Follow up post for 3/1

    I couldn’t quite follow Douglas’ logic on her point that thinness makes girls mean and that the two are linked.  I agree that social pressures for thinness and meanness exist for girls, but I do not see the direct correlation.

    In shows like Gossip Girls, women display both, but I do not think one leads to the other.  One of the more damaging side effects Douglas points is the show's construction of female power.  The power exaggerates traits women already are stereotyped to posses: pettiness, shallowness, and a cutthroat nature.   In this way, a woman’s power is limited and villainified.  Though I can see Douglas’ point, I think it is a tad unfair.  The show critiques wealth more then women.  Often Blair works with her male friend/lover Chuck to exact revenge and the two share a degree of respect for one another for their mutual craftiness.   This shows the power of these wealthy teens and how they use that power for selfish reasons.  Though the terms “Queen Bee” and “bitch” are reserved for the females, which is telling, I think the meanness extends to males as well.

    Douglas’ examination of plastic surgery, beauty, and the prioritization of youth is displayed by this commercial which aired during this year’s super bowl.  It shows a young woman’s body – or what we think is a young woman’s body – attached to Joan Rivers’ face.  This commercial parodies the pressures our society puts on older women to retain their youthful bodies and sex appeal and therefore their worth.

This connects to Ann Fausto-Sterling’s “Hormonal Hurrcianes” which discusses how post-menopausal women are viewed as a diseased deviation from the normal.  Fausto-Sterling drives home the important point that here again men are considered normal and women are judged against that standard.  Since men are half of the population them being “normal” does not make any sense.  In her conclusion my views differ slightly from Fausto-Sterling’s, her concept of the sex-continuum is echoed here when she fights against the “central role of biology in adult female development” (120).  I think that biology is important.  Women do have – in predominant cases – different hormonal interactions then men.  This is important.  The problem isn’t that biology is prized; it is that the data derived from biology – that women undergo menopause and have cyclical hormone flunctuations – is then viewed as deviant against the male model. 

 joan rivers superbowl commercial 

Lead post for 2/24

     Adrienne Rich begins her essay by lamenting the lack of lesbian acknowledgement by the feminist community.  She argues that this – along with the exclusion of minority races from feminist writing – fights one facet of the system by feeding into its overall oppression.

     Rich then point out how the literature positions lesbianism as a deviation from inherent tendencies or a rebellion against men.  She believes the heterosexuality has a “compulsive” component when it is considered the norm.  Women do not consider why one would choose to be a heterosexual; it simply is.        

     Rich thinks that this denies the important role lesbians have fulfilled historically, along with witches and spinsters, to undermine the traditional expectation of a heterosexual marriage.  She deconstructs Chodorow’s claim that women are drawn to other women more emotionally but because of some unidentifiable deeper drive chose men.  Rich thinks Chodorow’s argument ignores the pressures of society towards heterosexuality.  She then examines a list of ways men oppress women and connects these to ways men confine women to heterosexuality.

      Rich explains that this normalization of heterosexuality is cemented by the workplace where being feminine and submissive to men is part of a woman’s job regardless of her orientation.  This along with pornography creates a world where,  “male sexual desire itself may be aroused by female vulnerability” (22).  I hope that that is not true.

     Rich also discusses how this male desire has a long history of being considered superior in intensity and uncontrollable in relation to female sexual desire.  When women accept this, they create a world where women participate in male identification and participate in their own subjugation.

Rich then gives examples of the lesbian continuum.  She uses this term to refer not simply to female/female sexual relations but also intimate friendships.  She gives historical examples.  I think this is confusing because it is not how “lesbian” is understood.  “Lesbian” is a term to refer to sexual things; to remove the sexuality is imprecise.  Nevertheless, Rich’s use of this term prioritizes the deep female bond that occurs historically and in fiction.  This bond is attacked by the normalization of heterosexuality which positions the male and the most important figure in a females relational life.

     At the end of her essay, Rich includes letters with a group that published her essay.  These letters bring up some of the same issues I was beginning to see.  Some could read her writing as implying that all penetration is rape, for example.  Rich’s response letter attempts to address some of these issues by acknowledging the distinction between the lesbian continuum, which is not sexual, and the lesbian existence, which is.

     Leila J. Rupp’s essay explores the deviations in same-sex sexual activities from the lens of different cultures and times.  I think this is extremely important work.  She explains how homosexuality – gay, lesbian, and bisexual identity – is an extremely Western concept.  Sexual actions typically associated with homosexuality do not correlate to homosexuality as we understand it in America today.  Last semester I did a report on a group in Papua New Guinea that engaged in ritual semen consumption practices.  This originally exposed me to the ideas Rupp is articulating. 

     This work connects to Rich’s by discussing the nature of close, intimate relationships between same-sex individuals.  Though Rupp focuses on the potential sexual nature of these relationships it correlates to Rich’s proposed “lesbian continuum” where female intimacies, even non-sexual, correlate to lesbian closeness.

    In some ways Rupp’s article takes the point even further than Rich’s.  Rich argues for an acknowledgement by feminists of lesbianism while Rupp desires acknowledgement of the imprecise and changing meaning of these very labels with the implication that this includes heterosexuality.  

Follow up post for 2/22

I like Susan Douglas.  I always enjoy her critiques even if I don’t quite agree.  In “Sex ‘R’ Us” she examined the archetype of the “sexpert.”  Cosmo epitomizes this girl.  Though sexually liberated and knowledgeable, much of this knowledge is devoted to male pleasure.  In some ways, I think this can be a positive encouragement to be self-less.   The problem is that it is not balanced.  As far as I could tell of her analysis of the male-geared equivalent Maxim, men are not so explicitly bombarded with information on how to please women.  Furthermore, the more disturbing aspects of Cosmo come out in the articles that do not directly address sexual pleasures where women are encouraged to sacrifice their own concerns for silence and thus appear as the cool, laid-back girlfriend.  This translates into women placing their male partner’s needs so far above their own that they ignore problems.  I think this particularly is damaging to women and men.  Communication is important.  Even if the communication goes along the lines of, “I may just be being insecure here but it really bothers me when you do X.”  Getting things out in the open can lead to a better understanding of each other and oneself.

Douglas then leads into “Why Black Sexual Politics?” by examining the Hip-Hop industry, particularly its representations of black women.  Patricia Hill Collins raised some interesting issues I had never considered.  For one, the idea that “Women of African descent have been associated with an animalistic, “whild” sexuality.   As she mentions, this can be seen particularly clearly with some of Destiny’s Child’s images.  When I look again and apply this new lens, it seems shockingly obvious. 

 Now these women are far from the time of residing in cages and truly being viewed as animals (thankfully).  Therefore, why is their outfit/background choice an issue? White women could wear jungle skins without comment (except maybe by peta), so why when black women do it is attributed to racial stereotypes?  I think this brings up the point that history does matter.  The historical representations and connotations are important even when society has changed.  For this reason, when Destiny’s Child presents itself as above, it dialogues with the historical context of black women’s sexuality and arguably furthers the stereotypes. 

Bailey News Flash # 1

How Self-Help Articles Hurt             

             Media and culture engage in a constant reciprocal dialogue.  One creates while also being fed by the other.  In this way, acknowledging the messages of the media can slowly begin to change small elements of culture and catalyze the cyclical process to promote more widespread change.  A change in culture will ultimately promote a change in media, which will promote more change in culture.  By analyzing a recent Glamour article, cause for this kind of change becomes clear.  In Enlightened Sexism, Susan Douglas (2010) outlines how culture and media project contradictory messages and use one to justify the other.  For Douglas this manifests as the contradiction of embedded feminism with reemerging sexism.  The Glamour article engages in a similar system.  The magazine perpetuates poor self-esteem by featuring models such as Brooklyn Decker and then tries to justify this with articles that promote positive self-esteem.  This behavior is not confined to the abstract realm of media; instead these same patterns begin to permeate into intimate aspects of personal life.

[link to the article I reference: http://www.glamour.com/health-fitness/2011/02/shocking-body-image-news-97-percent-of-women-will-be-cruel-to-their-bodies-today?currentPage=1]

            A recent Glamour article’s headline reads “Shocking Body-Image News: 97% of Women Will Be Cruel to Their Bodies Today”.  This article can be found in the Health section of the magazine.  It demonstrates a study done where they asked women to write down negative thoughts they had throughout the day (Driesbach, 2011).  From a scientific perspective, this already seems a little sketchy since the task itself could feasibly influence the frequency of negative thoughts.  However, that point aside, the article reveals that women have issues with their body image. Shocker.  Glamour attempts to address the underlying reasons for this and then to address practical issues.   It fails miserably.           

            Glamour argues that often women’s negative, self-deprecating thoughts come from deeper issues then just dissatisfaction with their bodies.  The article explains that body hate can stem from other sources like, “[Your] boss or boyfriend…[or] because you don’t think your professional ideas are being valued” (Dreisbach, 2011, p. 1).  This is valid.  But, it still addresses symptoms rather than the cause – insecurity.  Insecurity, when used as a general term, refers to confused, unstable, and negative conceptions of one’s identity.  It translates that this would extend to other aspects of identity beyond the body.  It is no surprise that the participants in their study who reported the highest frequency of negative thoughts also reported being “Unsatisfied with their career or relationship” (Dreisbach, 2011, p. 1).  So where is this insecurity coming from?  Insecurity maps onto boyfriends, jobs, bosses, and bodies; these things are not the source of it.  Since media represents such a pervasive element of our experience, it is implicated contributing to poor self-esteem.

Nude model in the body image article 

            Glamour points to the role media plays by teaching young girls that beauty matters, what it lookslike, and that they do not measure up (Dreisbach, 2011).  The article explains that the media bombards girls with these unobtainable ideals, but then completely ignores its own role.  The very same article displays a made-up, presumably airbrushed, nude model.But she’s a “plus size” model so we are supposed to think that they are championing for diverse expression of beauty.This attempt falls flat.  She is beautiful but in a conventional curvy, tan, smooth way with well-defined features and flawless hair.  That isn’t real – as in possessed by most of the population – beauty.  Furthermore, her proportions appear to be of a healthy weight, but even still to many women she appears to be comparatively very thin, and yet she is labeled as “plus-size.”  What does that make the viewer who is a bigger size then her?  Plus-plus size?  That is not very reassuring.  This image contributes to the “[U]nattainable cultural beauty ideals” (Dreisbach, 2011, p. 1) the very same article later mentions.  Other aspects of the magazine more directly highlight such ideals. 

Brooklyn Decker, Sports Illustrated model extraordinaire, was featured on Glamour’s June 2010 cover (“Cover Shoot”, 2010).   Sports Illustrated endears itself to its primarily male readers – or viewers - every year by providing a full edition completely devoted to women and their bodies.  But as Susan Douglas explains in her book Enlightened Sexism (2010), such displays often subvert the goals of feminism rather then celebrate them.  Women’s sexuality is acknowledged but only in its context to male pleasure.   Women are images, nothing more.  In an interview with Decker, Glamour asked her what she liked about her debut into film via Just Go With It; Decker responds, “Its fun – I get to talk!” (“Cover Shoot”, 2010, p. 1).  Her role at Sports Illustrated does not require talking because it relies solely on what she can provide while remaining silent – as an image.  Glamour champions this reduction of women to a flat representation by featuring women like Brooklyn Decker in the context of achieving the ideal image being their only accomplishment.  Glamour then asks, why do women self-deprecate? I fear that this irony may be lost on the readers.

[link to article about Brooklyn Decker: http://www.glamour.com/fashion/2010/05/every-body-is-a-hot-body-crystal-renn-brooklyn-decker-and-alessandra-ambrosio-model-the-seasons-hottest-swimsuits ]

This contradiction deepens by looking at other aspects of the magazine.  With headings like Home, Fashion, Beauty, Sex Love & Life, Weddings, Health and Fitness, Shopping, and Horoscopes (Dreisbach, 2011) the magazine becomes reminiscent of some of the themes in What Women Want and Clueless that Susan Douglas discusses in Enlightened Sexism (2010).  Both of these films represent elements of feminism by giving voice to women.  Unfortunately, this voice articulates an unrealistic portrayal of what concerns women.  It focuses on shopping, relationships, and insecurities.  Glamour shows these same trends in their headlines.  As a women’s magazine, it perpetuates the idea that these are the only things women care about.  I find myself echoing Susan Douglas and asking, where are the politics? the social issues? why are all of women’s concerns portrayed as being about pleasing and accommodating men?   Glamour attacks and diminishes women’s identities and then postulates concern for female insecurity and psychological health.

Image of Brooklyn Decker being
passed around. 

This contradiction bleeds from media to permeate our culture on a day-to-day level of interaction.  The other morning sitting in Frank Dining Hall, a group of my male friends began to talk about Brooklyn Decker.  Previously, I had not been exposed to her.  They compared her to other celebrity models by passing around images on their Internet phones. Was I offended?  No.  But, I realized that maybe I should have been.  They paraded before my eyes images of the ideal woman – silent, tan, sculpted and in a bikini – with a complete disregard for my own position as a woman.  In retrospect, this encounter makes me sad.  Not because I felt inadequate but because of what it reveals about acceptable behavior.  As my friends, I know that none of these men would ever tell me that I did not measure up.  I am confident that they would encourage me to further a positive self-esteem.  Yet through this, they operate under the same version of enlightened sexism that Glamour does.  They project two contradictory messages and allow one to justify the other.Susan Douglas’ concept of enlightened sexism sheds light onto another dimension on what articles like the one in Glamour mean on a grander scale.  Enlightened sexism manifests when society – as comprised of individuals – thinks that feminism’s work is done, that women have gained equality, and that as a result sexist behaviors of the past are no longer harmful or oppressive.  It cites the success of feminism in defense to its sexist attitudes.  In a similar way, media presents images like that of Brooklyn Decker and thereby champions the sexist reduction of women; this creates the unobtainable media image, which influences self-esteem.  Media gets away with this by presenting feel good articles like Glamour’s “Shocking Body Image News” which professes to build positive self-esteems.   Perusing through the website, the archaic reduction of women’s desires to sex, relationships, shopping etc. clashes with the attempt to help women gain confidence.  Enlightened sexism manifests even in these efforts to help women.  By being critical of the world around us, we can begin the slow process of changing our culture. 

References

"Cover Shoot Photo Gallery: Crystal Renn, Brooklyn Decker and Alessandra Ambrosio:

Fashion: Glamour.com." Glamour Magazine: Fashion, Beauty, Hair, Makeup, Diet, Health, Sex Advice, Dating, Engagement Rings, Weddings, Wedding Dresses: Glamour.com. Web. 18 Feb. 2011. <http://www.glamour.com/fashion/2010/05/cover-shoot-photo-gallery-crystal-renn-brooklyn-decker-and-alessandra-ambrosio#slide=1>.

 Douglas, Susan. (2010). Enlightened Sexism: the Seductive Message that Feminism’s

Work is Done. New York, NY: Times Books Henry Holt and Company.

 Dreisbach, Shaun. "Shocking Body-Image News: 97% of Women Will Be Cruel to Their

Bodies Today." Glamour Magazine: Fashion, Beauty, Hair, Makeup, Diet, Health, Sex Advice, Dating, Engagement Rings, Weddings, Wedding Dresses: Glamour.com. Web. 14 Feb. 2011. <http://www.glamour.com/health-fitness/2011/02/shocking-body-image-news-97-percent-of-women-will-be-cruel-to-their-bodies-today>.

Glamour Magazine: Fashion, Beauty, Hair, Makeup, Diet, Health, Sex Advice, Dating,

Engagement Rings, Weddings, Wedding Dresses: Glamour.com. Web. 18 Feb. 2011. <http://www.glamour.com/>.

First Paper

Jason Kleinman

Professor Simonson

Introduction to Women’s Studies

February 18, 2011

Underlying Gender Inequalities

Gender inequalities are prevalent in modern society whether people realize it or not. This holds true in many areas of our culture. The workplace is one location where gender inequality often goes unnoticed because of a phenomenon called “gender fatigue”. Similarly, in modern media, gender inequality has seemingly disappeared but, in reality, it is still a huge part of what we see and hear every day through many media sources. In modern media, attractive women who play violent roles in films and on television are objectified but neither they nor the audiences seem to notice. Sexism that isn’t identified is very disturbing because it is impossible to remedy a problem that is undiagnosed.

Women have been fighting gender gaps in the workplace for as long as they have been in the workplace. While this gender gap narrowed over the last century, there is no doubt that it still exists. According to “College Times”, although women make up 46% of the total U.S. labor force, they only make 77.5 cents for every dollar that men make. Additionally, women often have to work longer to receive promotions than men do. Finally, four out of every ten businesses worldwide have no women at all in senior management. All of these statistics may be striking but what is more surprising is the ignorance that men in the workplace have to these discrepancies. Yvonne P. Mazzulo, in her article “Gender Discrimination, Gender Bias and now…Gender Fatigue”, talks about gender fatigue, which occurs because most workers do not acknowledge gender advantage in the workplace. The problem that this creates, she explains, is that gender fatigue makes it impossible to have productive discussions about the inequalities between men and women in the workplace. This concept, and article in general, relate extremely well to Peggy McIntosh’s article, “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack”. Her article speaks of the privileges that white people experience every day without even noticing it. She gives fifty examples of daily situations when being white gives her an advantage over minorities. She then relates this white advantage to the unnoticed advantage that men have over women. This is exactly what Mazzulo is referring to when she speaks of gender fatigue. Gender fatigue is similar to white privilege. Gender bias in the workplace is a statistical fact and the idea that most people don’t recognize this fact makes it so that gender fatigue and gender bias are almost impossible to overcome. It also makes it so that meritocracy becomes somewhat of a myth. McIntosh explains that someone’s life is not always what he or she makes of it, because opportunities may exist for certain people and not others.

Another area of society where vast improvements have been made but gender discrepancies still exist is in the media. I came across an article entitled, “Top 5 Sexy Women Who Kick Ass in Film”. Immediately, without reading the article, I realized how discriminatory and sexist this title is. In modern society, this article might be seen as complimentary. It is written by a man who is actually praising five women he believes are extremely “sexy”. What’s wrong with that? The problem with it is that he is objectifying these women and treating them like they are only successful because they are sexy. The worst part about this seemingly harmless article is that it is not the author who is sexist; this article represents a societal issue that plagues the media every day. Women have made a remarkable amount of progress in the media within the last century. However, like women in the workplace, women are not treated the same way as men in the media and no one pays attention to it. Susan Douglass in her book “Enlightened Sexism” discusses a phenomenon known as enlightened sexism. Enlightened sexism is the concept that women have come such a long way that now they can focus on pleasing men and looking good. This unquestionably comes to fruition in the media. Women believe that they are in control of their own sexuality and it empowers them to be on the “big screen” in tight leather pants, a shirt that barely covers their torso, holding a whip. “Top 5 Sexy Women Who Kick Ass in Film” describes women who fit this mold almost exactly, including his top choice, Rhona Mitra who wears tight leather outfits and handles catfights with ease. While the author sees this as complementary, many would see this comment as objectifying and highly offensive. This is the major problem with enlightened sexism. While it is nice to think that women have made huge strides toward gender equality, enlightened sexism has set women back decades. The women in this article, Rhona Mitra, Devon Aoki, Milla Jovavich, Uma Thurman, and Rose McGowan, all believe that they are empowered through their roles as sexy women who are violent. However, the reality of it is that the people creating and casting most of these movies and shows are men (wherein lies the objectification of these beautiful women). Modern media and the workplace are just two of many examples where male dominance is not noticed in society. Mazzulo states in her article that not recognizing that there is a gender bias is the worst possible situation because if a problem is not known, it cannot be addressed and fixed.

Another aspect of the top five women article that cannot be overlooked is an infatuation with women who are violent in the media. This is not a fascination that this one author has, but a societal obsession among most men. Douglass explains that women being violent in film are considered sexy by men. During the 1990’s women’s violence became a media sensation. It spanned across many forms of media from movies, to magazines, to news sources. While it is clear that society has an obsession with women being violent in the entertainment industry, real women were made famous for their violent acts as well. Amy Fisher and Lorena Bobbitt are great examples of this media frenzy. They were both arrested for violent acts and became media sensations. Even though the famous actresses described in “Top 5 Women Who Kick Ass in Film” are simply playing roles, the infatuation with women’s violence is undeniable and these movies are playing into this societal fixation. This idea of women’s violence is just another subtle way in which gender inequality plagues modern society. While no one pays attention to the fact that violent women, fictional or not, are seen in a completely different light than men, it is clear that this is another discrepancy and gender inequality that affects every day life.

Women have made unbelievable progress over the last hundred years in terms of closing the gender gap. Nevertheless, unnoticed gender inequalities still affect modern society. In the workplace, most people are completely unaware of the disparities that exist between genders, yet there are statistics that substantiate these inequalities. In the media, many men and women agree that sexy women wearing almost nothing on screen is acceptable and commonplace. Women will go so far as to say that this is empowering. Nevertheless, it is clear that women are being objectified. Finally, women who are violent in the media are seen completely differently than men who are violent. Whether it is a fictional character that men drool over because of her violence or a real woman who is made famous for her violence against men, men in similar roles are not treated the same way. Fixing a problem is impossible if it is not recognized as a problem. Both of these articles exemplify gender inequalities that go unnoticed in society. These gender inequalities are ideologies that are so entrenched in modern culture that most people have no idea that they even exist.

Follow up post for 2/17

The fact that the difference between a clitoris and a penis and therefore at times between a male and a female is measured in inches horrified me.  This extremely cosmetic approach to acceptable genitalia goes against my understanding of the body.  As Fausto-Sperling explains this kind of thinking prioritizes “[N]ot what the sex organ does for the body to which it is attached… [but] what it does  vis-à-vis [in relation to] other bodies (p. 58).   Whether or not “men” can penetrate and “women” be penetrated becomes the issue.  To me, this represents an extremely narrow view of sex and pleasure.  Multiple actions and positions can promote pleasure.  If an individual has more unconventional genitalia this does not necessarily limit their ability to experience pleasure.  Especially since the clitoris, not the depth of the vagina, is so essential to female orgasm.  The fact that this organ was often removed shows the historical, and sometimes still present, disregard our society has/had for female pleasure.  I do not cite my experience as exemplary for all, but I had NYS, public high school health/sex education classes in high school.  The clitoris’ location, function, and importance were never discussed.  I enjoyed Fausto-Sterling’s point that an enlarged clitoris really could be the opposite of problematic since it would be easy to find. 

I can go with some of Fausto-Sterling’s thinking.  I like the idea of a continuum in terms of gender roles, that there are many types of people that borrow preferences, dress, and behavior from both of the traditional roles.  I can appreciate the way that a sex continuum would contribute to this thinking.  However, the fact is that there are two extremely large groups of the population that share certain physical characteristics with one another and not with the other group.  Males are larger than females.  This simple fact alone fundamentally changes the way they experience the world.  These differences are noteworthy.  I agree that a world with less emphasis on genderly defined sex would be more accepting of those that blur the lines in terms of behavior as well as biology.  But, I cannot conceive a world that would “Render the very notion of gender difference irrelevant” (p. 101).  I think that there observable, inherent similarities among a large portion of the population (i.e. menstruation) that is then different from another large portion.  This is relevant. 

Lead post for 1/15

Sexing the Body by Ann Fausto-Sterling

Chapter 1 – “Dueling Dualisms”

Fausto-Sterling begins with the example of Mario Patino, a female athlete, who was revealed during Olympic testing to technically be male and barred from competing.  She had a Y chromosome, underdeveloped testes, and no ovaries/uterus.  But, she had developed as a woman due to her cells responding to estrogen and not testosterone though both were released by her testes.  She fought to get reinstated and was eventually successful.  Fausto-Sterling argues that testing of female athletes results from two fears: that countries will cheat by having men compete and that women as athletes cannot be true women because it is unfeminine to compete.

Fausto-Sterling argues that sex, like gender, should be a spectrum.  She argues that science does not play as integral role that “We may use scientific knowledge to help us make the decision, but only our beliefs about gender - not science - can define our sex.”  Though science is somewhat rooted in fact, it is informed by the cultural climate and disturbingly shifts accordingly.  This continuum, for gender and sex, is mutable and not constrained by what one identified as in the past.  Coming out as a lesbian does not necessarily mean that one did not enjoy vast amounts of heterosexual sex in the past.

The history of sexuality lends itself to a fluid definition.  In different times, homosexuals as we understand them today did not exists.  Behaviors that we associate with homosexuals did occur but they were outside of modern boundaries.  This supports the idea that sexuality as well as sex is not inherently biological, but is deeply dependent on current social trends.  Furthermore, the same individuals and behaviors of a past era may be categorized differently in the present era.

Our society is one of opposing binaries (dualisms).  This creates a world where gender and sexuality sometimes pose on opposite side of these binaries.  This implies that sex is scientific while gender is purely constructed.  Feminists cannot critique sex because it is scientifically determined.

Fausto-Sterling argues that our bodies themselves provide the material but society can influence the form.  Children reared in extreme non-social situations do not develop a sex-drive. Developmental Systems Theory (DST) joins the processes of Nature and Nurture as inseparably related to one another.

Chapter 2 – “The Sex Which Prevaileth"

Our society structures for only two sexes.  We can see this through the way inter-sex individuals have no clear classification in terms of pronouns and whether laws apply.  Doctors can correct deviations at birth.

This chapter begins with a historical look at how different societies have dealt with hermaphrodites.  They have undoubtedly been a part of human history.  Some cultures acknowledge sex as a continuum but may still persecute hermaphrodites.

Today, true hermaphrodites have gonads associated with both of the sexes.  Any less clear variations are not considered true hermaphrodites.  This, along with medical plastic surgical intervention, has led to the almost disappearance of the intersex. 

Fausto-Sterling ties this chapter in with the first by examining how rigid sex boundaries are problematic because they deny the continuum of sex. 

Tenth grade biology introduced me to the world of hermaphrodites to which I was previously ignorant.  We watched a video that followed the stories of inter-sex individuals from birth.  For the first time I was introduced to the idea that sex is a complex culmination of chemistry, society, biology, attraction, etc.  Our current society demands that one falls within one of two easily defined markers.  Only recently have variations within attraction been acknowledged.  I always sympathized with hermaphrodites since sex is such a pervasive marker in our society.  To not belong decisivley to either of the two options effects so much of social, legal, and romantic interactions. These chapters brought me back to those themes and added to them. 

lead post 2/10

Peggy McIntosh in “White Privilege and Male Privilege” talks about how men may very well recognize that women are underprivileged but the problem is that they don’t recognize that they are overprivelaged. McIntosh, as a white woman, equates men not knowing of their superiority as males to white people not knowing their superiority as whites. She states how even if the advantages that white people gain through their race are subconscious and unintentional, they are still reaping the benefits of their race. She then goes on to list 50 advantages that white people encounter every day, most of which go unnoticed in every day situations. Some of these include; being listened to in a group of people even though you are the minority, knowing that if you move into a neighborhood you will most likely be safe and accepted, etc. She concludes that while your life may be what you make it to a certain extent, many doors open for certain people through no virtues of their own. This relates just as well to sex as it does to race, which is the point of the article. The same way that white people do not realize all of the advantages that they have on a daily basis, men do not realize just how much of an every day advantage they have over women.

McIntosh talks toward the end of her passage about earned strength and unearned power. This is very interesting because it seems in our society that this line seems to be blurred quite often. Even though men HAVE power it does not necessarily mean that they’ve earned that power. McIntosh then talks about how interlocking oppressions can take both active and embedded forms. What she means by embedded form is that the oppression is not seen because members of the dominant groups are taught not to see them. This relates back to the 50 advantages that she stated earlier as unnoticed advantages that white people have in everyday life. The same holds true for sex. Finally she says that male advantage and white advantage are kept a myth so that meritocracy can keep its legitimacy. This is something that everyone thinks about on a regular basis but to see it in writing is actually refreshing.

Audre Lorde, in “The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House” talks about, amongst other things, how the need and desire to nurture each other is not pathological but it is redemptive. This struck me as quite interesting because I would think that it is clear that women are fighting for equality because of redemption and not a pathological obligation to help each other. Every time a group is fighting for rights it is because they have been oppressed and treated poorly for an extended period of time. This is no different for the feminist movement. Lorde also talks about how even though women are all fighting for the same cause there are clear differences in women that must be accepted before they can band together and fight the fight of feminism. If white women are racist against black women and straight women are homophobic against lesbian women then how can they work together to fight for women’s rights?

Finally, “A Black Feminist Statement” was very controversial. It talks a lot about how black women not only have to deal with the problem of sex but race as well. The passage goes so far to say that black women have, “gone beyond white women’s revelations because [they] are not only dealing with sex but class and race as well”. This ties in directly to the passage by Audre Lorde. However, in this case the passage is saying these things in a way where we should pity black women. This does not sit well with me because in my opinion and in Audre Lorde’s opinion the feminist movement has to be a united movement. Black women cannot isolate themselves from women in general or else nothing will ever get done. What is interesting about this article, however, is that it was written in 1977 which was years after the civil rights movement. I am not naïve in thinking that blacks were automatically treated equally once the movement was over, but it is interesting to see a black woman talk so passionately about racial discrimination so far after the civil rights movement. Toward the end of the passage it says that if black women are free then that means that every other group must be free because both race and sex barriers must be broken for that to happen. This was interesting to me because again, the author is removing herself from both race and sex individually and talking about the fact that she has both to deal with. This makes it very hard to envision her associating with either group and accomplishing what she wants to accomplish.

Follow up post for 2/8

I found Johnson’s way of looking at patriarchy as a system that enables and encourages certain pervasive behaviors very helpful.  I liked how Johnson did not excuse women from the system.  I understand that the system encourages them to behave in a certain way, but women have the option to not participate in being oppressed just as men have the option to not take the easy route and oppress.  All are accountable. 

During Johnson’s discussion of crone, witch, bitch and virgin, he refers to a time before patriarchy.  Though I acknowledge that patriarchy has changed in its intensity and implementation over time, when is he referring to when there was no patriarchy?  I cannot think of a time.  He discusses how virgin, for example, now has the negative connotation of inexperience and consequently a poor sexual partner.  But even when it was revered, virginity represented almost all lof a woman’s worth.  Without it she was not fit for a respectable man - a disaster.  I would argue that that is still operating in a male-dominated view.

I couldn’t really go with Frye on a lot of what she was saying. She introduces the idea that when men open the door for women they “Imitate the behavior of servants toward masters and thus mock women…”.  I understand the point she is making.  I just do not agree; I think that intention is essential in this circumstance.  If the male is intending to be patronizing, yes that is inappropriate.  But, if he is just trying to be considerate, I know I appreciate it.  

I did like Frye’s discussion of the paradox women are forced into in regards to their sexuality.   If a straight woman is a virgin, particularly if she does not even have romantic relationships, “She may be charged with lesbianism.”  I did not date in high school.  My parents did not allow it for the first years, and the way it was done did not appeal to my ideas of what relationships should be.  Beyond no formal, romantic involvement with men, I did not portray most of the other characteristics people typically associated with lesbians.  Even still, despite being openly heterosexual, my peers made comments questioning my sexual identity.  Now it was never severe or harassing, but this does display an expectation placed on women. 

Excerpt From Enlightened Sexism: “The New Girliness”

Douglass’s fourth chapter “The New Girliness” examines TV shows, films, and books that blend together the “accomplishment, girliness, and antifeminism” of females. Interestingly, shows such as Ally McBeal, Bridget Jone’s Diary, Dark Angel, What a Girl Wants, Sex and the City and Grey’s Anatomy celebrate the accomplishments of females, while being implicitly antifeminist. Douglass writes, “Young people were not supposed to identify with feminism; instead they were supposed to actively dis-identify with it” because feminism “was typically embraced by has-been women in their fifties and sixties-that older generation-who still had no sense of humor” (Douglas, 103). And once again feminism is thrown under the bus.

I found Douglass’s perception of “Miss Congeniality” particularly interesting. There Douglas explicitly states that feminism can be sexist. She affirms that Gracie’s “narrow minded feminist ways” lead her to “[stereotype] certain women and [deny] them their full range of choices” (Douglas, 120). I always thought of feminism being in opposition to sexism; I didn’t think about the possibility of women being sexist towards other women.

Excerpts from The Rules: http://tech.mit.edu/V116/N55/excerpts.55a.html

(I found these rules completely disgusting)

Excerpt From Enlightened Sexism: “You Go, Girl”

Douglass writes, “We are not supposed to be too tough, have shape tongues, point out sexism, or express anger- if we slip, you know what that makes us. To quote Barbara Bush, it rhymes with “witch” (Douglass, 128). Here, Douglass does something very interesting. She recognizes racial differences and takes that into account. Why is this so? Why is it that middle-class and upper-middle class white women are supposed to still be diplomatic, conciliatory, and nurturing? While Douglas depicts strong females like Oprah, Sykes and Queen Latifah, she depicts women in Nelly videos being objectified.

Wanda Sykes- Sick and Tired-Detachable Vagina

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8FfFwtL91Q

Lead Post for 2/3

Enlightened Sexism - Chapter 4

Susan Douglas begins chapter 4 with a look at the movie Clueless.  This film gained a female and, surprisingly, a male audience.  It was one of the first to utilize a female voice-over.  This revolutionary tool gave viewers a glimpse into the female psych; but was it genuine?  This voice-over articulated the same themes women were already feeling pressured to regard: shopping, romance, and motherhood.  

Douglas then reexamines the “Girl Power” movement previously discussed.  She looks to the band the Spice Girls as representatives of this phenomenon.  A complementary movement was occurring among males.  The boy band identity discouraged males from hyper-masculinity.  This alludes to a point Douglas later makes clearer.  The media reconstructs masculinity in such a way as to negate the need for the feminist movement.  Boys are displayed as sensitive caring individuals.

Douglas denounces the book Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus by John Gray as implementing the damaging idea that men and women are inherently different.  Society casts men as immutable; therefore, women must change.  To do this, the 1995 guidebook for ensnaring men The Rules is available to women.  This horrific volume instructs women that, “He picks most of the movies, the restaurants, and the concerts the two of you go to.”  This deftly constructs the male’s pleasures and preference as being superior.  His partner becomes his partner no longer and simply his subordinate.  The Rules encourages women to deny themselves and instead perform stereotypes, “Don’t act like a man…don’t tell sarcastic jokes.” (page 105).

Douglas argues that the extremely popular Ally McBeal show was both feminist and anti-feminist.  On a feminist level, the show represents different women’s navigation of their success in a world that is hostile to that success.  These characters are competent lawyers who fight against sexual harassment. But it also paints the lead, Ally, as an over-emotional, petty, woman who allows those traits to impede her professionalism and who bemoans her lack of romantic love. 

Tying back to the Clueless thread, Douglas introduces Ally McBeal, What Women Want, and Bridget Jones’ Diary as other media products that claim provide the women’s true voice.  But as Douglas states, “This hailing of the pitiable, hapless, self-absorbed, marriage-obsessed Bridget Jones as the epitome of millennial womanhood pissed off a lot of females.”

None of the women in these portrayals gave much attention to anything of real value: morality, her work, politics, finances, etc..  Douglas acknowledges that these shows and movies were intended to be comedies.  But at some point, the comic value cannot trump the harmful stereotypes a joke perpetuates or creates.  This theme was echoed in Douglas’ look at Miss Congeniality and Legally Blond.

Towards the end, Douglas affirms what I believe to be one of her most important points.  With her critique of Down with Love, Douglas shows how women are told that feminism is out of date, that women truly do want love, and that men will be converted by their love into nice, caring people; this renders the feminist movement unnecessary.

Chapter 5

Douglas begins this chapter with what can best be described as a Wanda Sykes worship session.  At first, Douglas’ lament that black women have access to extreme verbal power that white women do not was deeply disturbing to me. This introduction is later tempered as Douglas explores the contradiction in media depictions and the actual conditions of black women’s lives.  For black women, embedded feminism paints them as matriarchal tyrants who do not need feminism, and enlightened sexism paints them as music video girls.

Douglas then explores the rise of images of black women in the media.  It began with rap.  Male dominated, this venue used to focus more on social commentary and political critique.  It has become increasingly focused on sex and its videos on objectifying women

The female rappers on the scene, such as Queen Latifah and Salt-N-Pepa, attempted to engage male rappers in a dialogue about gender issues.  They sought to assert their own independence, strength, and sexuality.  This caused others to paint them as sluts to diminish their power. 

This increasing interest in hip-hop culture led networks to try to reach the black audience.  Though this demographic watched significantly more TV than the white audience, they were traditionally disregarded.  Fox sought to reach them implementing sitcoms with all black casts.  However, once Fox attainted status, these shows were dropped.

Living Single was an all black cast show with a different angle then those indicated above.  This show embraced feminist themes.  It showed how navigating between Black Speak and mainstream vernacular allowed individuals, black women, to move between both worlds.

Martin provided a contradictory viewing opportunity.  This show perpetuated unflattering stereotypes associated with black individuals in general but particularly black women.  The character Sheneneh was played by the male mastermind in drag to distorted extremes.

Douglas then delves into the wonderful realm of Oprah. Oprah creates a world where black and white woman can come together in unity.  Black Speak reminds viewers that Oprah has an outsider’s look at white culture, but Oprah doesn’t exclude her white views but rather gives them access to this in-crowd because they understand her Black Speak.  She represents embedded feminism because she has such power.  But, she encourages a personal move towards enlightenment not one of collective action to promote positive change.

Douglas acknowledges the pervasive contradiction by saying that, “The gulf between Oprah’s insistence that women, especially black women, can achieve anything, and Nelly’s reduction of black women to eager, rutting pornographic strippers in “tip drill” is as big as the Andromeda Galaxy and just as tough to cross” (page 151).

Douglas finishes the chapter with a critique Grey’s Anatomy’s Dr. Bailey.  She is one of the only females of the show that isn’t sexy and pursued.  Her career has disastrous affects on her marriage and her child.

Douglas finishes by pointing out how the sassy persona can trivialize the weight of what black women are trying to accomplish through their ire.  This final point relieved me; she completely ignored it in her initial introduction of the chapter, intentionally I am sure.  She does not give this concept much explicit attention, but it is an important one nevertheless.