The other day as I was walking back from class (our class to be specific) I passed a girl who was dressed to the nines, so to speak. She was wearing black hose, high heeled shoes, mid-length black skirt, a red and black blouse, a pearl necklace, and her makeup and hair complimented her outfit. As we were coming to pass, I took the initiative to compliment her on her appearance, I said, "you look really nice," and she replied with a smile and a thank you.
Immediately, (and I'm serious when I say immediately) I questioned what I had just done. I had complimented her on the way she was dressed, the way she appeared, and I couldn't help but make think about everything we have talked about in class to date... the male gaze, how men act and women appear, etc etc... I felt at fault. I realized that I had just perpetuated the very definition of woman that has been defined by men, by our patriarchical society... or had I? Is a compliment a reinforcement of the male gaze? Is it a perpetuating act of female subjugation, or is it simply an act of being polite?
I have to admit, I was a little troubled by this thought, but the more I thought about it, I remembered another important detail we have been discussing in class- the ability to choose. We have the power to decide which characteristics of femininity and also masculinity we want to value, and so I decided that my compliment wasn't a reinforcement of female subjugation, at least not to me... but what about the woman that I had complimented? How did she receive the compliment I had given her? Would she internalize it? Would she take my compliment and equate it to what it means to be an attractive woman?
The fact is, I don't know how she felt about my compliment, I can only imagine that it made her feel good about herself, because I mean seriously, who doesn't love a compliment?? I don't know if my simple one liner will lead her to conclude that being an attractive woman requires make up and high heels. I do know that she too has the ability to choose which characteristics she will value and which ones she will do with out. I also now know that my compliments have a greater power than I had ever realized.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Foreskin & Butt Injections
So I have had the flu for the past few days, so all that I have been able to do is lay on my futon and watch television. I ended up watching "Love You, Mean It!" which is a late-night talk show with Whitney Cummings as the host. Last night she was talking about this brand of skincare products that Oprah endorses called SkinMedica. SkinMedica has a secret ingredient in its anti-aging moisturizer that Oprah revealed on her show--FORESKIN! Namely foreskin cells that are taken and are used to generate more cells to put into the moisturizer. Whitney had a bottle of the moisturizer and put some into her hands which she them promptly declared smelled disgusting. She wouldn't even put it on her face! Then, Whitney went into a big spiel about "Why do women feel the need to look younger than they are? So much so that they will put cream with foreskin in it on their face!" I think that there is definitely something to what she is saying! Why are women encouraged to look as young as possible, but you never hear about anything like that for men?! According to the media, all women "want to look fresh, young, and radiant!" I do not think that is necessarily true. I think that the male gaze wants us to look that way. Men want to be with young looking women...but why is that? I would guess that younger women may be easier to get with? Young women (25 and younger) don't look older and mature and smart. Maybe they are appealing because society views young women as impressionable, thus men can get with one easier! Also, I think that young women are viewed as sexually appealing. They are tight and toned and thin and beautiful, and the male gaze really admires that. I think that women are willing to go to great lengths to achieve this image of being young.
Going along with this I also watched an episode of Ricki Lake (which I think is a dumb show, but I have the flu, and am bored), and Ricki was talking to a woman who had gotten illegal butt injections. The woman said that she was a dancer and that in her profession it was a big deal to have a nice looking butt. She wanted to get some injections done on hers so she went on the illegal route in order to do it! She would go and visit this woman (who is not a doctor nor knows anything about plastic surgery) in a hotel room, who would then inject her butt 120 times with silicone. This dancer said that after getting the injections done several times, her butt became infected (which I was not surprised about at all). She was on the show talking to Ricki about it because she wrote a book about her experience and wants to educate young women about plastic surgery. She said that she would see mothers bringing their 17 year old daughters to the hotel to get them butt injections as well.
I just want to know why women feel the need to have procedures like this done?! Why does the media constantly tell us that our natural bodies are not good enough, and that if we do not do certain things (wear make up, get surgery, use moisturizer) that no man will want to be with us. I think that the male gaze constantly pushes on us to be better than our natural bodies. It is like our natural bodies are viewed as disgusting and unwanted, rather than celebrated and cherished. I agree that it is hard at times to love your body, and even though I feel very confident in mine, the media and ads still get to me. The male gaze is all around us, all of the time. It is pushing us to be this perfect model of a human being--something that is completely unreachable. And yet, as women, everyday we are striving for this ideal and going to great (and very dangerous) lengths to reach it.
Going along with this I also watched an episode of Ricki Lake (which I think is a dumb show, but I have the flu, and am bored), and Ricki was talking to a woman who had gotten illegal butt injections. The woman said that she was a dancer and that in her profession it was a big deal to have a nice looking butt. She wanted to get some injections done on hers so she went on the illegal route in order to do it! She would go and visit this woman (who is not a doctor nor knows anything about plastic surgery) in a hotel room, who would then inject her butt 120 times with silicone. This dancer said that after getting the injections done several times, her butt became infected (which I was not surprised about at all). She was on the show talking to Ricki about it because she wrote a book about her experience and wants to educate young women about plastic surgery. She said that she would see mothers bringing their 17 year old daughters to the hotel to get them butt injections as well.
I just want to know why women feel the need to have procedures like this done?! Why does the media constantly tell us that our natural bodies are not good enough, and that if we do not do certain things (wear make up, get surgery, use moisturizer) that no man will want to be with us. I think that the male gaze constantly pushes on us to be better than our natural bodies. It is like our natural bodies are viewed as disgusting and unwanted, rather than celebrated and cherished. I agree that it is hard at times to love your body, and even though I feel very confident in mine, the media and ads still get to me. The male gaze is all around us, all of the time. It is pushing us to be this perfect model of a human being--something that is completely unreachable. And yet, as women, everyday we are striving for this ideal and going to great (and very dangerous) lengths to reach it.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Where is the equality?
The other day, I was talking with some friends about high school and how I played a sport and our girls team wasn't very good, so I went to the athletic director to see if I could join the boys team to have better competition and a better team. I was told I was unable to because our girls golf team had enough players to make a full team and that girls couldn't play on a boys team if they have a girls team available. I didn't necessarily think that was fair, but I went on and played on my girls team and qualified in most tournaments just as an individual, my team never winning.
One of my friends that I was talking to about this said they didn't have a girls team at their high school, but had girls that played golf. They also weren't allowed to play on the boys team. My friend told me that girls had to be on a girls team or they couldn't play the sport, the only thing they were allowed to do was be a manager for a boys team.
I found that highly unfair. Being a female who plays a sport, if my school didn't have a girls team, I would do everything I could to be on the boy's team. It isn't fair to shut down a girl just because there aren't enough to start a team. Females aren't seen as athletic just because of our sex and it isn't fair for us to be treated differently for that simple matter.
If men and women are supposed to be treated equally now, why are females not allowed to play on an all male's sports team, when there isn't one provided for them? Is there truly equality after all?
One of my friends that I was talking to about this said they didn't have a girls team at their high school, but had girls that played golf. They also weren't allowed to play on the boys team. My friend told me that girls had to be on a girls team or they couldn't play the sport, the only thing they were allowed to do was be a manager for a boys team.
I found that highly unfair. Being a female who plays a sport, if my school didn't have a girls team, I would do everything I could to be on the boy's team. It isn't fair to shut down a girl just because there aren't enough to start a team. Females aren't seen as athletic just because of our sex and it isn't fair for us to be treated differently for that simple matter.
If men and women are supposed to be treated equally now, why are females not allowed to play on an all male's sports team, when there isn't one provided for them? Is there truly equality after all?
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
stamping out inequality
Hey all you women out there! You can now die on the front lines of war according to Leon Panetta the Secretary of Defense. He has lifted the 1994 ban on women fighting on the front lines. This is the same guy that denied soldiers to have guns on their person for a speech he was giving them....in a war zone. (The first time that has ever been done.) He was afraid of the troops so he banned their guns while he was on sight. He is a fuckrag of a human. And now the "mothers" can be raped and murdered in war. Yes, they really care for your futures. I hate these pussy ass, fake ass, loser men who would rather give their women up then fight themselves. I hope you get cancer Mr. Panetta......in your yellow belly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a status that someone I know on facebook posted up. He is into government conspiracies and things like that. He is also someone who I would describe as a radical moderate. This is how some people feel and I said some things to shut his mouth on this one, but it is sometimes hard to accept these types of non-egalitarian views after what we have studied. Nothing bothers me as deeply as injustice, and I would be willing to guess that a grand majority of other people are also bothered by injustice. The roles of men and women are so highly ingrained into our society that it seems like a given for many people; they don't even stop to ask themselves if what they believe is just. One thing great about the internet is that it has allowed ideas to be shared around the globe, but it has also increased the speed at which fools are educating people in ignorant views. My solution? speak out when you notice these things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a status that someone I know on facebook posted up. He is into government conspiracies and things like that. He is also someone who I would describe as a radical moderate. This is how some people feel and I said some things to shut his mouth on this one, but it is sometimes hard to accept these types of non-egalitarian views after what we have studied. Nothing bothers me as deeply as injustice, and I would be willing to guess that a grand majority of other people are also bothered by injustice. The roles of men and women are so highly ingrained into our society that it seems like a given for many people; they don't even stop to ask themselves if what they believe is just. One thing great about the internet is that it has allowed ideas to be shared around the globe, but it has also increased the speed at which fools are educating people in ignorant views. My solution? speak out when you notice these things.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Natural?
Last week in class, the question "What does it mean to say that someone is natural?" was thrown out to the class. I like to think of myself as natural in some ways, but not completely (will get to that in a minute). After class I began to ask around and see what people's opinion of the idea of a woman being natural really meant to see if they had a different perspective on the word than I did.
Many people would say that it meant not dressing your face up everyday with make up, waking up and your hair being as it is, rather than straightening it or curling it, not having any type of cosmetic surgery done so that one can enhance a feature or get rid of a part of the body that didn't flatter them too much, and a bunch of things like that. I know that when i think of natural I too thought of not putting make-up on, which I don't unless it's for professional or performance purposes, and not having surgery to make my bra size increase by two cups. Being African American, the main thing that comes to mind when we think of natural is the nappy, headed Afro that everyone has seen before.
Its usually when someone sees this that they think "Oh she must not have done her hair today" or different things along that line. It is not the most attractive look for most women and most men will not go for the girl with the natural hair, but rather the one with the straightened silky hair, or the one primped up with curling irons and rollers. My hair is the most unnatural thing on my body because I try and stay away from that natural look I get from washing my hair. I can say that how I think of my hair is fully because of I, or men, think of how attractive it is.
How we view natural has changed a lot also. Often it is no longer just being who you are and not adding anything extra, but it has changed to just not being over-dramatic with how you looking and appearing in a sense flawless. I was watching TV and constantly on commercials I kept hearing the word "natural" when they were describing make-up. Living in a sorority, I've seen a lot of girls when they are truly natural and it doesn't resemble the women on TV at all. I even searched on Google the phrase "natural women" seeing what would come up and almost every picture was of a woman with an almost flawless face. Now these women may just have naturally flawless faces, and I would love to know how, but for the most part they were advertisements for make-up.
We often will try to either mask this natural state that we have or try to reinvent it to the point where it becomes unnatural. But why do we stay away from this "natural" identity that we are born with? It all goes back to the male gaze. Every day that you get ready to go wherever it is that you are going for the day, picture a little man on your shoulder telling you how you should look, what is wrong with what you are wearing, that your hair looks a mess, maybe you need a little more cover up, etc. The way we think about being natural is not decided by us, but also by men. So, is there anyway to truly be natural without it being through the eyes of the male perspective?
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Misogyny
In one of my other classes we covered a section over women during the Renaissance. Assumed roles, less education, and consequentially limited female freedom were all things women of that time faced. A quote from our text seems to sum up men's fear of women being educated:
"Fathers of daughters were the lawgivers of men, and though some were supportive of their female children's ambitions, most were eager to sustain the order that placed men in charge and left women subordinate. Male hostility to female learning (like the broader tendencies of misogyny and misogamy) was widespread: because men feared to lose their dominion over women."
While this attitude was typical of the time, it illustrates the struggle women have faced prior to the Renaissance and still face today. Just as we have discussed in class about men labeling a female boss or hard worker as a "bitch," men during the Renaissance loathed strong and educated women. The reason for fathers to have an interest in limiting their daughter's education was strictly because it would be harder to marry her off if she didn't fit the specified gender roles. Thankfully that attitude has shifted, but only to a certain degree. Women are still forced into specific roles and occupations. She is allowed to become unique and separate herself as an individual, but not to anything "too crazy." This struggle women face because of their gender in societal roles is still a major issue, and as a result, makes it that much harder for women to break away from.
"Fathers of daughters were the lawgivers of men, and though some were supportive of their female children's ambitions, most were eager to sustain the order that placed men in charge and left women subordinate. Male hostility to female learning (like the broader tendencies of misogyny and misogamy) was widespread: because men feared to lose their dominion over women."
While this attitude was typical of the time, it illustrates the struggle women have faced prior to the Renaissance and still face today. Just as we have discussed in class about men labeling a female boss or hard worker as a "bitch," men during the Renaissance loathed strong and educated women. The reason for fathers to have an interest in limiting their daughter's education was strictly because it would be harder to marry her off if she didn't fit the specified gender roles. Thankfully that attitude has shifted, but only to a certain degree. Women are still forced into specific roles and occupations. She is allowed to become unique and separate herself as an individual, but not to anything "too crazy." This struggle women face because of their gender in societal roles is still a major issue, and as a result, makes it that much harder for women to break away from.
The Skirt Spectrum
Having pictures really does change the blog -it was a nice addition to the last post so I wanted to share one with you all, too!
I was scrolling through my feed on Instagram and found a post from a blogger I follow (@imboycrazy), and she posted the picture below that has apparently been circuiting around other social media outlets so maybe some of you have seen it (I took a screenshot of it so sorry it's not the best). Seriously ladies, how many time do we wonder and worry about where we fall on this spectrum? Like much of the things in society, I sometimes find fashion and cultural norms/expectations/trends contradicting. Fashion has been a mode of expression; however, the line between "this is what I'm trying to say about myself" and "what they think I'm saying" is constantly blurred. Betsey Johnson once said:
“Girls do not dress for boys. They dress for themselves and, of course, each other. If girls dressed for boys they’d just walk around naked at all times.” (Goodreads.com)
I'm think this picture captures Betsey's statement. What do you think?
Slave Leia!
So, I just found a picture on the internets that I thought pertained to what we talk about overall in this course.
My question is this: is this photo of two nerd-tastic women who are in a relationship at comic-con, sharing a kiss in their Leia garb (which in and of itself is another conversation), or two 'straight' girls sucking face to slut it up to get attention, as the amount of cameras around them suggests? We cant know. All I know is that this photo made me uncomfortable, not because of the homosexuality, but because I perceive forced, socially-constructed sexualization of these two women.

What is your reaction, both critically and emotionally?
My question is this: is this photo of two nerd-tastic women who are in a relationship at comic-con, sharing a kiss in their Leia garb (which in and of itself is another conversation), or two 'straight' girls sucking face to slut it up to get attention, as the amount of cameras around them suggests? We cant know. All I know is that this photo made me uncomfortable, not because of the homosexuality, but because I perceive forced, socially-constructed sexualization of these two women.

What is your reaction, both critically and emotionally?
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Mr., Mrs., and Miss
I'm currently taken a Charles Dickens seminar and the course Women in Fiction. In both of these courses we are studying Victorian literature. In Women in Fiction we have been reading Pride and Prejudice and analyzing the social norms of the time period. In the very first sentence of the book, you can pick apart the obvious superiority of men and inferiority of women. The first sentence is "it is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of wife." At first, we focused on man holding power through their money to pick and choose a wife while a woman remains at home waiting for a man to choose her.
As I thought more about this concept after class and during reading more Dickens and Austen, I realized the simple titles we use to address a man and woman reinforce these Victorian ideas concerning the rights of men versus the rights of women. Men are given the title 'Mr.' regardless of their standing. If they are single, married, wealthy or poor the title 'Mr.' will come before his name. Why do men not need the same type of titles to distinguish whether or not they are married? In the case of the Victorian era, it was simply because men do the acting and women are acted upon. In our society, many women ask men out on dates and even propose to men, so why have the titles remained so prevalent into the 21st century?
For a woman, however, she is given the title 'Miss' or 'Mrs.' In doing this, it is announced to all whether or not a woman is married. If she is merely a 'Miss' she is unmarried, ready to be chosen by a man for marriage, or an "old maid" set to be a 'Miss' for the rest of her life. What was even more interesting to discover was that 'Mrs.' (followed by a woman's husband's last name) was not only a way to acknowledge that a woman is married, but also it stands for Mistress. So, when a woman is married, she officially becomes her husband's mistress in name. Whenever she is called upon by someone as Mrs. So-and-so, she is being addressed as her husband's mistress and nothing more. Although it does not necessarily have this connotation in the 21st century, it is interesting nonetheless that these titles still exist.
As I thought more about this concept after class and during reading more Dickens and Austen, I realized the simple titles we use to address a man and woman reinforce these Victorian ideas concerning the rights of men versus the rights of women. Men are given the title 'Mr.' regardless of their standing. If they are single, married, wealthy or poor the title 'Mr.' will come before his name. Why do men not need the same type of titles to distinguish whether or not they are married? In the case of the Victorian era, it was simply because men do the acting and women are acted upon. In our society, many women ask men out on dates and even propose to men, so why have the titles remained so prevalent into the 21st century?
For a woman, however, she is given the title 'Miss' or 'Mrs.' In doing this, it is announced to all whether or not a woman is married. If she is merely a 'Miss' she is unmarried, ready to be chosen by a man for marriage, or an "old maid" set to be a 'Miss' for the rest of her life. What was even more interesting to discover was that 'Mrs.' (followed by a woman's husband's last name) was not only a way to acknowledge that a woman is married, but also it stands for Mistress. So, when a woman is married, she officially becomes her husband's mistress in name. Whenever she is called upon by someone as Mrs. So-and-so, she is being addressed as her husband's mistress and nothing more. Although it does not necessarily have this connotation in the 21st century, it is interesting nonetheless that these titles still exist.
Parasites?
So I decided to call my Dad and talk to him about the Frye ("Men are parasites") article that we read in class the other day. My Dad is a very open, and accepting guy, and I do not feel that my parents engage in a dominate/subordinate relationship, so I thought that he might be good to talk to about the article.
I gave him a summary of it and the ideas presented. He said that he felt that men need women for emotional and mental support and care, but that women need men as well. He simply stated that women need men for protection and financial security, which I thought was a very "male gaze" thing to say. I promptly told him that I know how to shoot a gun and that I am going to college to earn a degree to support myself, so why would else would I need a man? He didn't really have an answer for me after that (LOL) but he did make some good points that I agree with. He said that modern technology has driven us away from what we used to be, which is just animals out in the wild hunting for food to survive. We no long have to worry about hunting in the forest to get food. Instead we worry about Twitter and the latest music that is out, etc. He said that because of this we have over-complicated ourselves. It used to be that man and woman would get together to procreate, just like other animals out in the wild would. The man would help protect the woman while she was pregnant, and he would hunt for food for her, etc. As technology has advanced us into the modern age we need less of a reliance on the opposite sex to get things done for ourselves. But our biological nature tells us that we need each other, for procreation/sex/protection/etc. Thus, there are more complicated problems between men and women than there were over 2,000 years ago because we are going against our animalistic natures and embracing modern society.
I have to agree with my Dad that we are going against something that is biological for us because we think differently than human beings did long ago. Our technology has driven us away from our dependance on each other. Tying this in with the Frye article, I can see how women might view men as parasites. Maybe women have advanced more away from being dependent on men, than men have from women. Women feel that they can do anything now that men can do. Thus, they are more independent and self-reliant. For whatever reason, men (maybe) have not advanced in that way like women have. Thus, in some way, men can be viewed as parasites on women because they still need/want to depend on women for things, when women now realize that they do not need a man for things which they can do themselves. And I feel that the modernization of our society has caused this.
I gave him a summary of it and the ideas presented. He said that he felt that men need women for emotional and mental support and care, but that women need men as well. He simply stated that women need men for protection and financial security, which I thought was a very "male gaze" thing to say. I promptly told him that I know how to shoot a gun and that I am going to college to earn a degree to support myself, so why would else would I need a man? He didn't really have an answer for me after that (LOL) but he did make some good points that I agree with. He said that modern technology has driven us away from what we used to be, which is just animals out in the wild hunting for food to survive. We no long have to worry about hunting in the forest to get food. Instead we worry about Twitter and the latest music that is out, etc. He said that because of this we have over-complicated ourselves. It used to be that man and woman would get together to procreate, just like other animals out in the wild would. The man would help protect the woman while she was pregnant, and he would hunt for food for her, etc. As technology has advanced us into the modern age we need less of a reliance on the opposite sex to get things done for ourselves. But our biological nature tells us that we need each other, for procreation/sex/protection/etc. Thus, there are more complicated problems between men and women than there were over 2,000 years ago because we are going against our animalistic natures and embracing modern society.
I have to agree with my Dad that we are going against something that is biological for us because we think differently than human beings did long ago. Our technology has driven us away from our dependance on each other. Tying this in with the Frye article, I can see how women might view men as parasites. Maybe women have advanced more away from being dependent on men, than men have from women. Women feel that they can do anything now that men can do. Thus, they are more independent and self-reliant. For whatever reason, men (maybe) have not advanced in that way like women have. Thus, in some way, men can be viewed as parasites on women because they still need/want to depend on women for things, when women now realize that they do not need a man for things which they can do themselves. And I feel that the modernization of our society has caused this.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Do women have some upperhand?
In class Wednesday, the subject of gay men and women came up and about how they are treated differently. I had been thinking of this after reading some of the handouts that talked about lesbianism for class and have realized that I do belive women have the upperhand in the situation.
Homosexual men are treated completely different than homosexual women. Men are treated terribly and women are treated differently than normal, but not as harsh as men. When we discussed this in class, we thought of some reasoning on why something like this would happen, but we never really came to any conclusion as to why it does happen.
I believe this happens because women and men have different standards to uphold. Men are supposed to be into women and only women. Men are supposed to be masculine and have power and control. Women are seen as having no power and no control, being very emotional. Men are seen as hiding their emotions becuase they will be stereotyped and then talked about when they have done nothing wrong. Women want to be with someone who can be open about their emotions, just like they are and people can understand that so they aren't ridiculed for being a lesbian and being open about it.
Having a gay uncle, I called him for some insight into why he believes this to be true. When we talked, he told me about how gay men are mostly just treated differently by other straight men because they are threatened by them and straight women are harsher on lesbians because they are threatened by them. He said in the work force where he works, all the women love him because they know he is never going to try anything and they don't feel threatened, while he had to earn the respect from the straight men. When he first started working there, he had to work twice as hard and jump twice as high to earn that respect. He does agree that women do have an upperhand though, because lesbians aren't treated as harshly as gay men.
I agree with the things my uncle says about homosexuals being treated differently because straight people do feel threathened by them. Being a straight women talking to a gay man, I can completely see where he is coming from when he talks, and I don't think it's right and it should change. Men are women, gay or straight, should all be treated equally. The truth is that with the judgement placed on women and men, that won't happen. I do see though, where women have the upperhand when it comes to homosexuality and the way they are treated.
Homosexual men are treated completely different than homosexual women. Men are treated terribly and women are treated differently than normal, but not as harsh as men. When we discussed this in class, we thought of some reasoning on why something like this would happen, but we never really came to any conclusion as to why it does happen.
I believe this happens because women and men have different standards to uphold. Men are supposed to be into women and only women. Men are supposed to be masculine and have power and control. Women are seen as having no power and no control, being very emotional. Men are seen as hiding their emotions becuase they will be stereotyped and then talked about when they have done nothing wrong. Women want to be with someone who can be open about their emotions, just like they are and people can understand that so they aren't ridiculed for being a lesbian and being open about it.
Having a gay uncle, I called him for some insight into why he believes this to be true. When we talked, he told me about how gay men are mostly just treated differently by other straight men because they are threatened by them and straight women are harsher on lesbians because they are threatened by them. He said in the work force where he works, all the women love him because they know he is never going to try anything and they don't feel threatened, while he had to earn the respect from the straight men. When he first started working there, he had to work twice as hard and jump twice as high to earn that respect. He does agree that women do have an upperhand though, because lesbians aren't treated as harshly as gay men.
I agree with the things my uncle says about homosexuals being treated differently because straight people do feel threathened by them. Being a straight women talking to a gay man, I can completely see where he is coming from when he talks, and I don't think it's right and it should change. Men are women, gay or straight, should all be treated equally. The truth is that with the judgement placed on women and men, that won't happen. I do see though, where women have the upperhand when it comes to homosexuality and the way they are treated.
Women Get Women
I find this class super fascinating. It has opened to my eyes and allowed me to view the world in a completely different way--one that I never even knew existed! I really enjoyed reading Rich's article, and about the lesbian continuum. I have to agree that women do have more stable and better emotional relationships with other women. I live in a house filled with about 40 other women. I never knew that I would enjoy it as much as I have. I can go to almost any of them, day or night, if I have a problem. And they know that they can come to me. It's so funny to think about my past relationships with ex-boyfriends and how it always seemed that they never "got" me. I always felt misunderstood by them. It was almost like they just couldn't understand me and how I felt about things--who I really was. I'm not a secretive person or anything like that; I tend to just lay myself and how I feel about things out there. But I have never felt more understood and loved than by my sorority sisters (aka- my best friends). They just "get" me, and I don't even need to explain myself or why or how I feel about something to them. They never find me trivial and I never find them trivial. What is it about women that allows them to completely understand other women, even without any explanations? I feel that as women, we know the "struggle." We can understand what each other is going through, in any situation, because we have probably been there too. All women have to go through very similar things in their lives--being teased, being harassed, being judged by others, wanting to be in a romantic relationship, having sex (or wanting to), etc. I think because of that we all have this inner connection with each other that I feel men do not have. This connection allows us to be closer to each other and have more understanding and tolerance for each other. Men don't have that, so we are a mystery to them, and them to us! I honestly feel that life would be better if women could simply just live with each other and have deep, stable emotional relationships with each other, instead of with men. Don't get me wrong, I love men and most of them are great, but I just have always felt like they have never gotten me, or my friends like other women do, and the lesbian continuum is way to describe this inner-connection that all women have with each other (and to what degree).
The Advocate
I was going to initially use this as a response to Laura's post, but then realized I was getting off track and ranting, so I decided to create my own post (once I figured out how) ha!
I think it is important to remember, that although we have
grown up in a society that raises masculine qualities above feminine qualities,
and although we have been raised within a structure of male dominance, we are
the agents of change-both men and women. Unlike, Rousseau, who believed that
these qualities of men and women, thought of as separate, and non-attainable by
the opposite sex, are natural occurrences, and therefore can not be changed; I
believe that they are practices, beliefs, essentially folk tales. These ideas
of masculine superiority, however much engrained in our society they are, can
be changed. Although the process is a slow and difficult struggle, it is
nonetheless, a changing of societal norms. A change that I would argue is for
the betterment of humanity.
Equality of all people (not only women) is an ideal,
however, it is an ideal that we should strive for. MacKinnon provides us with a
corner stone of the house that inequality built, that of sexuality,
specifically heterosexuality. Her assertions about the repression of women's
sexuality, through the dominant force of male sexuality leads to the arguments
that Rich makes in her article about compulsory heterosexuality. These notions
together offer a depressing reality, a reality in which we all live, yet have
the power to change.
Perhaps, I'm just an optimist/idealist in regards to human
equality, but the fact is, we are seeking change already. Why else would we be
concerned or interested in a class titled "Philosophy of Woman"? To merely
discuss the classical ideas of men who believed women to be lesser beings?(I
certainly hope that is not the case). Given that we are investing our time, and
our money into any course involving the study of gender, speaks to the agency
we all posses- the agency to change our world and our society.
Now, that I have finished my soapbox, I want to share something I wrote in response to some of our class discussions concerning sexuality and separatism... Sorry if it comes off a bit radical, but as we have seen sometimes radicalism is just an extreme way of expressing a not so extreme idea. With out further ado:
Which one of you is the guy, they asked.
How do two women have sex anyway, they say.
To their dismay, I replied with a heavy sigh, shook my head, and walked away.
But thinking twice about what just had passed,
I turned back to challenge them, to try and change the world that I live in.
Their faces lit up with amusement when they saw me walking back,
"Which one of you is the woman?" I asked.
Both looked confused and thrown off track.
"Nah, Nah, we ain't gay" they both exclaimed.
"Nah, nah, that shit is whack."
"Two dudes together? Nah that ain't right,
but two ladies, that's fine. Yeah man, that shit is tight."
I let them finish, then asked again,
"which one of you is the woman?"
"No reply? Not a fan of being called to question
whether or not you're in a position of subordinance.
Do you understand that I'm a person who doesn't need
to be a man in order to define who I am.
I am a person do you understand?
Or are you just a man that relies upon the lies of society?
Man, Woman, Bisexuals, Transgenders, and Queers,
Lesbians and Gays, We're all the same.
The only difference is you were born to power.
How's that make you feel?
Do you feel entitled to question if my personhood is real?
Because I'm a woman? Because I love women,
do feel threatened by my blatant contradiction
to your male defined m.o.?
Does my separatism scare you?
Are you afraid you'll lose control?
Which one of us is the man, you asked,
Neither- We are the people, profoundly saying No."
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
The Lesbian Continuum
Danny Zucker (writer/ exec producer of ABC's Modern Family) tweeted something the other day that I found somewhat hilarious: "Based on a 4 decade study of my sexual chemistry w/ people I've concluded there are no gay men yet most women are lesbians. #science". I laughed and strangely agreed at a basic level with his claim. This was all prior to reading Rich's article. Once I read the article and we discussed it in class, it struck me that his observation (though he wasn't trying to be literal), was somewhat true.
It seems women often do have deeper, more meaningful relationships with other women. And perhaps this is because as Rich suggests, that we seek to recreate the motherly bond with other women. The issue that was raised in class and what I find particularly interesting is what we would do in a total state of nature. If somehow we could take away societal constraints and were left to our natural instincts, would we seek to be with other women? It's hard to think about such things because our society has left such a strong impression on what is "normal". However, regardless of society's role in each of our lives, I see the lesbian continuum at work.
While Zucker was simply making a joke, his observation should not be discounted entirely. There are countless examples of women acting "sexually" towards other women even if they are living in a heterosexual world. The classic example are the two best friends who go out to the club and though are technically "straight", end up making out or dancing provocatively with one another. This has obvious sexual implications and lesbian undertones even if they weren't meaning for their actions to be taken literally. The fact that they are close enough to engage in such behavior, suggests that they understand each other at a deep level. I think Rich makes interesting and convincing claims that we are forced to choose to be heterosexual. The lesbian continuum is seen in the daily lives of women, yet forced to be suppressed by most. I am not suggesting all women should want to be with other women, but I do think Rich makes a valid case for why it seems the most rewarding from a relationship standpoint.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Un Dicho
I once heard woman share a saying or dicho that she heard growing up that resonated with me as a Latina that said the following:
Pégame pero no me dejes, mátame pero no me olvides.
This translates to: "Hit me but don't leave me, kill me but don't forget me."
Just think about all the meanings that are packed into this simple literally saying but also insinuating. What is this suggesting? That a woman couldn't possibly live without a man? Well of course she can, but it will always be better to be a woman with man -no matter the circumstances- than to be a woman with no man. You're the winner if you have the man.
And it is not what women want or ask for, as many like to believe women victimize themselves (an idea some of the authors we have read these past two weeks share such). Their socialization of what it means to be a woman is so engrained into the culture, and so internalized, that it is accept and adopted as a reality without thinking of it. If being physically abused is what it takes to be thought of and "surveyed" then so be it. The fact that we are being thought of alone is more than enough.
Most could think: who the hell would allow this barbaric behavior? Male dominance and female subordination is perpetuated through our earliest socialization: the family. The most "subtle" remarks or actions carry bigger meaning than what he consciously think and realize. With their accumulation over time and the reinforcement from the surrounding society, we teach and mold children this by what we allow and don't allow them to do, but also by what they see for themselves.
What can be done to reverse this trend? Will it see elimination until gender does too?
Pégame pero no me dejes, mátame pero no me olvides.
This translates to: "Hit me but don't leave me, kill me but don't forget me."
Just think about all the meanings that are packed into this simple literally saying but also insinuating. What is this suggesting? That a woman couldn't possibly live without a man? Well of course she can, but it will always be better to be a woman with man -no matter the circumstances- than to be a woman with no man. You're the winner if you have the man.
The dependency on men that women are taught of from an early age -as suggested by Rousseau among others- is part of their socialization. Violence against women is acceptable and the power dynamic between men and women is seen as an inevitable fact, reinforcing machista ideology in western culture that are explored in MacKinnon's "Sexuality" piece. Men's agency in the workforce, and what he provides (without measurement of the quantity or quality) for his woman and his children has always been sufficient validity and justification for his reasons (or better yet the lack of them) to take out his aggression on, disrespect and/or humiliate those he is suppose to love and treat otherwise.
Most could think: who the hell would allow this barbaric behavior? Male dominance and female subordination is perpetuated through our earliest socialization: the family. The most "subtle" remarks or actions carry bigger meaning than what he consciously think and realize. With their accumulation over time and the reinforcement from the surrounding society, we teach and mold children this by what we allow and don't allow them to do, but also by what they see for themselves.
What can be done to reverse this trend? Will it see elimination until gender does too?
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Power Structures
Thinking a bit more about power structures I had a discussion with one of my friends on the topic. One thing that came to mind was this: Despite western philosophy's enrollment of women into the category of unnatural object, or one who is acted upon and has little power over this action, the power structures described by Foucault seem to play out not only within the women-men relationships, but also in those involving men or women exclusively.
I tried to think of examples and the most obvious that I could see was in the American penal system and in the concept of bullying. There are growing concerns over excessive violence between inmates in prisons, much of which involves sexual battery, psychological control, and a power struggle. Bullies, too, seem to relish the very idea of intimidation and manipulation of their targets. What we find in both situations are that people are often only willing to attempt these acts against people who they believe to be weak or otherwise inferior in some way.
The distinction in human power structures as such does not necessitate a conflict between male and female necessarily, but rather the strong and the weak. As we sought different ways in class today to alleviate the objectification of women it seems that one of the best ways might be to empower women by any means available without the added stigma that many attach to women's achievements (i.e. women's basketball is sometimes the butt of jokes for sports fans). Indeed, successful women are an image of appeal and glamour in our society; we should encourage this. As more people embrace progressive ways of thinking about sexuality, moral treatment of other individuals, and a culture of bullying what I hope to see is that a good idea is contagious.
Current institutions that are a hindrance to this process are well-ingrained into society, but as we develop ourselves as empathetic, rational thinkers, it will become more increasingly apparent that these are poor ways of seeing the world. Either that or we will simply continue in this way that has pervaded our species since recorded history. So I am left with the question: Is this way of thinking is biologically inherent to our kind? Or are we, as an adaptive organism, able to surmount the obstacles imposed on us by the male gaze (I'd rather call it the gaze of "them" because it seems to be played out by both men and women as we discussed earlier.)?
I tried to think of examples and the most obvious that I could see was in the American penal system and in the concept of bullying. There are growing concerns over excessive violence between inmates in prisons, much of which involves sexual battery, psychological control, and a power struggle. Bullies, too, seem to relish the very idea of intimidation and manipulation of their targets. What we find in both situations are that people are often only willing to attempt these acts against people who they believe to be weak or otherwise inferior in some way.
The distinction in human power structures as such does not necessitate a conflict between male and female necessarily, but rather the strong and the weak. As we sought different ways in class today to alleviate the objectification of women it seems that one of the best ways might be to empower women by any means available without the added stigma that many attach to women's achievements (i.e. women's basketball is sometimes the butt of jokes for sports fans). Indeed, successful women are an image of appeal and glamour in our society; we should encourage this. As more people embrace progressive ways of thinking about sexuality, moral treatment of other individuals, and a culture of bullying what I hope to see is that a good idea is contagious.
Current institutions that are a hindrance to this process are well-ingrained into society, but as we develop ourselves as empathetic, rational thinkers, it will become more increasingly apparent that these are poor ways of seeing the world. Either that or we will simply continue in this way that has pervaded our species since recorded history. So I am left with the question: Is this way of thinking is biologically inherent to our kind? Or are we, as an adaptive organism, able to surmount the obstacles imposed on us by the male gaze (I'd rather call it the gaze of "them" because it seems to be played out by both men and women as we discussed earlier.)?
Friday, January 11, 2013
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Welcome!
Are women kinder than men?
Do we have a close affinity with nature?
Are we less virtuous than men?
More vain?
.jpg)
What are our cultural expectations for women?
Western philosophers have offered answers to all these questions and so will the students of the Winter 2013 Philosophy of Woman class at Hanover College. They will be sharing their thoughts on topics such as the male gaze, the beauty myth, compulsory heterosexuality and queer theory, among others. Stop by and hear what we have to say!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)