, lets look at it. Levy presents to us a sex culture, rampant among teens. She blames the media, and I go further to claim that it is also curiosity, unguided, that has helped this culture to develop. However, where is the talk of positive sexuality? Are we talking to these young teens about their curiosity? Are we educating ourselves, and our young population on safe sexual practices? Are we helping them to understand their feelings and hormones? I say, no we're not. Teens are thus being forced to develop and create their own sexual world, culture, and feelings. This leads to misunderstandings, misconceptions, the sex culture that exist among teens, as Levy identifies. To me, Levy didn't really delve into the subject to me. However, Whitney Walker, presents an interesting perspective into it. She discusses her personal experience of sexual assault and how it affected her as a young feminists. She went on to discuss how the martial arts class she took empowered her to be stronger and more forceful.
So how does rape play in to all this and transcend the sex culture? Well, I'm still trying to understand that. The underlying theme that I get from both though is that we need to increase the talk about sex, sexual violence, assault, etc. There is a lack of discussion. The problem with the teens is they are not being viewed as sexual beings (which they are because they are human) and sex is "hidden" from them. This leads to ideology that sex is not meant to be discussed and leads to beliefs that rape and sexual assault should also not be discussed because it is viewed as inappropriate. Victims are thus forced to deal with their experiences in fear and alone instead of seeking out help for their ordeal.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Is Childbirth Really Industrialized?
These articles are perfect to read together because Goer’s “How Childbirth Went Industrial: A Deconstruction” analyszes and dissects Gawande’s “How Childbirth Went Industrial.” If you were not able to understand Gawande’s article then Goer’s discussion would help it make more sense by providing more information and statistics to back up major points.
Gawande’s article discusses how Rourke, a pregnant woman, had to stay out of the hospital until her contractions were five minutes apart and lasted for at least one minute. Rourke mentions how she wanted a “natural” childbirth, one without a cesarean section or an epidural. However, as you read on, she begged for an epidural and gave into a cesarean section. In today’s society many people do not follow the “natural” route whether it is by choice and by their doctor’s advice. One of the most interesting parts of this article was when Gawande was talking about how “in a sense, all human mothers give birth prematurely.” I never considered this aspect before, but now after reading about it, it makes a lot of sense. Human babies cannot take care of themselves, while other animals are able to walk and get food soon after they are born. Another part was the discussion of the use of technology in childbirth, which centuries ago were never used and babies were born fine. As Gawande said, “we are seeing the waning of the art of childbirth.”
Goer’s “deconstruction” seemed very opinionated and harsh to me. I felt like Goer’s main objective was to get people to consider the traditional practice of using midwives; “It remains as true today as it did in 1933 that healthy women are better off at home in the hands of a midwife than in the hospital with the typical obstetrician.” Goer is very opposed to cesarean surgery and mentions may risks that the mother and newborn are opposed to. He stated that “standardizing care has done nothing to limit the use of medical intervention to cases,” however standardizing care provides a way for doctors to compare to recommend procedures. However, doctors use their past experience as well when deciding the best way to approach a patient. It makes the most sense for women to research different methods of childbirth and the typical drugs used in order for them to become more acknowledgeable and be able to ask their doctor specific questions regarding their concerns. But with every profession, each doctor prefers a different method because of what they have experienced in the past. Thus, I was annoyed when Goer was putting down doctors and the medical profession. I think some good points were made about not rushing into a method until it was certain it was needed. However, I still will trust doctors who have years of experience in this profession.
Contrary to the articles for Tuesday, both of these articles go into the complexities associated with childbirth. Childbirth is different for each woman, thus women should have the choice to do what they want, as long as it is not affecting their health or their babies.
Gawande’s article discusses how Rourke, a pregnant woman, had to stay out of the hospital until her contractions were five minutes apart and lasted for at least one minute. Rourke mentions how she wanted a “natural” childbirth, one without a cesarean section or an epidural. However, as you read on, she begged for an epidural and gave into a cesarean section. In today’s society many people do not follow the “natural” route whether it is by choice and by their doctor’s advice. One of the most interesting parts of this article was when Gawande was talking about how “in a sense, all human mothers give birth prematurely.” I never considered this aspect before, but now after reading about it, it makes a lot of sense. Human babies cannot take care of themselves, while other animals are able to walk and get food soon after they are born. Another part was the discussion of the use of technology in childbirth, which centuries ago were never used and babies were born fine. As Gawande said, “we are seeing the waning of the art of childbirth.”
Goer’s “deconstruction” seemed very opinionated and harsh to me. I felt like Goer’s main objective was to get people to consider the traditional practice of using midwives; “It remains as true today as it did in 1933 that healthy women are better off at home in the hands of a midwife than in the hospital with the typical obstetrician.” Goer is very opposed to cesarean surgery and mentions may risks that the mother and newborn are opposed to. He stated that “standardizing care has done nothing to limit the use of medical intervention to cases,” however standardizing care provides a way for doctors to compare to recommend procedures. However, doctors use their past experience as well when deciding the best way to approach a patient. It makes the most sense for women to research different methods of childbirth and the typical drugs used in order for them to become more acknowledgeable and be able to ask their doctor specific questions regarding their concerns. But with every profession, each doctor prefers a different method because of what they have experienced in the past. Thus, I was annoyed when Goer was putting down doctors and the medical profession. I think some good points were made about not rushing into a method until it was certain it was needed. However, I still will trust doctors who have years of experience in this profession.
Contrary to the articles for Tuesday, both of these articles go into the complexities associated with childbirth. Childbirth is different for each woman, thus women should have the choice to do what they want, as long as it is not affecting their health or their babies.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Abortion
Lately I have been reading and learning a lot about the topic of abortion. For my news flash I discussed the problems with abortion that have been brought up by the current health care reform. Also, this weeks readings deal with personal stories of women who have gone through or been affected by abortion at some point in their lives. I have been struggling when trying to identify my position on the topic of abortion. In one sense I believe that women should have complete rights to their bodies, and no one should be able to tell them what to do with it; but on the other hand, I am very pro-life and believe that no baby should be aborted, unless it is under very extreme circumstances.
In her article, "So I Chose", Allison Crews explains that she is very pro-choice. She believes that a woman's right to abort or keep her child is something that should be left completely up to her. If a woman wants to have sex, she should be able to. If she gets pregnant and cannot support the baby due to financial or career purposes, she should not be forced to have the baby. She also believes that men should have some say in whether or not the woman gets an abortion, but when it comes down to it, the woman is ultimately in charge.
I would have to agree with Crews. I know that in a relationship there is more than just one person, and that both people need to be consulted in the case of having a child. But when it comes down to it, having a baby is directly affecting the mothers life. The man in the relationship would not be forced to drop out of school due to being pregnant, would not have to carry the child for a nine month period.
In her article, "So I Chose", Allison Crews explains that she is very pro-choice. She believes that a woman's right to abort or keep her child is something that should be left completely up to her. If a woman wants to have sex, she should be able to. If she gets pregnant and cannot support the baby due to financial or career purposes, she should not be forced to have the baby. She also believes that men should have some say in whether or not the woman gets an abortion, but when it comes down to it, the woman is ultimately in charge.
I would have to agree with Crews. I know that in a relationship there is more than just one person, and that both people need to be consulted in the case of having a child. But when it comes down to it, having a baby is directly affecting the mothers life. The man in the relationship would not be forced to drop out of school due to being pregnant, would not have to carry the child for a nine month period.
Newsflash 2
The term feminist is often used to describe a person who believes that women deserve equal rights to men, and that both genders should be treated equally. Feminists throughout history have been faced with many different obstacles that they have been forced to overcome. The first wave feminists, which surfaced between the nineteenth and twentieth century, fought for suffrage. The second wave feminists of the late twentieth century fought to pass laws that would push for equality for women, and set out to change the cultural standards that kept women oppressed. The third feminist wave, which is a product of the late twentieth century into today, is fighting to preserve what the second wave feminists fought for, and is still pushing for equality for women. In her article, "In Support of Abortion, It's Personal vs. Political", Sheryl Stolberg explains how different waves of feminists are and have reacted to the subject of abortion.
The option of abortion has not always been available to women. In the past, abortion was very much illegal. Stolberg tells of a woman, Louise McIntosh, who helped her friend go through with an abortion in the 1950's, when abortion was still illegal. Now at age eighty, Louise McIntosh, now known as Louise Slaughter, is the "co-chairwoman of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus -- a member of what Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America calls 'the menopausal militia'". The current problem that is facing this feminist "militia" is President Obama's new health care reform. The problem with this reform is that it cuts federal funding for abortion purposes. Representative Bart Stupak, a Democrat of Michigan, was responsible for putting this "language" in the health bill. His words state that we will be, "barring the use of federal subsidies for insurance plans that cover abortion". The major problem that faces feminists when it comes to this health reform bill is that, "Lawmakers like Ms. Slaughter, who advocate for abortion rights, found themselves in the uncomfortable position of voting for the larger health bill even though the Stupak language was in it". Feminists are placed in a very bad spot when it comes to voting for this health care bill because even if they strongly disagree with cutting funding for abortions, some are also finding themselves in strong agreement with the rest of the bill.
When it comes to feminist views on abortion, there seems to be a generational gap that influences the views of this subject. The first wave and some second wave feminists grew up in a time when abortion was illegal, where as the feminists of our generation have never seen that day, and can never fully understand the effects it had on women of that era. "It has been nearly 37 years since Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that established a right to abortion, and in that time, an entire generation - including Mr. Obama, who was 11 when roe was decided - has grown up without memories like those Ms. Slaughter says are 'seared into m mind'". I believe that because our current generation has never gone through the oppression that the early feminists have, we need to think rationally about decisions that may put us back into that oppression. "The result is a generational divide - not because younger women are any less supportive of abortion rights than their elders, but because their frame of reference is different".
While various polls have showed that the support of abortion is still at the same rate that it was back in the earlier waves of feminism, the language and attitude that is used when dealing with this subject has completely changed. Feminists of the first and early second wave see abortion in more political terms. When Roe v. Wade passed, women felt like they had finally won some control over their body. "Ms. Keenan, who is 57, says women like her, who came of age when abortion was illegal, tend to view it in stark political terms - as a right to be defended, like freedom of speech or freedom of religion". Keenan goes on to explain that women of the current era see abortion as more of a personal issue, and their reasons behind supporting this act are completely different. "The language and values, if you are older, is around the right to control your own body, reproductive freedom, sexual liberation as empowerment,' said Ms. Greenberg, the pollster. 'That is a baby-boom generation way of thinking. If you look at people under 30, that is not their touchstone, it is not wrapped up around feminism and women's rights."
Before reading this article I never really stopped to think about the differences between the different waves of feminism, I only knew about the differences that we talked about in class. After reading this article I did some thinking about the generational gap and what I have heard/discussed with my friends about the topic of abortion. Many of my friends are Pro-Life and under no circumstance do they believe that the option of abortion should be legal. But then again, is this opinion just coming from our naive generation who was never forced to experience the extreme suffrage of women? I believe what Stolberg and Slaughter say about the difference between a political and personal move are completely true. While women of the first feminist movement may not have been in complete support of abortion, they still fought for it to be passed so that they could finally own the rights to their own bodies, something they should have always had the right to. Now, in our generation, some young women see abortion as a fall back plan, just in case something goes wrong. We have all different kinds of condoms and birth controls; literally hundreds of ways to prevent pregnancy at our disposal, yet some women are still pro-choice, just in case those ways happen to fail. It's really hard to weigh in about the topic of abortion without putting your own personal opinions in, so I'm not entirely sure that I can speak for all of the women that are living in my generation. I assume that many are pro-choice and many are pro-life. But what are our reasoning's behind it? I think women of the early feminist movements would like all women to be pro-choice, regardless of if they would ever personally go through with an abortion or not. It's true, all women should have the complete right to their bodies; but the question is, at what cost?
Monday, March 15, 2010
NewsFlash: Women in the Workplace
Link to Newsweek article: http://www.newsweek.com/id/234657
The fight for women’s rights has been underway for a little more than a century now. Over this century, women have gain many opportunities, rights, and privileges that were once only deemed appropriate for men. However, there are still many injustices placed against women in present day society. Sexism continues to place a role in the workplace. Women are still fighting for equal rights and equal pay as men in the labor force.
In their Newsweek article, Jessica Bennett (2010) and Jesse Ellison (2010) discuss how female employees are still facing injustices in the work place because of their sex. They claim that present day women still face discriminatory pay and hiring practices. The World Economic Forum (Bennett and Ellison 2010), citied within Bennett and Elliso , reports that even though women have increased within the labor force, an improvement from just a century ago., they still face economic and political injustice.
A news report by the World Economic Forum finds that even though more women are employed around the world than ever before, and now make up 52 percent of U.S. workers, major multinational companies are failing to capitalize on their talents. In surveys with human-resources executives at 600 companies across 16 industries and 20 countries, the Forum's Corporate Gender Gap Report found that disparities in education and health have all but disappeared worldwide, but when it comes to political empowerment and economic participation, women haven't advanced much [Bennett and Ellison 2010).
The forum also goes on to claim that “female employees still tend to be concentrated in entry- or mid-level positions” (Bennett and Ellison 2010). The report does not point out motherhood as the biggest barrier; instead it claims that the patriarchal system is to blame for women’s inequality in the workplace. There is popular belief that one of the reasons that women still face inequality in the work force is due to the traditional view that the role of women revolves around motherhood and domestic life.
In her article, Anne Fausto -Sterling discusses how the woman’s body has been used and viewed as a means to deem women inappropriate for certain jobs. According to her, the hormonal difference that exists between me and women have been used to support claims that The uterus and the menstrual cycle are viewed as making women weak and incapable of performing the strenuous labor. This argument also extended to exclude women from the right to higher education.
Although dated in some of the particulars, the turn-of-the-century scientific belief that women’s reproductive functions make them unsuitable for higher education remains with us today. Some industries bar fertile women from certain positions because of workplace hazards that might cause birth defects, while simultaneously deeming equally vulnerable men fit for the job. Some modern psychologists and biologists suggest that women perform more poorly than do men on mathematics test because hormonal sex differences alter male and female structures; and many people believe women to be unfit for certain professions because the menstruate [Fausto-Sterling ]
Based on this argument, women are thus viewed as unfit in the workplace and more fit as mothers.
In another article Betty Freidman (1994) identifies a phenomenon know as the feminine mystique. She identifies feminine mystique as the ideology that women could “achieve happiness in life only through marriage and motherhood” (Friedan 1994: 48-49). However, Friedman identifies women who question this mystique. According to them, there feminine mystique is not fulfilling at all. They fell that their lives are meaningless and pointless and ask the question, Is this it?
The feminine mystique continues to be common ideology today. While women have gained many rights and opportunities within the last fifty years, present day ideology still place women’s roles as more so in the home with the children. Our media and publications enforce these roles. Advertisements, magazines, and television commercials often promote the ideology of women as domesticated beings-house cleaning products our anything that as to do with the house or children in general are almost always centered towards women.
Amanda Diva, a spoken word and hip -hop artist, spoke of the difficulties and challenges of being a woman in the hip hop industry. At a recent lecture at Colgate, she discussed how she is often sexualized and objectified within the industry. She discussed how difficult it was to gain respect within the industry because she was a woman and was seen as not having the talent as men have although her productions are among the best in the business. While she has made it and stands as one of the leaders in her field, she continues to fight the sexism that is present within the hip-hop industry.
Since the Feminist movement started at the beginning of the century, is as went through many generations and many waves of changes. With these changes, the movement has brought women closer to finally being able to be treated equally as men and to enjoy the same privileges that men enjoy. Fortunately, this has led to present day women being able to enjoy many of the rights and privileges that was originally denied to women of past generations. However, the fight is not over because women are still facing many injustices and inequalities within the economic system. Many of the ideologies that were used against women of the past are still being used today. The fact of the matter is women have gained many opportunities, particularly within the workplace, the patriarchal system still continues to oppress them through unequal pay and unfair hiring.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Newsflash: Gender Neutral Oscars
Leading up to the Oscars this year, more than any other year, there has been increased curiosity into the practice of awarding Best Actor and Best Actress awards, instead of one gender neutral award. “Ladies and Gentlemen: Thoughts on the Oscars’ Gender Gap” by Rachel Maddux discusses this precise debate. Ever since the Oscars were established in 1929, separate acting awards were presented to men and women. The state of women’s rights at this time is very different from present day; women only received the right to vote nine years before and the Equal Rights Amendment was over four decades away. Thus, maybe it was acceptable back then to have separate awards as Maddux points out.
"Is it not fair to assume that an awards program established at a time when
American women were systematically discriminated against in almost every single aspect of life wouldn’t also consider the work of female performers to be fundamentally different from -inferior to- those of men?"
The Oscars are not alone, especially within their respective industry. The Golden Globes, the Screen Actors Guild, and the British Academy of Film and Television Arts all use sex as a form of separation for acting nominees. However, when one travels outside of the movie industry, many of the most prestigious awards, such as the Pulitzer and the Nobel Prize, fail to make the same gender separations. Obviously, the reporting and science industries were dominated by men when they were first created, but they still acknowledged the fact that women should be competing with men once they enter these industries. Athletics comes to mind when one thinks of gender distinction in awards. Yet, this is widely accepted by the physical differences between male and female athletes. Biological differences do not affect acting the same way they do athletics, thus this needs to be immediately thrown out as an excuse.
Furthermore, no other award given out by the Academy is separated by sex. There is only one Best Director, Film Editor, or Make-up Artist each year. The best actor and actress, along with the supporting roles, are the sole group that requires a need to “distinguish individual nominees beyond their basic professions” by using sex. Maddux brought up an excellent point that actors and actresses are on the small list of gender specific titles left today (ie. a stewardess is now commonly referred to as a flight attendant).
Gendered Oscars for Best and Supporting Actor/Actress are seen as another insult to women. The separation implies that women would never win when competing against men. This relates to when women were confined to the home to cook, clean, watch the kids, and make sure everything was perfect by the time their husbands got home. They were essentially part of “The Feminine Mystique,” which is when women find their identity through their husbands and children. Both of these examples separate women and men from each other because they are supposedly “different” and require distinct occupations. Women were also secluded from obtaining an education comparable to men. Many of the most prestigious universities were male only and women had to attend a girls only college, where they learned what it takes to be a good housewife, possible prompting the “problem that has no name” occur. Colgate did not even open its doors to women until 1970! However, Kathryn Bigelow’s win over her ex-husband for the Best Director is a first and may lead to men and women being looked at the same, which makes sense because their jobs are identical.
The creation of a gender neutral Oscars stirs a debate in which two different feminism beliefs would support opposing sides. Minimizers, which also tend to be liberal feminists, believe that differences between a male and female should be minimized since we are fundamentally the same. On the other hand, the maximizers, think it is necessary to understand these differences and work around them in order to achieve equality. These two feminism groups would be on the opposite side of the deliberation over removing the gendered awards. The minimizers would be completely for the creation of one Best Actor and Supporting Actor award each because male and females are the same and should be able to compete against each other. On the contrary, maximizers are content with the gender separation because women are treated equally. Therefore, the Oscars represent gender equality since two women, just like two men, are honored every year for the contributions to the movie industry.
Allan G. Johnson, a male feminist, discusses patriarchy as feeling somewhat invisible today because we are used to acting in such a way to conform to its ideals of male superiority. By conforming to this type of society, we all are taking the “path of least resistance” because we are following the norm and not trying to change. Thus maintaining the separation of gender for the Best Actor/Actress awards is the “path of least resistance.” Furthermore, as Johnson points out, patriarchy is “more than a collection of individuals” (Johnson 30), since it is something that everyone in our society is apart of. Thus, in order to change this institution that has been around for almost a century, individuals and society as a whole must find little ways to resist. It takes just one person to initially raise questions about the existence of this gendered honor, and then more people will follow. This year’s awareness that the Oscars and other acting awards are some of the only industries to separate their top honors based on sex is an important step because it is now a mainstream discussion. If this conversion continues then it will constantly be in people’s minds, forcing open discussion.
How are gender and sex defined? The simple definitions state that sex is the biological makeup of a position (nature), while gender encompasses the social construction we face and how we personally identify (nurture). Based on these definitions it seems that the Oscars are gendered because our socially constructed ideals would explain why men and women cannot complete on the same stage for Best Actor. Women tend to play more emotional characters than their more aggressive male counterparts, thus many would cite this reason alone as to why they cannot be compared. However, the other categories the Oscars choose to honor involve similar differences, yet they choose to only have one award. Similarly, the actual Oscar trophy the winners get to keep is quite gendered. It fails to resemble any characteristic of a woman, but displays of that of a man. The male genitals are even up for view!
The fact that no other award category besides the Best Actor/Actress and Best Supporting Actor/Actress has multiple winners is the most apparent issue. Why is there a need to separate men and women in the same profession? If it is because many think women would not win, that’s absurd! Since women have been viewed as inferior to men from the beginning, we have fought extremely hard to make up ground and even surpass men in many professions. Thus, there is no harm in handing out only one Oscar for each category. On the other hand, keeping the awards separate for men and women is a way of recognizing diversity that exists in the different characters and approaches men and women take when portraying an individual. However, this is not necessarily saying one sex is inferior to the other, but rather their unique styles are both deserving of recognition. Thus, what is better? Celebrating equality between the sexes or recognizing unique performances?
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Responding To: How Young is Too Sexy
Both of the readings this week from Listen Up focused on sexuality in the younger generations. In Rebecca Walker's piece she talks about her experiences as a sexually active young child. She admits to having sex as early as 11 years old. While in Sonia Slah's piece she talks about the sexual lifestyle of her younger sister and how she chose to act out in an attempt to have her parents notice her newly acquired sexuality. The issue that both of these rases is what is the affect of a sexual lifestyle on young children. As Marissa brought up in her post, the pageant girl scene seems to be borderline offensive for young girls to be competing in.
This picture is displaying some contestants in the Toddlers in Tiaras television show. At this young age, why exactly are young girls being paraded around in revealing bikinis with their fake tans and extensive make up?
Why would anyone decide to dress their young daughter in an outfit like this one? To what crowd to these parents want their daughters to appeal to? I understand that some young girls may enjoy competing in pageants and getting all dolled up, but the sexual image that this show and its contestants are trying to put across is completely gross. No toddler should ever be seen as sexy or provacative.Monday, March 8, 2010
How Young is Too Sexy? (Lead Blog)
In Listen Up, Rebecca Walker and Sonia Slah discuss the issue of young girls and their sexuality. Rebecca Walker tells readers of her experiences as a young teen experimenting with sex. To be honest, it has become common for young girls to have sex as early as 11 or 12 (just as Rebecca admitted to doing). However, Rebecca offers a valuable perspective into what these possible girls could be thinking at such young ages. "Sex can look like love if you don't know what it looks like. It gives you someone to hold on to when you can't feel yourself. It is heat in your body when the coldness is inside of you. It is trying out trusting and being trusted (pg. 20). This is an intriguing insight and certainly easy to understand. When you are so young it is only natural that one becomes curious and tries things out for size. But we should ask ourselves: why is there no guidance present in this curiousity?
Sonia Slah discusses the sexuality of her little sister. She tells tales of tight jeans, shirts that reveal skin, and boys. Slah is particularly upset by her sister's dress until she comes to understand that it is merely her sister's attempt to have their parents recognize her sexuality. This is also an understandable theme. Women's sexuality is often seen as invisible or non existent. If a woman wears a piece of clothing that may be to revealing then she could be seen as a whore or slut. However, this is just not case and the denial of a woman's sexuality is not going to ease the curious minds of young girls.
These young women need guidance. They need things to be explained to them. They need to know that it is ok for them to feel what they. Instead of covering it up, it should be discussed. They are human beings. They have sexual desires. They have sexual needs. Until we come to this acceptance then our young are doomed to search for answers on their own.
P.S.- Let's not forget that young women are also getting their idea of sexiness from media.
Sonia Slah discusses the sexuality of her little sister. She tells tales of tight jeans, shirts that reveal skin, and boys. Slah is particularly upset by her sister's dress until she comes to understand that it is merely her sister's attempt to have their parents recognize her sexuality. This is also an understandable theme. Women's sexuality is often seen as invisible or non existent. If a woman wears a piece of clothing that may be to revealing then she could be seen as a whore or slut. However, this is just not case and the denial of a woman's sexuality is not going to ease the curious minds of young girls.
These young women need guidance. They need things to be explained to them. They need to know that it is ok for them to feel what they. Instead of covering it up, it should be discussed. They are human beings. They have sexual desires. They have sexual needs. Until we come to this acceptance then our young are doomed to search for answers on their own.
P.S.- Let's not forget that young women are also getting their idea of sexiness from media.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
In Response to: She is just PMSing
Prehistoric Monster Syndrome
I was glad that we were able to read an article that focused on the nonfictional account of what going through PMS is actually like. Women who batter their children and husbands? Emotional waste-cases? Apparently some people missed one or two health classes.
I knew that if I types PMS into youtube it would come up with some very interseting results on what people thought about this process. This video was made to mimic the type of videos that were being made by the government and various orginizations during the 1950's. As we talked about in class, society has been constantly trying to "pretty up" the menstrual cycle. By displaying pictures and videos of women going completely bonkers during their menstrual cycle, the media and society was hoping that women would make a change and not let their emotions run wild anymore during this time. By making women look like such animals, they would hopefully change their behavior. The invention of tampons and pads that came with scents such as "fresh garden" or various other scents, was also just another way to pretty up the menstrual cycle. Honestly, it is a bit ridiculous the lengths that society has gone to to cover up the menstrual cycle and make it more hidden.
I was glad that we were able to read an article that focused on the nonfictional account of what going through PMS is actually like. Women who batter their children and husbands? Emotional waste-cases? Apparently some people missed one or two health classes.
I knew that if I types PMS into youtube it would come up with some very interseting results on what people thought about this process. This video was made to mimic the type of videos that were being made by the government and various orginizations during the 1950's. As we talked about in class, society has been constantly trying to "pretty up" the menstrual cycle. By displaying pictures and videos of women going completely bonkers during their menstrual cycle, the media and society was hoping that women would make a change and not let their emotions run wild anymore during this time. By making women look like such animals, they would hopefully change their behavior. The invention of tampons and pads that came with scents such as "fresh garden" or various other scents, was also just another way to pretty up the menstrual cycle. Honestly, it is a bit ridiculous the lengths that society has gone to to cover up the menstrual cycle and make it more hidden.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
She is Just PMSing!!!!
At first “In Celebration of My Uterus” by Anne Sexton faced a lot of dissent, since she was the first person to write poetry that explored female experiences and body parts. However, as society became more accepting of such discussions new audiences began to read it. I have never found poetry easy to understand, and “In Celebration of My Uterus,” was no different. I main idea I took out of Sexton’s piece was that everyone is included, “there is enough here to please a nation,” and she wants women to be able to act as they please, which is mentioned in the “let me” phrases. Overall, the poem is a celebration of women and how they are able to have the same opportunities.
I found Valdes’ “Ruminations of a Feminist Fitness Instructor” very interesting because throughout it Valdes was fighting herself. She goes from this women who loves music and writing, but there is no money in it forcing her to devote her time to being a fitness instructor. She is mad at her herself for betraying her feminist beliefs for a job that fails to encourage women to love their bodies, but rather strengthens their obsessions about their body. Johnson could see Valdes as taking the path of least resistance, since she took the easy way out by becoming an aerobics instructor. Johnson would recommend that she listen to what she believes in and find a job as a writer in order to stand up for her feminist beliefs, which would definitely be much harder than throwing them under the rug. The statement Valdes quoted of Seid, caught my attention instantly. Seid mentions that skinny people, those who show “mastery over hunger,” no longer create a jaw dropping response because they are so commonplace. This statement is very true because once a style becomes mainstream in our society people do not stare at people wearing this particular style. But once it is out of the norm, then people will glance more often.
For many years menstruation was used as an excuse for women to “receive less pay or more restricted job opportunities” (91). Even physicians, like Dr. Katarina Dalton, believed that PMS, which precedes the process of menstruation, causes women to “batter their children and husbands, miss work, commit crimes, attempt suicide, and suffer from up to 150 different symptoms” (94). The word symptom carries two different meanings, one associating it with a disease and the other a sign. Confusion here causes people to think that women actually suffer from some disease that makes them fragile and unfit for work. I think this is a bunch of crap and these are the types of ideas that people get stuck in their heads to justify why men are superior to women. When in actuality has nothing to do with how a women performs. The ideas about PMS are still around today. I would be surprised if you can go one day without hearing a boy in high school say a girl is PMSing when she is “bitchy” or in a bad mood. I remember hearing this all the time, even from my brothers when PMS had nothing to do with what was going on.
Overall, these articles enlighten women that it is necessary for us to celebrate our bodies and by happy with god gave to us. I think some of the betrayal Valdes felt was due to how working out for a women is seen. Can a women go to the gym just for fun? Does it always have to be associated with body image? Can it just be that they want to blow off some steam?
Monday, March 1, 2010
Big, Blonde, and Beautiful
"Today, many young girls worry about the contours of their bodies - especially shape, size, and muscle tone - because they believe that the body is the ultimate expression of the self" (pg. 2).
The title to this blog happens to be lyrics from the broadway hit and relatively new movie, Hairspray. This movie featured Queen Latifa signing and dancing to a song called Big Blonde and Beautiful in which she sang about embracing her body and loving herself for who she truly was. But, in Brumbergs article, "Body Projects" she talks about the pressures that young women have endured which convince them to change their body in some way. I found this article to be the most interesting piece that we read for today because I have had many friends who have battled with different kinds of eating disorders in order to fit into societies view on "being pretty". In her article, Brumberg tells the story of a woman named Yvonne Blue. "What was new and modern about Yvonne's adolescent angst was that she focused on weight loss as a solution to her problems" (pg. 5). Too many times young teens feel their lives spinning out of control and can only find one way to bring it back, by controlling what they eat. In Brumbergs article we travel with Yvonne throughout her weightloss experience, from a 150 pound girl to a 125 pound woman. But, like we often see in many eating disorders, Yvonne did not lose her "excess" weight in a healthy manner. "By watching her sweets and denying herself all carbohydrates and most meat, Yvonne reduced her weight to about 125 pounds.. " (pg. 6). This form of crash dieting is not good for any person, women or man. Brumberg goes on to explain that, "Yvonne intuited tat modern femininity required some degree of exhibitionism or, at least, a willingness to display oneself as a decorative object. This sensibility has made girls in the "century of svelte" extremely vulnerable to cultural messages about dieting and particular body parts" (pg. 8).
I'm not really sure where to take my stand when it comes to deciding if the media is the main reason why young women feel such a pressure to change themselves. While pictures and videos of skinny models may cause a young woman to feel jealous, it also causes them to feel bad about themselves, lowers their self esteem. For this reason, I think that media and self both play a role in the dieting epidemic. The picture above is of a woman posing for the dove campaign.
I strongly support what the dove campaign has been doing, using larger women to model in their shoots. Trying to promote that women who dont have all of their ribs showing through their back can be sexy too. I believe that if more examples of normal sized women were put in the media young girls would feel like it is more acceptable for them to be themselves. I've had many close friends that have struggled with various eating disorders, and its even painful to be a bystander and watch these beautiful girls change their bodies based on what they think society wants them to look like.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Lead Post: Challenging Our Thinking
So I did the readings and I really didn't know what I wanted to blog about. I mean, I see the same occurring themes: genitals obviously don't determine the gender, gender is more complex than genitals, etc, etc. This information I pretty much knew. However, I realized how much the readings put these themes into perspective....and how much I keep learning. Before taking this class, I was ignorant to intersexuality. I was ignorant as to how gender and gender roles played such a major factor in determining one's sex. Then I realized how many people out there must be ignorant like me. I mean, intersex, gender, and genitals aren't exactly dinner conversation (although with my group of friends it is). Sterling offered so many facts and views on intersex, discussing as how it was seen as a defect, how it needs to be "fixed". Why does it need to be "fixed"? Yes, it's different from the so called "norm", but if a intersex baby is healthy, then what does it matter if itheir genitals don't prescribe to a specific gender? Then, I thought how different it would be if our society became educated about intersex, and how common it actually is. Sterling provides evidence that shows it is not a rare condition as we think it to be. She even offers that it could be linked to genetics (as we see in Cal in Middlesex). Yet there is the idea of fixing, which, if we came to realize, there is actually nothing wrong. Sterling discusses how technological advances have made it possible to screen out a particular gene, CAH, which is linked to intersex, Spotting this gene early could help "correct" the genital "defect" of the baby. Many parents choose to have the "correction" take place. This is basically due so that the baby can prescribe to one of the two genders. It's all done in the name of gender. It's amazing how much gender plays a role in our society, in our lives. Even in Middlesex, we see the power gender as between Zismo and Lina. Zismo believes that it is his wife's duty to give him children even though Lina isn't ready (Middlesex pg. 91). Our society has become so constructed around gender and gender roles that if one cannot identify to one specific gender they are the outcast. They are seen as deviant from societal norms and must be fixed. Well, maybe they aren't deviant. Maybe they're nature's way of challenging our thinking and bringing us to our senses.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
The History Behind Intersexuals!!!
Fausto-Sterling discusses the history of hermaphrodites and how different countries dealt with this issue in “That Sexe Which Prevaileth.” Both European and American cultures were focused on preserving the 2-sex system. When the sex cannot be easily determined it creates confusion, our societies try to eliminate the confusion by using surgerical techniques to “fix the problem.” Fausto-Sterling argues for a sexual continuum because “if nature really offers us more than two sexes” then male and female are just social constructions (pg. 31). Hermaphrodite is not a new term; its use begins back to the days of Plato, who thought that hermaphrodite was the third sex in addition to male and female. Aristotle and Galen also had different views about this intersex. Aristotle believed that underneath their anatomy, hermaphrodites were one the two sexes, however Galen disagreed and placed them into an intermediate category. Even though the sexual continuum was held up during the middle ages, this willingness did not main social acceptance. European countries treated hermaphrodites very differently from strictly regulating them, seeing them as distasteful, or not caring all that much; the French, English, and Italian, respectively. In the late 1700’s to early 1800’s there was various classifications that evolved. Saint-Helene accounted that “nature is one whole” and that embryonic abnormalities were to blame for hermaphrodites and other birth abnormalities. While Klebs stated that gonads were the true determinant of sex, quite of bold belief. Some physicians began to biopsy the gonads to determine the sex of the tissue, while others start to listen to their patient’s requests. Dr. Young for example acknowledged that Emma, a patient with large clitoris and a vagina, did not want to be fixed. She said she was happy with her husband despite not experiencing any pleasure because that is what her girlfriends are for. Fausto-Sterling concludes by stating three reasons why intersex people cause commotion: there should only be two sexes, heterosexuality is normal, and gender roles define what a man and woman are. She infers that without these narrow-minded beliefs there would not be as much controversial.
The first book of Middlesex describes a personal story of a fictional hermaphrodite through the eyes of Calliope Helen Stephanides, who was born as a girl and then 14-years later as a boy. This first book mentions Cal’s family because a mutated gene of chromosome 5 has appeared in many generations. Both of Cal’s grandparents, Lefty and Desdemona, are carriers of the gene, which is an issue because they marry each other. It will be interesting to hear more about Cal in her early years and what were the main reasons why she wanted to become a he?
I wonder if our society will ever be able to look past labels!
The first book of Middlesex describes a personal story of a fictional hermaphrodite through the eyes of Calliope Helen Stephanides, who was born as a girl and then 14-years later as a boy. This first book mentions Cal’s family because a mutated gene of chromosome 5 has appeared in many generations. Both of Cal’s grandparents, Lefty and Desdemona, are carriers of the gene, which is an issue because they marry each other. It will be interesting to hear more about Cal in her early years and what were the main reasons why she wanted to become a he?
I wonder if our society will ever be able to look past labels!
Monday, February 15, 2010
Women and Men: It isn't that simple.
The readings for Tuesday touched on the many ways in which gender and sex can be classified. I found this to be the most interesting reading that we have had to do so far because I've had a slight intro into this topic in one of my other classes.
Anne Fausto-Sterling, author of Sexing the Body, starts out her first chapter with a story about one of Spain's top recruited Olympic athletes who had a hard fall from fame when she was denied the right to compete after failing a sex test. While she looked like a female, talked like a female, acted like a female, and was one hundred percent sure she was a female, she still tested positive for a Y chromosome. After fighting the IOC and trying to regain her status as the Olympic athlete she was before the test, she was finally cleared to compete as a female again, becoming the first woman to ever challenge and beat a sex test in the Olympics. Fausto-Sterling also explains the difference between sex and gender. She explains that sex is about the anatomical structure of the human body, while gender is psychological. I would have to agree with her on this one. I knew a woman who was born female, but tried to explain that she felt like a male on the inside. While she was born with the female anatomy, her true gender was male. After having a sex change, he said he had never felt so right in his life. His outward appearance finally matched what was on the inside.
In Myhre's piece, "One Bad Hair Day To Many", she talks about wanting to get rid of the feminine stereotypes. She no longer wanted to shave her legs or brush her hair, which left her getting harrassed for it out in public. She also made a bold clame stating that.. "A woman's attractiveness to men is the primary measure of her worth." I honestly feel incredibly bad for any woman who feels that this is true. Walking around Colgate it's really easy to pick out the girls that just try to hard. The ones who are orange/puke brown due to fake baking in the tanning salon, the ones with so much makeup you're not sure what they really look like underneath it all. I'm not sure whether these women change their bodies just to appeal to men, or because it is the only measure of their worth, but I do think that it has to do with the pressures that society places on women to look their best at all times.
Anne Fausto-Sterling, author of Sexing the Body, starts out her first chapter with a story about one of Spain's top recruited Olympic athletes who had a hard fall from fame when she was denied the right to compete after failing a sex test. While she looked like a female, talked like a female, acted like a female, and was one hundred percent sure she was a female, she still tested positive for a Y chromosome. After fighting the IOC and trying to regain her status as the Olympic athlete she was before the test, she was finally cleared to compete as a female again, becoming the first woman to ever challenge and beat a sex test in the Olympics. Fausto-Sterling also explains the difference between sex and gender. She explains that sex is about the anatomical structure of the human body, while gender is psychological. I would have to agree with her on this one. I knew a woman who was born female, but tried to explain that she felt like a male on the inside. While she was born with the female anatomy, her true gender was male. After having a sex change, he said he had never felt so right in his life. His outward appearance finally matched what was on the inside.
In Myhre's piece, "One Bad Hair Day To Many", she talks about wanting to get rid of the feminine stereotypes. She no longer wanted to shave her legs or brush her hair, which left her getting harrassed for it out in public. She also made a bold clame stating that.. "A woman's attractiveness to men is the primary measure of her worth." I honestly feel incredibly bad for any woman who feels that this is true. Walking around Colgate it's really easy to pick out the girls that just try to hard. The ones who are orange/puke brown due to fake baking in the tanning salon, the ones with so much makeup you're not sure what they really look like underneath it all. I'm not sure whether these women change their bodies just to appeal to men, or because it is the only measure of their worth, but I do think that it has to do with the pressures that society places on women to look their best at all times.
NEWSFLASH: Lindsey Vonn on SI Cover: Sexists or Blown Out of Proportion? Raunch Culture at Work.
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thehumancondition/archive/2010/02/08/lindsey-vonn-on-sports-illustrated-sexist-or-sporty-two-newsweek-writers-discuss.aspx
The cover of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit 2010 issue features Olympic skier Lindsey Vonn. She is featured in the photograph wearing her ski uniform while going down a hill in ski position. Looking at the photo, she looks like a normal skier. However, controversy has arisen over the photograph because of the stance that Vonn portrays in the photo. While she is in a ski move, her buttocks are lifted in the air. Some argue that the position she portrays in the photograph is sexually charged and sexist. However, others argue that the photo is not sexual in nature and that people are arguing over something that does not exist. While there are two different viewpoints reflected on Vonn’s photo, it is clear that raunch culture has played a major role in helping attack or defend it.
In her Newsweek article, Kate Dailey publishes the discussion that she had with fellow Newsweek writer Sarah Ball. Both women seem to have no trouble with the fact that Vonn is on the cover of Sports Illustrated posing a ski move. The issue they have is the pose that was captured seems to suggest a sexual nature. It comes as no surprise to them because women athletes are often displayed in sexual positions.
Is this photo sexist, or is everyone who says it is a hysterical buzzkill who needs to get a grip? You can make the argument—and Lord knows, people have—that this is a stylized image of a very common sports pose. Vonn is a skier, and this is what skiers do. But at the same time, you have to consider that these images don’t exist in vacuums—and when people who question this image raise their voices, they do so taking into account everything else they know about women athletes, women on magazine covers, and the seriousness which is paid to women’s sports. Of all the ski positions, the one that makes the cover is the one in which Vonn’s (super-strong, impressive) glutes are shoved over the masthead? Considering that women are on only 4 percent of SI covers, why does this one, intentionally or otherwise, have to resemble something like this? [Dailey 2010].
Dailey expresses her frustration at the fact that women athletes are always portrayed sexually. While they support the Vonn being on the cover they question the pose as sexual implications and why another pose of her could have been featured.
Many would argue that there is nothing wrong with Vonn’s cover photo and that people are simply taking it out of proportion. Looking at the photo, it does look as if Vonn is skiing downhill. At first thought, there seems to be nothing sexual about it. However, looking at it from an analytical prospective, her buttocks are high in the air and the uniform does display the curves of her body well. The question that then arises is why and how can such an ordinary looking photo carry so much sexual objectification and controversy? How did it get to this point?
Ariel Levy would argue that raunch culture is to blame for Vonn’s pose on the cover. She claims that our culture has become centered on sex and it has become a mainstream phenomenon. Levy claims that sex has become such a part of our culture that any object has potential to be sexually objectified. She refers to this as a “disconnect between sexiness or hotness and sexiness itself” (Levy 2005: 30). Evidence of this is apparent in our vocabulary when we refer to ordinary objects has “sexy” or “hot”. These objects could have no sexual appeal at all, yet they have become sexually objectified under raunch culture. As Levy points out, “sexiness is no longer just about being arousing or alluring, it’s about being worthwhile” (Levy 2005: 31).
Many would argue that Vonn has become a victim of the raunch culture. Raunch culture has become so prevalent that Vonn could be a victim of sexual objectification. Her body is being sexually objectified in a way that is degrading to women. She is viewed as “hot”. When “hot’ refers to women, Levy claims that it means “two things in particular: fuckable and salable” (Levy 2005: 31). Vonn’s position in her pose is viewed has portraying just the meaning “hot”. Those who argue that it is controversial view it as a product of raunch culture that is offensive to women and the feminist movement.
The photo on the cover of Sports Illustrated could be an ordinary photo of a female Olympian skier skiing down a slope. It is true that our media is full of evidence where women are sexual objected. However, the raunch culture can be seen as a means of empowerment for women.
Consider the oeuvre of pop singer Christina Aguilera, who titled her 2003 album stripped, (the tour was sold out and pulled in $32 million), mud-wrestled in a humping fashion in her video Dirrty, and likes to wear assless chaps. “She’s a wonderful role model,” Aguilera’s mother proclaimed on a VH1 special about her daughter, “trying to change society so that women can do whatever men do” [Levy 2005: 31].
The raunch culture could be viewed as gain in power for women because it celebrates their sexuality instead of objectify it. It helps women to achieve the same sexual opportunism that is available to men. In this case, Vonn’s photo is actually an empowerment for women instead of a setback.
When looking at the photo of Vonn, two sides have completely two different viewpoints of it. One side claims it to be degrading while the other claims it to be empowering. Although the issue is not simple and clear, the commonality that exists between them is that raunch culture is ultimately a major factor of the issue. Raunch culture has accumulated power within the past few decades. One cannot ignore the impact, good or bad, that it has had on our society. Both sides of the controversy offer compelling evidence to support their arguments. Both represent different ends of the spectrum. However, within the midst of controversy, the one thing raunch culture can offer is a starting point at which a dialogue can begin to take place on the issues present within our society.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
News Flash: Men are Marrying Wealthier Women!!!!
Article
In the New York Times article “More Men Marrying Wealthier Women” Sam Roberts discusses the recent findings from a nonpartisan research center. The Pew Research Center, which examines events or trends that shape America and the world, has recently released an analysis of census data that concluded a role reversal between men and women. Paul Fucito, a spokesmen for the Pew Research, stated “ ‘Men now are increasingly likely to marry wives with more education and income than they have, and the reverse is true for women.’” The study examined thirty to forty-four year old Americans because this group encompasses the first generation in which women have obtained more college degrees compared to men. The traditional image of an American housewife is now changing due to society’s acceptance of powerful women and men not being afraid to marry someone who is more educated. Despite, these improvements there is still progress to be made.
Since the 1970’s the increase in incomes has increased more for women. Stephanie Coontz, a professor and research director, explained that men have needed marriage for their physical and mental well-being, but it has now become essential to their economic health, as well. Intelligent women, like Dr. Rajalla Prewitt, are having a hard time “finding someone where there’s a meeting of the minds, where we can have the same goals and values.” Another woman believes it is harder for more educated women to find a husband because men consider these types of women as high-maintenance, since they do not need help taking care of themselves. In addition, Zielinski, who the story enters on, was told by her best friend, a man, “what man is going to want you?”
In 1970 20% of women were married to men who had less education, however, this statistic rose to 28% in 2007, further verifying men are marrying women with more education. This shift is a major change in the traditional gender roles, in which women were told that “only through marriage and motherhood” would they have a happy life (Feminism In Our Time 48). Women were supposed to live a fulfilled life, since they had a husband, children, and a house. However, many women suffered from the “problem that has no name,” according to Betty Frieden in The Feminine Mystique. This problem is simply that they do not feel alive or fail to have anything to look forward to. Instead of going to “college to get a husband,” (Feminism In Our Time 51) women now want to earn an education in order to have a job that would allow them to focus their time and energy. The article cited Professor Coontz, who discussed a similar notion of women attending college to marry a man who made more but was less educated in the mid-20th century.
Professor Coontz believes that even if men become more dependent on their wives, it is unlikely to see similar resentment against women that happened after the return of servicemen from WWII or during the Great Depression. Since it has been acceptable in today’s society for women to hold higher paying jobs and jobs with more prestige, I would agree with Professor Coontz. I do not think even if a woman’s husband got fired or laid off that there would be a nation-wide strategy to get men back to work as in the past. I believe that our society now accepts the fact that women are just as intelligent as men and are capable of succeeding in any occupation.
If this new role reversal holds steady for time to come, then our society’s norm of patriarchy may began to fall apart. Patriarchy, which is a male-dominated society, has been the norm in our society ever since women have been encouraged to stay at home and become a perfect housewife to their bread-winning husband. Allan G. Johnson, a male feminist, discusses patriarchy and how women given in to it because it is the “path of least resistance.” He states that patriarchy is about “masculine protectiveness” and the “primary importance of a husband’s career and the secondary status of a wife’s” (Johnson 39). Both of these statements are what traditionally have been hammered into children’s minds as they have grown up.
Despite the revelations that our society is slowly changing away from a patriarchy, there are still men out there who consider marrying a woman with more money or education is wrong because it puts them in an inferior role in the family. This inferiority that men feel tends to be more common when the man has a blue collar job or is raised in a setting where the family places high value on male dominance in the income category. Since our society in general is shifting away from this male superiority, more men will be comfortable with what they earn and this inferiority will not be as big of an issue. The way a child, whether male or female, is brought up will dramatically influence how they view this idea of who should be the “breadwinner.”
School is another place where children learn at a young age the typical jobs and responsibilities each gender is supposed to have. If a child has a teacher that stresses the female characteristics of “caring, tenderness, and vulnerability” and male “anger, rage, and toughness” (Johnson 39) then young girls will think they are supposed to be the care takers of the family and not allowed to have their own career. Moreover, boys in high school tend to pick on their female counterparts who do well in school, further promoting women to not do their best in school. However, this is changing every year as boys became to appreciate intellectual girls.
Furthermore, Johnson says patriarchy is “more than a collection of individuals” (Johnson 30), since it is something that we all participate in. Thus, in order for more change to occur in gender roles, individuals and society as a whole must find little ways to resist. This can be accomplished by the media displaying more successful women of all ages and races, who are also a part of a family, in their news and television shows. If shows begin to cast women in a “breadwinner” role, then it can become ingrained into the way our society thinks and acts towards women who hold power. When one compares television shows from today to those from a couple of decades ago, the shift in gender roles is apparent. For example, I Love Lucy compared to Commander in Chief, where women are portrayed as a housewife and woman President, respectively.
In addition to Johnson and Frieden, Frye also shows her resentment with patriarchy. She uses a birdcage to describe women in our society, in which a “network of forces and barriers…which conspire to the immobilization, reduction, and molding of women and the lives we live.” This quote relates to this article because decades ago there were barriers that caused women to feel inferior to men. Whenever they tried to move around them, they were looked down upon as not being feminine. However, as more of these restrictions were reduced/removed, women will advance even more in our society and more men will not be afraid of a more educated partner. This trend of men marrying wealthier women is just the beginning.
Maybe one day we will see equal pay for men and women!!!!
(Currently a woman makes $0.78 for every $1.00 a man makes.) From: Gender Wage Gap
In the New York Times article “More Men Marrying Wealthier Women” Sam Roberts discusses the recent findings from a nonpartisan research center. The Pew Research Center, which examines events or trends that shape America and the world, has recently released an analysis of census data that concluded a role reversal between men and women. Paul Fucito, a spokesmen for the Pew Research, stated “ ‘Men now are increasingly likely to marry wives with more education and income than they have, and the reverse is true for women.’” The study examined thirty to forty-four year old Americans because this group encompasses the first generation in which women have obtained more college degrees compared to men. The traditional image of an American housewife is now changing due to society’s acceptance of powerful women and men not being afraid to marry someone who is more educated. Despite, these improvements there is still progress to be made.
Since the 1970’s the increase in incomes has increased more for women. Stephanie Coontz, a professor and research director, explained that men have needed marriage for their physical and mental well-being, but it has now become essential to their economic health, as well. Intelligent women, like Dr. Rajalla Prewitt, are having a hard time “finding someone where there’s a meeting of the minds, where we can have the same goals and values.” Another woman believes it is harder for more educated women to find a husband because men consider these types of women as high-maintenance, since they do not need help taking care of themselves. In addition, Zielinski, who the story enters on, was told by her best friend, a man, “what man is going to want you?”
In 1970 20% of women were married to men who had less education, however, this statistic rose to 28% in 2007, further verifying men are marrying women with more education. This shift is a major change in the traditional gender roles, in which women were told that “only through marriage and motherhood” would they have a happy life (Feminism In Our Time 48). Women were supposed to live a fulfilled life, since they had a husband, children, and a house. However, many women suffered from the “problem that has no name,” according to Betty Frieden in The Feminine Mystique. This problem is simply that they do not feel alive or fail to have anything to look forward to. Instead of going to “college to get a husband,” (Feminism In Our Time 51) women now want to earn an education in order to have a job that would allow them to focus their time and energy. The article cited Professor Coontz, who discussed a similar notion of women attending college to marry a man who made more but was less educated in the mid-20th century.
Professor Coontz believes that even if men become more dependent on their wives, it is unlikely to see similar resentment against women that happened after the return of servicemen from WWII or during the Great Depression. Since it has been acceptable in today’s society for women to hold higher paying jobs and jobs with more prestige, I would agree with Professor Coontz. I do not think even if a woman’s husband got fired or laid off that there would be a nation-wide strategy to get men back to work as in the past. I believe that our society now accepts the fact that women are just as intelligent as men and are capable of succeeding in any occupation.
If this new role reversal holds steady for time to come, then our society’s norm of patriarchy may began to fall apart. Patriarchy, which is a male-dominated society, has been the norm in our society ever since women have been encouraged to stay at home and become a perfect housewife to their bread-winning husband. Allan G. Johnson, a male feminist, discusses patriarchy and how women given in to it because it is the “path of least resistance.” He states that patriarchy is about “masculine protectiveness” and the “primary importance of a husband’s career and the secondary status of a wife’s” (Johnson 39). Both of these statements are what traditionally have been hammered into children’s minds as they have grown up.
Despite the revelations that our society is slowly changing away from a patriarchy, there are still men out there who consider marrying a woman with more money or education is wrong because it puts them in an inferior role in the family. This inferiority that men feel tends to be more common when the man has a blue collar job or is raised in a setting where the family places high value on male dominance in the income category. Since our society in general is shifting away from this male superiority, more men will be comfortable with what they earn and this inferiority will not be as big of an issue. The way a child, whether male or female, is brought up will dramatically influence how they view this idea of who should be the “breadwinner.”
School is another place where children learn at a young age the typical jobs and responsibilities each gender is supposed to have. If a child has a teacher that stresses the female characteristics of “caring, tenderness, and vulnerability” and male “anger, rage, and toughness” (Johnson 39) then young girls will think they are supposed to be the care takers of the family and not allowed to have their own career. Moreover, boys in high school tend to pick on their female counterparts who do well in school, further promoting women to not do their best in school. However, this is changing every year as boys became to appreciate intellectual girls.
Furthermore, Johnson says patriarchy is “more than a collection of individuals” (Johnson 30), since it is something that we all participate in. Thus, in order for more change to occur in gender roles, individuals and society as a whole must find little ways to resist. This can be accomplished by the media displaying more successful women of all ages and races, who are also a part of a family, in their news and television shows. If shows begin to cast women in a “breadwinner” role, then it can become ingrained into the way our society thinks and acts towards women who hold power. When one compares television shows from today to those from a couple of decades ago, the shift in gender roles is apparent. For example, I Love Lucy compared to Commander in Chief, where women are portrayed as a housewife and woman President, respectively.
In addition to Johnson and Frieden, Frye also shows her resentment with patriarchy. She uses a birdcage to describe women in our society, in which a “network of forces and barriers…which conspire to the immobilization, reduction, and molding of women and the lives we live.” This quote relates to this article because decades ago there were barriers that caused women to feel inferior to men. Whenever they tried to move around them, they were looked down upon as not being feminine. However, as more of these restrictions were reduced/removed, women will advance even more in our society and more men will not be afraid of a more educated partner. This trend of men marrying wealthier women is just the beginning.
Maybe one day we will see equal pay for men and women!!!!
(Currently a woman makes $0.78 for every $1.00 a man makes.) From: Gender Wage Gap
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
What About Us? Excluded Groups Within the Feminist Movement
It was made clear from the readings that there are still groups of women who are left out of the feminist movement. The movement is still very much centered around heterosexual white middle class women. It has excluded women who identify as queer, black, poor, etc. Audre Lorde, a black female lesbian and feminist who talks about this exclusion in her article. She argues that American women differ in race, sexuality, and class, but these differences are never talked about and are often left out of dialogue. The identities of women are portrayed as very one dimensional. For example, under the patriarchal system, Lorde claims that the only identity associated with women is maternity. The differences of women are never discussed and are often overlooked my men and women. In fact, Lorde finds problem with the fact that these differences are not being acknowledged within the feminist movement. In her view, "difference is that raw and powerful connection from which our personal power is forged" (Lorde). Women do not embrace their differences. Instead they are either seen as a challenge, and according to Lorde, has served as "causes for separation and suspicion rather than as forces of change" (Lorde). I have to agree with Lorde. Looking at it, one must realize how we are socialized by society to ignore and devalue our differences rather than embrace them. This leads to oppression of groups and peoples just because they are categorized as "different" from the "norm." It also leads to exclusion. While the feminist movement is geared towards the rights of women, its main focus is still centered around white middle class heterosexual woman. Blacks, lesbians, and other oppressed groups are left out. Peggy McIntosh identifies just how even as a women, her white middle class status gives her many more rights over other women of different races, classes, and backgrounds. She lists 50 (and it could be even more) of her privileges as a white middle class heterosexual women. She identifies how her white privilege gives her so many rights - and how it was oppressing women who didn't have it. Even in the the article by Tiya Miles, we see how failure to acknowledge differences such as race, class, and background can exclude many women from the movement. The fact of the matter is that sexism is tied in with racism, heterosexism, classism, and many other -isms. Before any type of change is to be made, there must first be an acknowledge of the differences within the community and how these differences impact different groups in social life.Yes, the feminist movement can be for all women, but we must realize that a white woman's experience is different from that of a black woman. A heterosexual woman's experience is different from that of a woman who identifies as non-heterosexual. Each experience is valid, and we can't assume that one group's experience will speak for the rest. If we do, we are oppressing them as much as they are oppressing us. We must go from having a one dimensional outlook to having an array of viewpoints. It is then that we can truly begin a revolution for change.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
We're In it Together (Response to Johnson)
Johnson does an excellent job in pointing out how we are all a part of the system of patriarchy. She challenges the notions that individuals or exclusive groups (i.e. men) are fully responsible for this system. She challenges readers to look past individualism. "...we have to realize that we're stuck in a model of social life that views everything as beginning and ending with individuals" (Johnson, 27). This does not mean that individuals are not held accountable; they are. However, we must look at the larger, whole picture. We all participate in social life through socialization (Johnson, 31). This socialization helps to form our identities and how they relate to other's identities in society. We follow these identities according to what we have been socialized to believe and do and thus drive on the systems that we so often blame for our oppression. Johnson also points out that we are quick to take the paths of least resistance (Johnson, 32). We do this because it's the easy way out and we will be socially accepted. I found Johnson's argument mind blogging and I agreed with her. Who ever knew or realized how much socialization plays a part in our society, how it forms so much of our identities and relationships between each other. It is where the systems of oppression, like patriarchy, get their power from. Yet, we are so quick to put the whole blame on individuals. We fail to realize our own involvement. It pretty clear....if we want to take down patriarchy, we need to have a new way of thinking. We have to challenge social life and its control over us. I'm not suggesting ridding ourselves of social life because our existence is dependent upon it. I am suggesting that we look at how it is structured and how we all play a role in it. Looking at it from individual perspective is only a piece of the puzzle. People run the system; the system doesn't run us (although this is popular belief). Once we come to this realization, we can begin to ask meaningful, deeper questions and search for solutions to our social problems. It is then that we can truly begin to challenge the systems of power and oppression present in our society and thus revolutionize it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)