Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Response to 9/30 Assignment
As I read the next to chapters of Fausto-Sterling's book, I really started to think about how much language plays a role in our society's inability to accept and embrace more than a strict 2 sided interpretation of sex and gender. Not only do we use pronouns like he/she and him/her, even phrases like "opposite sex" play a huge role in our ideas of gender and sex. Transexuals, who Fausto-Sterling briefly talks about in the second part of her chapter titled "Should there be only two sexes?", must go through an operation to change FROM one sex TO another sex, insinuating that these two sexes are opposite of each other. If sex were on a continuum as we talked about in class the other day, then there wouldn't be one surgery that could switch an individual to the "opposite sex". Society, however, has made all of us feel sort of weirdly about the topic of intersexuals though. As Maria mentioned in her post, our class discussions and readings on intersexuals make many if not most of us feel somewhat weird and uncomfortable. Since it is not a topic that is commonly discussed, specifically on Colgate's campus, it's not something we all feel ok talking about. Issues of homosexuality, although not always, are now discussed on a more regular basis in today's society but it has taken a long time and a lot of activism to get to the point we are at now (though we still have a very long way to go). Intersexuality, however, is not currently a major well-known issue in our society and therefore it is not commonly talked about. As Fausto-Sterling says in her book, it's time that our legal system and government start to see sexuality as more than just two sexes. No longer should we have to check the box of male or female for drivers licenses or airport TSA forms. Since not every US citizen falls into one of those two categories, it does not make sense that everyone is forced to choose between them.
response to 9/30 readings
While reading for tomorrow's class, I got to thinking about my own views on intersex, transgender, and transexual people. I realized how uncomfortable I was even thinking about them. Yes, I believe that everyone should be equal. I believe that gender lines should not exist so that people who do not feel as if they fit within the identify of male or female can identify and can feel unwelcome. I believe in all of the stuff Fausto-Sterling talks about but I STILL am uncomfortable. I feel as if I am a very open and accepting person and the fact that I have trouble grasping and understanding a majority of this material goes to show how society might have an equally hard time. It is frustrating because I know its wrong but it is so deeply engrained within me that people are either male or female. It is hard to see past these lines. I honestly got scared during class on Tuesday thinking about if I had a baby and if it was intersex or if it grew up to think in a transexual manner. What would I do? Thinking about it, I thought it would make my life abnormal, troublesome, and full of worry and fear. But I can't think that way. I guess I can say that a goal I now have, and that I was made aware of last class and through these readings, is to become more accepting and open to transexualism, transgender, and intersex.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
NEWS FLASH 1: The Politics Behind Gabby Sidibe's Elle Cover
The fight for women’s rights and equality has been an ongoing struggle from the mid 1800s to the current day. However, it has become increasingly apparent that feminism does not always include representation and/or beliefs and ideas from black women. There is a lack of racial representation in the feminist movement as discussed by Audre Lorde in Sister Outsider. This deficiency of a racial perspective results in feminist battles solely fighting for white women’s needs and rights. For instance, in the 1960s, Betty Freidan, in her Feminine Mystique, argued for the right of women to work. The majority of black women at this time, however, was already working and instead wanted freedom and time to spend with their families. Their economic hardships, low paying jobs, and overall needs were not taken into the same consideration as white women’s. Black women face twice the difficulties, stereotypes, and oppression that white women face. They are not only treated subordinately by men but also by white society. They face a ‘double bind’ due to their sex and their race.
Peggy McIntosh in her article entitled White Privilege argues that white society has advantages and privileges that usually are undetected and deemed part of ‘normal’ life as they are deeply engrained and imbedded in society. White people are not taught to distinguish or acknowledge their ‘natural’ superiority and hierarchy. They learn to believe they are “morally neutral, normative, and average, also ideal” (McIntosh, 1).
Thus, through this view, the white woman could be seen as the ideal epitome of the female race. This opinion is firmly established throughout the media. The majority of magazines, movies, and TV shows depict white men and women. Allison Samuels, writer of the Newsweek article Cover Girl?, notes that most black actresses have trouble finding employment within Hollywood unless “Tyler Perry is making a film. Hollywood and the fashion industry just don’t care” (Samuel, 2). Thus, when a black woman appears in the media, there is usually a big ‘hurrah.’ However, in the case of Gabourey Sidibe’s appearance on the cover of Elle magazine, there was an opposite reaction. The debate behind Gabourey Sidibe’s cover photo for Elle magazine illustrates how far society still is from establishing equal rights and opportunities for black women. Discussions on the cover have generated a range of opinions on why Sidibe was pictured as such and what this represents for black women.
Gabourey Sidibe is an actress known for her role as a mistreated teenage that ends up victorious in Precious. Her talented performance won her an Oscar nomination for best actress. As a result of her recent fame, she was photographed for the covers of both Ebony and Elle magazine. While her cover on Ebony generated no negative reactions, her Elle debut has received massive criticism and disgust. It has been argued that her cover demeans her blackness and tries to transform her into the ideal woman stereotype.
Gabby Sidibe is known for her dark, Sengalese skin and her voluptuous (far from size two) body. However, her photo shoot for Elle magazine created an entirely different image of Sidibe. Her pictures show her with tremendously lighter skin and are cut so that only her upper body is visible. Her hair weave in the photo has been described as “an old used up brillo pad that has too many greasy spots” (Thomas).
The Newsweek article delves into the reasons behind this misleading and controversial depiction of Sidibe. Sidibe has acted in only one film and yet she is being thrown on the cover of Elle with the magazine’s staff reasoning that they want to portray a “young lady changing the world.” Samuels, the article’s author, counters with the fact that Sidibe has done little for her to necessarily have the ability to change the world. Thus, Samuels thinks this is not the real reason behind Sidibe’s cover. Furthermore, other black actresses who have received considerable acclaim similar to Sidibe for certain film roles have not received the same attention from magazines that primarily target a white audience. Moreover, there were three other Elle covers the same month which captured the beauty of Lauren Conrad, Megan Fox, and Amanda Seyfried; all white, thin, stereotypically beautiful women. The difference between their appearances and Sidibe’s is overwhelmingly apparent. So why did Elle extend so far from their typical women candidates?
It can be assumed that Elle magazine needed to put a black woman on the cover of one of their magazines in order to show their diverse nature. Sidibe was a perfect candidate because as Samuels explains, Sidibe has a “nonthreatening beauty.” Sidibe is plus-size and has a dark skin tone. Her physical attributes are a far cry from the world’s archetype for female beauty. Therefore, Sidibe cannot change or challenge opinions of stereotypical beauty. She cannot be considered a danger in the global stereotype arena or challenge assumptions about beauty and attractiveness because she is such an extreme and so far from society’s idyllic beauties. Furthermore, Sidibe can be argued to fit into one of the categories outlined by Douglas in her chapter “You Go Girl”; the powerful black woman. Thus, again, Sidibe fits into an image society has deemed acceptable and non-threatening for black women in the media. If Elle magazine had photographed a black woman who did not fit into one of Douglas’ categories, this could threaten white superiority. If a thin, light-skinned black woman with model facial features was photographed, this could also threaten conventional beauty and female stereotypes. These approvals of blackness could ultimately threaten white female superiority as well as threaten the magazine’s buyer pool. It could endanger the system and the ideals that have been created. Thus, by placing Sidibe on the cover, the magazine did not put at risk any societal conventions, while simultaneously proving how far our culture still is from racial equality.
Furthermore, Elle magazine did not just photograph Sidibe, they also lightened her skin tone and hid her voluptuous, curvy body. Sidibe’s photos were photo-shopped to make her more physically appealing to society as a whole. Society is bombarded with images of women that are termed to be perfect and flawless and these images are what the average woman is supposed to strive to look like. However, these representations are false and misleading as the regular woman is not a size 0 and cannot spend hours each day or heaps of money on makeup and clothing. It is unrealistic and certainly not viable. Yet, as Levy discusses in Female Chauvinist Pigs, these ideal female images are what men and society as a whole want to see. They are sexually pleasing and play into male fantasies. Thus, women continue to struggle to turn themselves into such images; to conform and match expectations. As Johnson says in his article on patriarchy, women are following the paths of least resistance and abiding by the rules of the system. Thus, in order to keep Sidibe within these lines and boundaries and to appeal more to society, her skin was lightened and her body hidden. She was made to look more like the white ideal and less like her unique self.
This has enraged women, especially black women. Blackness should not be a negative trait in women. It certainly should not be hidden as if unwanted and revolting. This is also true with body size. Curves should be loved and flaunted. The anorexic female ideal is harmful and not a sincere depiction of a real average woman. Amusingly, the Elle editor-in-chief insists that they did not lighten her skin and that “at a photo shoot, in a studio, that is a fashion shoot, that’s glamorous, the lighting is different” (TheyBF.com). However, it seems pretty extraordinary that they did not lighten her skin when in Ebony magazine, Sidibe’s photograph had the same natural dark coloring as in person (which would have the similar lighting techniques and apparatuses).
Another condemnation of the photo-shoot had to do with Sidibe’s hair. Sidibe has been “seen…on a plethora of red carpets, giving it to em’; hands on hip, and that weave just right” (Thomas, 2). However, in Elle magazine’s photos, her hair was criticized to have been styled terribly and poorly. Assumptions have been made that the magazine did not have black hair stylists present at the shoot. This is an example of white privilege. McIntosh notes in the effects of white privilege on her life that “I can go…into a hairdresser’s shop and find someone who can cut my hair” (2). McIntosh continues, saying that this is not necessarily true for her African American friends. Services for black people are not nearly as widely available as those for white people. Thus, it is not very surprising that Sidibe’s weave was unable to be appropriately done as there was no one at Elle magazine to take care of it. It is disappointing that they did not have the foresight to hire a hairdresser apt with working with black hair for Sidibe. Black women’s needs are not met with the same enthusiasm and gusto as white women’s requirements. They are not taken into as much consideration due to inherent, engrained white privilege.
Gabby Sidibe’s cover shoot for Elle magazine shows that although black women face double binds from two angles of society (gender and race); their oppression is largely ignored and not fought with equal ferocity as the struggle for white woman’s equality. Her cover illustrated the stereotypes society has placed upon female beauty. Women should have light (white) skin, small bodies, soft hair etc. Since Sidibe did not fit into these categories, she was altered using computer technology; photo-shopped to have lighter skin and camera chopped to hide her body. The media’s portrayal of women has to change. Black women should be as celebrated as white women. White privilege needs to end and in order for that to happen; the media has to work against the system. People cannot blindly follow societal ideals otherwise white privilege will never be questioned or fought. Also, women should be celebrated for their unique, distinctive bodies. They should not have to conform to ideals. Sidibe should have been distinguished for herself and not for what society wanted her to be. Once the media, such as Elle magazine, stops following these paths of least resistance, society might have a chance to end systems of privilege and instead create systems of equality and fairness.“Elle Magazine Responds to Gabby Sidibe’s Cover Controversy: The Lighting Is Different.”
TheyBF.com. September 18,2010. September 25, 2010.
Friedan, Betty. The Feminist Mystique. Penguin Books: 1963.
Johnson, Allan G. The Gender Knot. “Patriarchy the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an
Us.” Temple University Press: Philadelphia, 1997.
Levy, Ariel. Female Chauvinist Pigs: "The Future That Never Happened." A Division of Simon & Schuster
Inc: New York, 2005.
Lorde, Audre. Sister Outsider. Crossing Press: Berkeley, 1984.
McIntosh, Peggy. “White Privilege and Male Privilege.” Wellesley College Center for Research
on Women: 1988.
Rose, Sandra. “Sandra Rose on Gabby Sidibe’s Elle Cover” Booker Rising: News Site for Black
Moderates and Black Conservatives. September 15, 2010. September 25, 2010.
Samuels, Allison. “Gabby Sidibe: Cover Girl?” MSNBC.com. September 20, 2010. September
Thomas, Geneva S. “Gabby Sidibe’s Elle Cover is Another Reason Why Black Fashion
Directors Are Necessary.” Cluthmagonline.com. September 10,2010. September 25,
Williams, Mary Elizabeth. “The Touchy Politics of Elle’s Gabby Sidibe Cover.” Salon.com.
September 13, 2010. September 25, 2010.
Monday, September 27, 2010
response to shannon's 9/28 post
Coincidentally, I have been reading a couple novels in different English classes that illustrate gender as a bell curve rather than two distinct entities of man and woman. One of the books is The Pagoda and focuses mainly on the character of Mr. Lowe. Initially, the reader is unaware that Mr. Lowe is a biologically a woman as Lowe lives his outward life as a man. Students in my class along with myself discussed how we felt uncomfortable with Mr. Lowe’s character because of his ambiguous gender and hidden, unclear sexuality. Society has engrained in us that there are only two genders and each one has a corresponding, defined sexuality. Thus, when we are confronted with a person who does not fit either profile, we can feel awkward and ill at ease.
As the novel progressed, our discussions started to really probe into what is sexuality and what is gender. We saw Lowe view his body as a foreign entity and struggle to understand and recognize his sexuality. In society where Lowe is supposed to be female and feel ‘female-defined desire,’ Lowe strains to understand why he does not feel this way.
It was also interesting to note certain acts of the author in the novel to illuminate the bell curve of gender. Patricia Powell (the author) plays with the classic attributes associated with a novel’s protagonist. Powell flips around everything that would be expected. In doing so, she is illuminating an essential theme of the novel; everything is not what it seems. Powell initially shows Lowe’s ‘male-hero’, Omar in a negative, condescending light. Thus, from this early description of Omar, one would never presume that he could become an object of desire for Lowe and a possible male hero. This element of surprise parallels Lowe’s own unawareness in regards to his gender and sexuality. There is no predetermined path that Lowe’s sexuality takes. His experiences are unexpected and somewhat overwhelming for readers. They do not make sense in regards to societal expectations.
Furthermore, Powell does not want her readers to make any assumptions. Therefore, by putting in unpredictable events, readers can never get comfortable. This is important as the issues in the novel are not comfortable issues. They are messy and confusing. It is impossible to grasp a situation, diagnosis it, label it, and fully understand it. Gender and sexuality are complicated. It is hard to look at and fully understand Lowe’s sexuality and gender because they are so different from what we are used to and what we are taught to see each and everyday. Instead of having a clearcut image of Lowe as a woman with certain sexual needs, there are numerous ways to look upon the feelings, emotions, and identities of Lowe. Sexual references and events in the novel are not one dimensional. For instance, Lowe does have sex with a woman but that does not make him lesbian by any means. Lowe dresses as a man but that does not mean he might not be female. Everything is up for interpretation and is chalk deep with multiple connotations and values.
Powell really wants her audience to understand that gender and sexuality are not the same thing and both can be bell curves. She makes her readers uncomfortable and creates situations where they cannot simply assume or think the way society wants us to think. Instead, she shows readers there are multiple ways of looking at sexuality and gender by creating unpredictable events and such an erratic character such as Mr. Lowe. These ideas parallel the ideas in Fausto-Sterling’s first couple of chapters.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
9/28 Summary Post
Anne Fausto-Sterling begins by discussing an important incident from the 1988 Olympics, when a female athlete on the Spanish team was not allowed to participate in the competition due to her failure to pass the sex-test. Although she appeared female and had trained as a female her entire life, according to the Olympic scientific gender test, she was technically male because they had a Y chromosome and had neither ovaries nor a uterus, instead had testes. Fausto-Sterling continues by demonstrating that views of sex have significantly changed throughout time. Prior to 1968, female Olympic competitors were often asked to show themselves naked in front of a board of examiners and breasts/a vagina were the only necessities to certify one's femininity. The issues behind the differences between social expression of gender and the physical underpinnings of gender have been an intense topic of debate. In 1972, sexologists John Money and Anke Erhardt first popularized the notion that sex and gender are different and distinct categories. Sex is anatomically and genetically determined while gender is a psychological transformation of the self. Fausto-Sterling argues that scientists have simply created these so-called truths about sexuality; how our bodies serve to re-enforce these truths and how these truths also serve to mold our cultural environment. Many of these "facts" about the modern world are not actually universal truths but are "rooted in specific histories, practices, languages and peoples" (Haraway). Society, Anne argues, attempts to divide everyone into simply male or female. There is no in between or mix between the two because modernity considers progress to be making everything "normal". This "two-sex model" is challenged by feminists on a daily basis. In addition to limiting the world to only two sexes, modern anthropology limits the development of sexuality to simply nature or nurture. Anthropologists reflect two contradictory strains of thought: (1) "cultural influences model of sexuality" which emphasizes the importance of culture in molding sexual behavior but assumes the main driver of sexuality is biologically determined and (2) to interpret sexuality completely in terms of social construction, not taking into account any biological influence. Fausto-Sterling points out that one of the weaknesses of anthropology is that they must "invent categories into which they support collected information" (19); therefore any and all discoveries made by anthropologists are simply socially constructed ideas. Euro-American ways of understanding the world rely on the use of dualisms, or pairs of opposing concepts, objects or belief systems. Three of the main ones focused on in this text are sex/gender, nature/nurture and real/constructed. The dualism of nature/nurture has been challenged by a group of developmental systems theorists, who deny that there are only two kinds of processes: one guided by genes and biology and the other guided by the environment. The dualism of real versus constructed is commonly used in the idea that sex and nature are considered real while gender and culture are constructed. Despite the scientific evidence of hormones, brain development and sexual behavior, these scientific understandings are simply "constructed in and bear the marks of specific historical and social contexts" (29).
In her second chapter, titled "That Sex Which Prevaileth", Fausto-Sterling describes how particularly Europeans and American culture is deeply devoted to the notion that there are only two sexes. Not only does our language does restrict the idea of having multiple sexes, but even our state and legal systems have an interest in maintaining only two sexes. Fausto-Sterling continues by giving the history of hermaphrodites since the time of Greek mythology. Throughout history, different cultures have dealt with intersexuals in different ways. While Aristotle argued that genitalia did not determine the sex of a baby but hermaphrodites truly only belonged to one of the two possible sexes, Galen argued that they belonged to an intermediate sex, rejecting the commonly accepted notion of a bi-sex world. Different countries and different legal/religious systems viewed intersexuality in very different ways; however all of Europe had a clear distinction between the male and female that was at the core of legal and political systems in place historically and today. As biology emerged as an accepted science in the late 18th century, it started to gain authority over the determination of sexually ambiguous individuals. Biologists including Saint-Hilaire and James Young Simpson attempted to classify hermaphrodites in the modern world. New standards of hermaphroditism were created to facilitate in the classification. Fausto-Sterling also references how women’s increased demands for equality in the US and England had “profound implications for the scientific categorization of intersexuality. More than ever, politics necessitated two and only two sexes” (40). The more social activist movements attempted to get rid of the divisions between the sexes, the more doctors and scientists insisted on the absolute division between males and females. Moving into the 20th century, further understanding of the physiological base of intersexuality began to facilitate the diagnosis of intersexuals at the moment of birth. The motive for conversion, although genuinely humanitarian, is deeply rooted in the ideas that there should only be two sexes; that only heterosexuality is normal; and that specific gender roles defined the psychologically “healthy” man and woman.
In her second chapter, titled "That Sex Which Prevaileth", Fausto-Sterling describes how particularly Europeans and American culture is deeply devoted to the notion that there are only two sexes. Not only does our language does restrict the idea of having multiple sexes, but even our state and legal systems have an interest in maintaining only two sexes. Fausto-Sterling continues by giving the history of hermaphrodites since the time of Greek mythology. Throughout history, different cultures have dealt with intersexuals in different ways. While Aristotle argued that genitalia did not determine the sex of a baby but hermaphrodites truly only belonged to one of the two possible sexes, Galen argued that they belonged to an intermediate sex, rejecting the commonly accepted notion of a bi-sex world. Different countries and different legal/religious systems viewed intersexuality in very different ways; however all of Europe had a clear distinction between the male and female that was at the core of legal and political systems in place historically and today. As biology emerged as an accepted science in the late 18th century, it started to gain authority over the determination of sexually ambiguous individuals. Biologists including Saint-Hilaire and James Young Simpson attempted to classify hermaphrodites in the modern world. New standards of hermaphroditism were created to facilitate in the classification. Fausto-Sterling also references how women’s increased demands for equality in the US and England had “profound implications for the scientific categorization of intersexuality. More than ever, politics necessitated two and only two sexes” (40). The more social activist movements attempted to get rid of the divisions between the sexes, the more doctors and scientists insisted on the absolute division between males and females. Moving into the 20th century, further understanding of the physiological base of intersexuality began to facilitate the diagnosis of intersexuals at the moment of birth. The motive for conversion, although genuinely humanitarian, is deeply rooted in the ideas that there should only be two sexes; that only heterosexuality is normal; and that specific gender roles defined the psychologically “healthy” man and woman.
In the excerpt called “One Bad Hair Day Too Many, or the Hairstory of an Androgynous Young Feminist”, Myhre describes how her decision to get a crew cut and dress in a more masculine way and the reactions she witnessed in response to her choice. She argues that “feminity isn’t inherent, natural or biological”. She describes how her decision to dress a certain way is a constant reminder to those who believe an individual can only be masculine or feminine. Her description of life as being a “butch” woman further emphasizes the points made in Sexing the Body about how our culture and society do not truly accept intersexual people. If you don’t fit into one of the two sexes then you aren’t really accepted.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Response to Maria's Summary Post 9/23
Reading Peggy McIntosh's article on white privilege really forced me to look at my life with a new perspective. So many of the items on her list of everyday privileges that white people have completely opened my mind to how I am daily reminded of my position of power in society, a power that I have been born with simply because of the color of my skin. McIntos also points out that "whites are taught to think of their lives as morally neutral, normative, and average". I have to admit that I don't wake up every morning and think about how my race might affect my daily routine.
I thought that McIntosh's article has a direct relationship to Johnson's article that we read for last class. Not only does Peggy point out that whites are taught not to recognize white privilege as males are taught not to recognize male privilege, but she also discusses how racism is all encompassing of society. Similarly, as we discussed, Johnson described sexism as inherent to our current "system" and therefore needs to be changed by altering society. Also, as we discussed in class, most of us tended to give more credibility to Johnson's article than we might to a woman's article because of his stature as a man as well as his somewhat third-party perspective on the issue (meaning that he is not a woman claiming that she is being inherently discriminated against). Similarly, Peggy says that, "being of the main culture, I could also criticize it fairly freely", meaning that Peggy's opinions on racism are likely to be taken more seriously since she is not a part of the oppressed group. She talks about how disapproving of the current system will not be enough to change it, an idea very similar to Johnson's.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
9/23 Summary
Peggy McIntosh’s article discussed the advantages and privileges of white society that are so engrained and deeply imbedded in our culture that people do not even seem to realize that this disparity exists. She compares this to male privilege as men are not taught to distinguish their natural superiority and hierarchy in society. Just like men, white people are instructed to believe they are ‘morally neutral, normative, and average, and also ideal, so that when we work to benefit others, this is seen as work that will allow ‘them’ to be more like ‘us.’ McIntosh realizes in order to address and hopefully fix the situation, white privilege must be described and understood. Where does it come into play? Why do we not realize it’s there? She makes a list of the results of white privilege of her own life. Some of her realizations include knowing that she can turn on a TV and see people of her own race to knowing she was pulled over by a cop for reasons other than her race. The list numbers fifty and could easily go on and on. McIntosh continues with discussion on how facing this list, knowing that white privilege does exist, is difficult for many people. It is hard to give up the ‘myth of meritocracy.’ Some of the effects of white privilege should be universal to all races yet are blatantly not so. She questions whether society in dealing with this dilemma will act like men in a male privilege scenario where they are infuriated to be accused with undeserved race benefits and supremacy. It is hard to see oneself as a racist because it has been engrained on us that racism is an act of an individual. It is not; it is part of a system and similar to Johnson’s argument, we must rebel against the system and take the paths of most resistance to make changes. Until that point, we are being racist by going along with this racist system. McIntosh ends the article with a question: “will we use unearned advantage…[or] whether we will use any of our arbitrarily awarded power to try to reconstruct power systems on a broader base.”
Lorde’s article also deals with racism; however she concentrates on racism within feminism. At the Crossing Press Feminist Series in 1984, only two speakers were black. As a Black lesbian feminist, it was hard for her to see the lack of her race and her sexual preference being represented. Lorde believes that in order for feminism to advance, women need to be interdependent upon each other. This will lead to the unraveling of the patriarchal system. However, in order to be inter-reliant, dissimilarities and diversity must be celebrated and used as to spark creativity and power. She says “only within that interdependency of different strengths, acknowledged and equal, can the power to seek new ways of being in the world generate.” Academic feminists fail to realize and identify difference. They disregard differences or see them as reason for division. They really need to instead instruct and inform themselves on Black women and their differences. It is paramount to the survival and the voice of women.
Miles writes about her experience on the magazine staff of The Rag; a publication of Harvard-Radcliffe University. It was the first feminist periodical on the campus. At their first meeting, there was excitement, enthusiasm and pride. The women running the magazine felt ‘formidable.’ However, after only two semesters, the atmosphere surrounding the magazine had done a 180. The periodical had illuminated problems between the women that hadn’t been apparent before. Racial and class problems had arisen and discussions about these issues only led to conflict and discord. Some women felt left out of managerial aspect of the magazine as well which led to problems with power and control. The racial tension really developed with an idea presented by a member of ABRW (Association of Black Radcliffe Women). The organization had spoken up against images and media portrayals representing black women’s bodies and sexuality in negative and stereotypical manners. These women were obviously interested in fighting for women’s issues yet they did not want to join a group that labeled them as ‘feminists.’ They thought this to be a white, racist movement. The suggestion to change the name of the Rag to a womanist group led to more conflict and racial strife. Class conflicts followed, creating disorder and chaos. Miles realizes that all of this could have potentially been avoided. Feminist groups in the past had similar problems. The Harvard women’s unawareness of feminist history had been their downfall. Also Black women, such as the ladies in ABRW, were unaware that their race had a longstanding feminist practice and belief. They had ‘deep roots’ in the movement of which they were not aware of. The Rag members may have been successful if they had been knowledgeable of each other’s pasts and learned about each other’s monumental life experiences and beliefs.
Monday, September 20, 2010
9/21 Response
After reading Johnson's article on patriarchy, I began to think about how applicable many of the things being said are to Colgate's culture. Johnson describes how one cannot address the problem of patriarchy (or the problem of a male-dominated society) without looking at the "system" that all the problems take place in. As I am beginning my fourth year of Colgate, I have heard many complaints about the "hook-up" culture here and how the frat culture has such a large impact on our social lives. I realize, however, that everyone taking part in Colgate's social life, (and Colgate life in general) is contributing in some part to this problem. As Johnson puts the blame on all individuals in society for patriarchy, I believe the same needs to be done at Colgate. Although individuals should be punished for inappropriate actions as they are in the US courts of law, Colgate's culture would not be the way it is if it weren't for all those who "participate", or as Johnson describes simply are a part of this culture.
On the same topic, I believe that watching blatantly sexist TV shows or listening to overtly male dominance centered music is another form of participation in this patriarchal society. The depictions of men and women in all of the shows we have talked about so far in class are often clearly sexist; however it is not only men who are watching these shows. By taking part in a society that you believe is incorrectly male-dominated without making attempts to change it is simply continuing this cycle that Johnson describes.
9/21 Response: Too this or too that.
In Frye's article, she discusses the double bind of oppressed people and specifically focuses in on the bind around young women. I was particularly intrigued by this analysis as I myself am of course a young women and I found true many of the points she focused in on.
Frye focused in on the bind where neither sexual activity or inactivity is considered acceptable for a young women. Sexual activity leads to stereotypes revolving around words such as whore and slut. Sexual inactivity can result in lack of male interest and stereotypes of being a tease or a prude old maid. Neither is acceptable. We focused in on a similar topic in class the other day in regards to girls at Colgate and what is considered the 'norm.' It seemed to the class that the Colgate female population is expected to be an intermediate breed if thats the right term. We can neither be too smart or too dumb. We can neither be too nicely dressed or too sloppy. We can be neither too outgoing or too shy. It's all about perfecting the middle ground. It's the same sort of thing with Frye's article. You can neither be sexually active or sexually inactive. However, where is the middle ground in that?
Movies have also focused on this theme, creating female characters that must be made-over to become intriguing, popular, and essentially 'perfect. These female characters are usually too much of one thing, such as too nerdy and too unpopular in She's All That or too ugly and socially awkward in Miss Congeniality. In the film Cruel Intentions, the viriginal blond is desired by all the men simply in order to take her virginity. The women see her as a prude and the men see her as a challenge. She is immediately stereotyped and categorized based on her sexual inactivity.
Frye focused in on the bind where neither sexual activity or inactivity is considered acceptable for a young women. Sexual activity leads to stereotypes revolving around words such as whore and slut. Sexual inactivity can result in lack of male interest and stereotypes of being a tease or a prude old maid. Neither is acceptable. We focused in on a similar topic in class the other day in regards to girls at Colgate and what is considered the 'norm.' It seemed to the class that the Colgate female population is expected to be an intermediate breed if thats the right term. We can neither be too smart or too dumb. We can neither be too nicely dressed or too sloppy. We can be neither too outgoing or too shy. It's all about perfecting the middle ground. It's the same sort of thing with Frye's article. You can neither be sexually active or sexually inactive. However, where is the middle ground in that?
Movies have also focused on this theme, creating female characters that must be made-over to become intriguing, popular, and essentially 'perfect. These female characters are usually too much of one thing, such as too nerdy and too unpopular in She's All That or too ugly and socially awkward in Miss Congeniality. In the film Cruel Intentions, the viriginal blond is desired by all the men simply in order to take her virginity. The women see her as a prude and the men see her as a challenge. She is immediately stereotyped and categorized based on her sexual inactivity.
Another example is seen in the slightly disturbing show, the Bachelorpad. In the show, people are competiting for money and love. Two of the women are cast as stereotypes through the filming and comments of the cast. Natalie is the dumb blonde who is called slutty and was voted as the woman who would 'always be a bridesmaid, never a bride.' Then there's Nicki who is seen as a mother and a prude. Both of these women are not viewed in a positive light. They represent in a way sexual activity versus sexualy inactivity. Neither is acceptable or positive.
So where do women fit in? There is no in between. There is no happy medium. We seem to be forever doomed with undeserved judgement and insults. It is only until, as Johnson says, we stop playing the rules of the game and start questioning society as a whole can things possibly change and can female oppression, perhaps/eventually, be fought and destroyed.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Response to Shannon's 9/16 Post
I was thinking about how women who make it in the music industry are constantly criticized for dresing in sexually provocative manners and can thus be labelled as a 'slut.' Although this can just be a manifestation of their own sexuality and of asserting their right to be expressive as man always are in their lyrics, women are still the ones constantly labelled and stereotyped.
It is interesting to also note what happens with some young up and coming music artists. Miley Cyrus began her career on the Disney Channel and immediately became the overnight singing sensation of Hannah Montana. Hannah is cast as a creative, humorous, clever young girl. She is always wearing appropriate clothing. She has a loving family. She is an icon for today's young girls. However, Miley Cyrus is not Hannah Montana. Miley is a maturing adolescent who wants to show the world how she is growing. She does not want to be stuck in the 'Hannah Montana' caste forever.
In 2008, Miley did a photoshoot for Vanity Fair and essentially just bared her back to the camera. She was aggressively attacked for this shoot. No one wanted to imagine the goofy Disney Channel singer to be a mature young woman. Even though she showed almost no skin, people were really upset and termed the shoot 'inappropriate' and 'evocative.' Almost any other woman doing a shoot with that amount of skin displayed would never have had the same reaction as with Miley Cyrus. Many people have permanently placed her in the role of an immature, unsexualized Hannah Montana who would never show skin. Thus, any amount of skin that Miley shows, even if its not the norm for what we call 'slutty,' is immediately criticized.
Photos were also leaked of Miley at some point kissing a girlfriend. People immediately again freaked out. Miley was criticized for having a 'lesbian sleepover.' Again, any normal adolescent girl probably has pictures of this sort. The public simply freaked out because it was the Hannah Montana actress and Hannah Montana would never act this way.
It is interesting to also note what happens with some young up and coming music artists. Miley Cyrus began her career on the Disney Channel and immediately became the overnight singing sensation of Hannah Montana. Hannah is cast as a creative, humorous, clever young girl. She is always wearing appropriate clothing. She has a loving family. She is an icon for today's young girls. However, Miley Cyrus is not Hannah Montana. Miley is a maturing adolescent who wants to show the world how she is growing. She does not want to be stuck in the 'Hannah Montana' caste forever.
Summary of 9/16 Reading
In her chapter titled "The New Girliness", Susan Douglas describes how the 90's saw the sudden rise of "chick flicks", movies aimed primarily at girls and young women. Movies like Clueless, Legally Blonde, and Miss Congeniality sent the message that feminism was overrated and done because it was a hindrance to the new femininity that was more "fun" and that equality between men and women had already been achieved. The first film Douglas talks about is Clueless, which was revolutionary in its use of the female voice over (that it was told from Cher's point of view). These interior monologues were supposedly voicing the true hopes and desires of females; however according to Cher, women were simply obsessed with dieting, shopping, men and having babies. By the late 90's, this "new girliness" said that girls could be sexual objects who still looked at the world with a critical anti-patriarchal viewpoint. There was a growing consensus that men and women were inherently different, supported by books such as Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus and The Rules. Women were told they had to play hard to get to find "Mr. Right" and had to embrace their femininity to attract the opposite sex. As all of this was going on in pop culture, however, a series of school shootings involving teenage boys with guns was taking place. This contradiction existed between the media's portrayal of women embracing their feminine power and women in the real world being as suppressed and powerless as ever before.
Douglas continues this chapter by going into a detailed description of the hit TV show Ally McBeal and the top-selling book and movie sequel following the fictional life of Bridget Jones. While Ally McBeal was a successful and intelligent lawyer on the show, she was portrayed as "an embarrassing whiner" who at times was so emotional that she could barely even do her job. The show presented an interesting dichotomy between the two sides of Ally, the strong, impressive business woman and the frail, insecure whiny girl. The show was called both progressive and regressive, bordering between female empowerment and self-abnegation. Douglas describes how the show was neither "feminist or antifeminist: it was both". Women flocked to this show because they were able to relate it to their own experiences, facing the demands of both their professional and personal lives. Women especially, had to navigate between the outward persona they showed the world and the inner thoughts that helped or hindered getting through the day. This show, however, simply re-enforced the common perceptions that even successful professional women simply spend most of their time thinking about girly things and focusing on their own failures. Bridget Jones was a similar character, with books and movies chronicling her life through her inner thoughts. A mess of a woman, Bridget obsesses over gaining the approval of men and monitoring her daily calorie intake. Bridget aims to fulfill the gender stereotype of the 1950s instead of embracing the role of the "new 90's woman". Douglas claimed that Bridget "wallows in prefeminist preoccupations about men and marriage that women are not supposed to obsess about anymore". The interesting thing about Bridget Jones, however, is how many women flocked to the theaters to see her shallow story. Perhaps it was primarily to feel better about their own lives, Bridget Jones' fans got enormous entertainment out of both reading the book and watching the two films.
Mel Gibson's movie, What Women Want, provides a similar view of the inner workings of the average woman's mind. In a story about a man who can hear women's thoughts following an electrical accident, women are portrayed as shallow people who only think about men, hair, make-up and babies: not a single thought on religion, politics, philosophy or finances. These popular movies of the 90's told women and men one thing: feminism is no longer needed. Douglas also discusses the movies Legally Blonde and Miss Congeniality, both of which equate feminism with "being deliberately unattractive, out of touch with, and indeed antagonistic toward other women". The films imply that feminism is hostile toward femininity, which the films also emphasize is essential to both find love and be taken seriously in life.
In the chapter titled, "Yo Go, Girl" Douglas describes the societal difference between black women and white women in the media. As a culture, we love the "sassy black woman", but upper and middle class white women are still expected to be diplomatic, calm and nurturing. Black women are able to "code-switch", or switch between "black speak" and "standard English. On Grey's Anatomy, Miranda Bailey is an African American female professional character who is completely uninterested in being liked. She is respected by both the rest of the hospital and by all of her fans who tune into the show each week. Later on in the show, however, she ends up having to choose between work and her husband, and is left professionally successful but privately lonely. These powerful black women provide the illusion that these characters exist in the real world, when in reality black women are still struggling in today's society, experiencing persistent discrimination, increased chances of developing cancer and heart disease, and increased odds of getting pregnant and/or STDs. These contradictions between black women depicted in the media and black women in America are huge. Oprah Winfrey is another example of this contradiction. She has overcome the obstacles to success and a black female and has won over both white and black women viewers by aiming to personify empowerment for ALL women. Oprah's rise to fame and power, however, is extremely unrealistic and nearly impossible. Douglas describes how she "personifies the massive contradictions- and illusions- that run through how women are portrayed in the media". African American music and television, including Living Single and Martin, struggled with the issue of portraying women as strong, male-bashing figures, and yet at the same time weak, insecure girls who are simply looking for love and attention. In the rap industry, women were primarily considered sexual objects, featured promiscuously in the music videos and concerts.
The few women who did make it in the music industry tried to assert their right to be sexually expressive without submitting to the dominant norms about proper female sexuality, but they were always faced with the problem that, to "present yourself as a woman with sexual desires equal to any man's, and as a woman proud of her body, and no matter what your intent you are giving permission to be objectified and, inevitably, cast as a slut".
Douglas continues this chapter by going into a detailed description of the hit TV show Ally McBeal and the top-selling book and movie sequel following the fictional life of Bridget Jones. While Ally McBeal was a successful and intelligent lawyer on the show, she was portrayed as "an embarrassing whiner" who at times was so emotional that she could barely even do her job. The show presented an interesting dichotomy between the two sides of Ally, the strong, impressive business woman and the frail, insecure whiny girl. The show was called both progressive and regressive, bordering between female empowerment and self-abnegation. Douglas describes how the show was neither "feminist or antifeminist: it was both". Women flocked to this show because they were able to relate it to their own experiences, facing the demands of both their professional and personal lives. Women especially, had to navigate between the outward persona they showed the world and the inner thoughts that helped or hindered getting through the day. This show, however, simply re-enforced the common perceptions that even successful professional women simply spend most of their time thinking about girly things and focusing on their own failures. Bridget Jones was a similar character, with books and movies chronicling her life through her inner thoughts. A mess of a woman, Bridget obsesses over gaining the approval of men and monitoring her daily calorie intake. Bridget aims to fulfill the gender stereotype of the 1950s instead of embracing the role of the "new 90's woman". Douglas claimed that Bridget "wallows in prefeminist preoccupations about men and marriage that women are not supposed to obsess about anymore". The interesting thing about Bridget Jones, however, is how many women flocked to the theaters to see her shallow story. Perhaps it was primarily to feel better about their own lives, Bridget Jones' fans got enormous entertainment out of both reading the book and watching the two films.
Mel Gibson's movie, What Women Want, provides a similar view of the inner workings of the average woman's mind. In a story about a man who can hear women's thoughts following an electrical accident, women are portrayed as shallow people who only think about men, hair, make-up and babies: not a single thought on religion, politics, philosophy or finances. These popular movies of the 90's told women and men one thing: feminism is no longer needed. Douglas also discusses the movies Legally Blonde and Miss Congeniality, both of which equate feminism with "being deliberately unattractive, out of touch with, and indeed antagonistic toward other women". The films imply that feminism is hostile toward femininity, which the films also emphasize is essential to both find love and be taken seriously in life.
In the chapter titled, "Yo Go, Girl" Douglas describes the societal difference between black women and white women in the media. As a culture, we love the "sassy black woman", but upper and middle class white women are still expected to be diplomatic, calm and nurturing. Black women are able to "code-switch", or switch between "black speak" and "standard English. On Grey's Anatomy, Miranda Bailey is an African American female professional character who is completely uninterested in being liked. She is respected by both the rest of the hospital and by all of her fans who tune into the show each week. Later on in the show, however, she ends up having to choose between work and her husband, and is left professionally successful but privately lonely. These powerful black women provide the illusion that these characters exist in the real world, when in reality black women are still struggling in today's society, experiencing persistent discrimination, increased chances of developing cancer and heart disease, and increased odds of getting pregnant and/or STDs. These contradictions between black women depicted in the media and black women in America are huge. Oprah Winfrey is another example of this contradiction. She has overcome the obstacles to success and a black female and has won over both white and black women viewers by aiming to personify empowerment for ALL women. Oprah's rise to fame and power, however, is extremely unrealistic and nearly impossible. Douglas describes how she "personifies the massive contradictions- and illusions- that run through how women are portrayed in the media". African American music and television, including Living Single and Martin, struggled with the issue of portraying women as strong, male-bashing figures, and yet at the same time weak, insecure girls who are simply looking for love and attention. In the rap industry, women were primarily considered sexual objects, featured promiscuously in the music videos and concerts.
The few women who did make it in the music industry tried to assert their right to be sexually expressive without submitting to the dominant norms about proper female sexuality, but they were always faced with the problem that, to "present yourself as a woman with sexual desires equal to any man's, and as a woman proud of her body, and no matter what your intent you are giving permission to be objectified and, inevitably, cast as a slut".
Monday, September 13, 2010
Response to Maria's Summary Post 9/14
Reading Douglas's chapter titled "Castration Anxiety" made me think about how often women are not remembered for the great things they have done during their careers and are instead remembered for something such as their being "a freak" or "too butch" as in the case of Janet Reno. Reno's sincere apology for the Branch Davidian accident should be revered as an honest and admirable choice that many powerful people would not have made; however instead Reno became the butt of many middle-aged white men's jokes. Not only are women often held to a different standard in the workplace, they also must work that much harder to be recognized for their outstanding accomplishments. An extremely feminine and attractive woman must work even harder to be respected and remembered for her accomplishments as well. The other day I came across this website with a document shown that was supposedly found on an HR employee's desk at CitiBank. One of the most interesting aspects of this website are the comments. Many posts are clearly angered by this advice to females; however other posts actually agree that in GENERAL, most women do need to improve in these areas.
In Douglas's next chapter titled "Warrior Women in Thongs", Douglas references how in the early 1990's, women were starting to be portrayed as physically strong as well as mentally strong, not having to rely on their femininity to succeed in fighting evil in the world. As time progressed, however, women began to be portrayed in their traditional roles, being forced to use their sex appeal to acquire power. The interesting thing I've found, however, is that the famous tv shows that used to be popular such as 90210 and Nikita have actually been recreated by the CW network. Even though viewers realize that they are watching mindless television, as they realized in the 90's as well, they continue to give shows like these high ratings, contributing to the stereotypes of women continuing. A NYTimes Article I read today referenced a similar TV show called the Jersey Shore, which follows the lives of a group of 20 somethings from New Jersey, focusing on their hook-ups and drunken nights. Although a recent poll showed that people are growing tired of reality TV shows, they continued to watch them this summer more than any other series. As Douglas talked about in her introductory paragraph, people continue to justify watching mindless television by believing that they are above the junk that they are filling their minds with.
Douglass Ch.2 and Ch. 3 Summary
In Susan Douglas’ book Enlightened Feminism, chapter two discusses the media swarm and the debasing of women who challenged and/or crossed gender lines. A new type of woman was essentially being ‘created’ within the media. These were women who were hard-ass, tough as nails, fighting machines who did not give a damn what men thought. This type of character was portrayed in GI Jane played by Demi Moore or simply in the indifference of Janet Reno. These women scared and terrified men. Female fantasies were seen to be evolving into terrors for men. Men saw this as a threat to their dominance. They thought this new sense of sexuality and power was wrong and could even be seen as a hazard to male dominance.
The chapter focuses on three particular women, beginning with Amy Fisher. Fisher had an affair with Joey Buttafuoco. When Buttafuoco tried to end the relationship, Fisher went to his house and shot his wife in the face in the year 1992. This event immediately generated insane publicity and popularity. It was a “news story-cum-sex thriller that was real-life Fatal Attraction except with a teenage girl.” Immediately the media went into a frenzy, publishing fact and fiction on the case, turning Fisher into a prostitute and a sexual agent. Movie deals with explored and one such deal landed Fisher the money to pay for parole. The massive debate in the middle of this turmoil was whether or not Fisher was a victim or a predator. Eventually two movies aired, each from a different viewpoint of the case. Together, the two movies reached over 34 million households! Why was this story ‘all the rage’? The Fisher story took all the old ideas about females and turned them on their heads. Teenage girls were suddenly sexually forceful and aggressive, older men were screwing young girls…These ideas were unsound and volatile. Suddenly young girls could be seen as predators. And over all this, the media insisted that the public take sides and choose who was in the wrong. Was Fisher the victim or predator? In the end, Buttafuoco was made out to be a joke and Amy Fisher was the one who was decided to be dangerous and morally unsound. She was humiliated and demeaned by the media.
Lorena Bobbitt was the next woman Douglas focused on. Bobbitt cut off her husband’s penis after years of being sexually abused and mistreated. Again the media passionately attacked this case, sending over two hundred reporters to Bobbitt’s trail. 60% of the country followed the trial on TV. Even though the trial was gruesome and sad on many levels, the story became a nationwide joke. But why? The hearing brought ideas that were previously unmentioned and hush-hush onto the front page. Castration was planted smack dab on center stage. This was a terrifying idea for men and thus it was made out to be a joke to make obvious that all other males were superior to Bobbitt’s husband and thus they would never endure such a travesty. On the other side, Lorena became a hero for women all over. Her trial brought up issues of sexual and domestic violence. However, conversely Lorena was also portrayed as a ‘dumb brute who had evoked that violence.’ And thus, it was determined that these events were due to the lack of control over female sexuality and rage. Women’s power had to be controlled or all hell would break loose.
Janet Reno was the last woman discussed in chapter two. Janet Reno was appointed attorney general for Clinton’s cabinet in 1993. Almost immediately after taking office, Reno approved a plan to storm the Branch Davidian compound in Texas where an essential terrorist was holed up with hostages. Unfortunately, the compound ended up exploding into flames, killing almost 90 people. Although this was a terrible event, Reno, as a politician, did something incredible. She apologized and admitted that she was in the wrong. She took full blame and was congratulated, supported, commended, and praised to a national degree. However, with this massive rise in popularity, Reno immediately became the butt of jokes through the talk show world. She was portrayed as a ‘giant; too butch; unloved; a freak.’ She was made the butt of jokes because she had “looked at the masquerade of femininity that women are supposed to don and just said no.” Reno did not accept the traditional view of females. She wore unflattering clothes and barely smiled. She just did not care. She did not want to conform and she did not care what other people would think. Reno knew it did not matter what she looked like. She still had political power and prowess regardless. She confronted and defied the very basis of patriarchy and thus, she had to controlled and punished through these jokes. The media made clear to the public that Reno was a joke. She should not be taken seriously and if you act like her, you will be snubbed as well. This view of feminism would turn women into undesirable, ludicrous freaks.
Example of Janet Reno joke:
Douglass continues into the discussion of this rise of a new type of women in the media in her third chapter. However, here she concentrates on the rise of the powerful, dangerous and yet also attractive female. Here was hybrid of Janet Reno and Cindy Crawford. It emphasized that women could be both influential and dominant and yet also beautiful and sexy. This was a new type of female idol. It was a woman who fought tough, saved men, were verbally quick, and yet pulled off a miniskirt like a supermodel. They had confidence, skill, power, and beauty. They occupied the traditional forms of masculinity in combination with the ideas of female beauty. The rise of this heroine began with an increased awareness of sexual violence and harassment against women in the early 1990s. Women were scared. There were a lot of rape cases and attacks. And then along comes this female character on TV who would see this ‘attacker’ and kick his ass instead of the other way around. These fighting women became instant idols.
The original female heroine began with the TV character Xena. Xena had no home or family, rejecting the traditional ideas of what a female should have to be successful. She could fight better then men and beat them up repeatedly in each episode. Yet, at the same time, she was dressed in a miniskirt and a bustier, creating a very visually sexual image. She proved that women could be sexualized and still kick ass. Xena also felt no need to keep her mouth shut and be a good ‘quiet woman.’ She was sarcastic, witty and sardonic. The men in the show were barbarians who epitomized the worst form of masculinity: ‘failed and flaccid.’ Furthermore, Xena and Gabrielle’s relationship could be viewed as a lesbian relationship which made many feminists and lesbians ecstatic.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer also plays a similar character to Xena, kicking ass while looking good. She also had a quick mouth and she wasn’t afraid to tease and taunt. She showed girls that women could be physically AND mentally fit. With the subplot of Angel and Buffy’s sexual relationship, the show emphasizes that male sexuality is dangerous as Angel turns into a evil vampire as soon as they have sex.
These shows demonstrated that sexy women could also be strong and potent. Other shows also worked to create similar characters as seen in Alias and Dark Angel among other examples. However, most of these shows had these women needing to hide their true identities otherwise their loved ones could get hurt. They could not have a regular life. Thus, their fate was not theirs to pick and choose. Power became an unwelcome liability. Also these women kicked butt in other, magical worlds. In the ‘real’ world, these women did not exist. Thus, these women were both “transgressive and conformist.”
The chapter focuses on three particular women, beginning with Amy Fisher. Fisher had an affair with Joey Buttafuoco. When Buttafuoco tried to end the relationship, Fisher went to his house and shot his wife in the face in the year 1992. This event immediately generated insane publicity and popularity. It was a “news story-cum-sex thriller that was real-life Fatal Attraction except with a teenage girl.” Immediately the media went into a frenzy, publishing fact and fiction on the case, turning Fisher into a prostitute and a sexual agent. Movie deals with explored and one such deal landed Fisher the money to pay for parole. The massive debate in the middle of this turmoil was whether or not Fisher was a victim or a predator. Eventually two movies aired, each from a different viewpoint of the case. Together, the two movies reached over 34 million households! Why was this story ‘all the rage’? The Fisher story took all the old ideas about females and turned them on their heads. Teenage girls were suddenly sexually forceful and aggressive, older men were screwing young girls…These ideas were unsound and volatile. Suddenly young girls could be seen as predators. And over all this, the media insisted that the public take sides and choose who was in the wrong. Was Fisher the victim or predator? In the end, Buttafuoco was made out to be a joke and Amy Fisher was the one who was decided to be dangerous and morally unsound. She was humiliated and demeaned by the media.
Lorena Bobbitt was the next woman Douglas focused on. Bobbitt cut off her husband’s penis after years of being sexually abused and mistreated. Again the media passionately attacked this case, sending over two hundred reporters to Bobbitt’s trail. 60% of the country followed the trial on TV. Even though the trial was gruesome and sad on many levels, the story became a nationwide joke. But why? The hearing brought ideas that were previously unmentioned and hush-hush onto the front page. Castration was planted smack dab on center stage. This was a terrifying idea for men and thus it was made out to be a joke to make obvious that all other males were superior to Bobbitt’s husband and thus they would never endure such a travesty. On the other side, Lorena became a hero for women all over. Her trial brought up issues of sexual and domestic violence. However, conversely Lorena was also portrayed as a ‘dumb brute who had evoked that violence.’ And thus, it was determined that these events were due to the lack of control over female sexuality and rage. Women’s power had to be controlled or all hell would break loose.
Janet Reno was the last woman discussed in chapter two. Janet Reno was appointed attorney general for Clinton’s cabinet in 1993. Almost immediately after taking office, Reno approved a plan to storm the Branch Davidian compound in Texas where an essential terrorist was holed up with hostages. Unfortunately, the compound ended up exploding into flames, killing almost 90 people. Although this was a terrible event, Reno, as a politician, did something incredible. She apologized and admitted that she was in the wrong. She took full blame and was congratulated, supported, commended, and praised to a national degree. However, with this massive rise in popularity, Reno immediately became the butt of jokes through the talk show world. She was portrayed as a ‘giant; too butch; unloved; a freak.’ She was made the butt of jokes because she had “looked at the masquerade of femininity that women are supposed to don and just said no.” Reno did not accept the traditional view of females. She wore unflattering clothes and barely smiled. She just did not care. She did not want to conform and she did not care what other people would think. Reno knew it did not matter what she looked like. She still had political power and prowess regardless. She confronted and defied the very basis of patriarchy and thus, she had to controlled and punished through these jokes. The media made clear to the public that Reno was a joke. She should not be taken seriously and if you act like her, you will be snubbed as well. This view of feminism would turn women into undesirable, ludicrous freaks.
Douglass continues into the discussion of this rise of a new type of women in the media in her third chapter. However, here she concentrates on the rise of the powerful, dangerous and yet also attractive female. Here was hybrid of Janet Reno and Cindy Crawford. It emphasized that women could be both influential and dominant and yet also beautiful and sexy. This was a new type of female idol. It was a woman who fought tough, saved men, were verbally quick, and yet pulled off a miniskirt like a supermodel. They had confidence, skill, power, and beauty. They occupied the traditional forms of masculinity in combination with the ideas of female beauty. The rise of this heroine began with an increased awareness of sexual violence and harassment against women in the early 1990s. Women were scared. There were a lot of rape cases and attacks. And then along comes this female character on TV who would see this ‘attacker’ and kick his ass instead of the other way around. These fighting women became instant idols.
The original female heroine began with the TV character Xena. Xena had no home or family, rejecting the traditional ideas of what a female should have to be successful. She could fight better then men and beat them up repeatedly in each episode. Yet, at the same time, she was dressed in a miniskirt and a bustier, creating a very visually sexual image. She proved that women could be sexualized and still kick ass. Xena also felt no need to keep her mouth shut and be a good ‘quiet woman.’ She was sarcastic, witty and sardonic. The men in the show were barbarians who epitomized the worst form of masculinity: ‘failed and flaccid.’ Furthermore, Xena and Gabrielle’s relationship could be viewed as a lesbian relationship which made many feminists and lesbians ecstatic.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer also plays a similar character to Xena, kicking ass while looking good. She also had a quick mouth and she wasn’t afraid to tease and taunt. She showed girls that women could be physically AND mentally fit. With the subplot of Angel and Buffy’s sexual relationship, the show emphasizes that male sexuality is dangerous as Angel turns into a evil vampire as soon as they have sex.
These shows demonstrated that sexy women could also be strong and potent. Other shows also worked to create similar characters as seen in Alias and Dark Angel among other examples. However, most of these shows had these women needing to hide their true identities otherwise their loved ones could get hurt. They could not have a regular life. Thus, their fate was not theirs to pick and choose. Power became an unwelcome liability. Also these women kicked butt in other, magical worlds. In the ‘real’ world, these women did not exist. Thus, these women were both “transgressive and conformist.”
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
The Women's Sphere
In the article "Feminism Old Wave and New Wave," Ellen Dubois talks about the 'woman's sphere.' She discusses how women in the early feminist movements realized that if they were to succeed and establish rights for women, they had to begin working solely within a female regime. Women were not going to create any extraordinary changes for themselves if they were advocating within groups or movements that contained men.
This idea still persists in some modern day groups or movements. Many women believe that men should not have any say in issues such as abortion or birth control. These are direct concerns for women and affect their bodies and men have nothing to do with them. Men cannot possibly understand or see from their perspective. However, I believe this to be an outdated idea. True, most men originally fought against feminism and the right for sexual equality. Now, however, women have achieved most of their original goals and thus it is time to enlighten men who are still opposed to gender equality. By talking with men, allowing them opinions, have open discussions about such issues as birth control and abortion, we can teach them and open up their minds. Sure its hard for a men to understand what its like to be a woman today but we can help them learn and they can offer support and sympathy when we tell them of our struggles. And thus, perhaps, then they can understand somewhat what women go through and act accordingly politically and socially. They might start to understand (those who don’t at this point) why women are on birth control or why hiding cleavage instead baring all can make someone feel more beautiful. Men can also offer alternative perspectives or ideas that will benefit us. The woman’s sphere is no longer beneficial. Men have started to open their eyes and will continue to do such if we allow them to see what we see.
This video is somewhat an example of shutting men out. It was made by “Girl’s Night In” which fights against breast cancer and works to spread cancer awareness. However, it targets women and women only. Its meeting are exclusively female. Is this the best option? Should men be excluded from this group?
This idea still persists in some modern day groups or movements. Many women believe that men should not have any say in issues such as abortion or birth control. These are direct concerns for women and affect their bodies and men have nothing to do with them. Men cannot possibly understand or see from their perspective. However, I believe this to be an outdated idea. True, most men originally fought against feminism and the right for sexual equality. Now, however, women have achieved most of their original goals and thus it is time to enlighten men who are still opposed to gender equality. By talking with men, allowing them opinions, have open discussions about such issues as birth control and abortion, we can teach them and open up their minds. Sure its hard for a men to understand what its like to be a woman today but we can help them learn and they can offer support and sympathy when we tell them of our struggles. And thus, perhaps, then they can understand somewhat what women go through and act accordingly politically and socially. They might start to understand (those who don’t at this point) why women are on birth control or why hiding cleavage instead baring all can make someone feel more beautiful. Men can also offer alternative perspectives or ideas that will benefit us. The woman’s sphere is no longer beneficial. Men have started to open their eyes and will continue to do such if we allow them to see what we see.
This video is somewhat an example of shutting men out. It was made by “Girl’s Night In” which fights against breast cancer and works to spread cancer awareness. However, it targets women and women only. Its meeting are exclusively female. Is this the best option? Should men be excluded from this group?
Monday, September 6, 2010
Reallllllll long summary for 9/7 Readings
In The Future that Never Happened, Levy begins to describe some of the original feminist movements and the controversies surrounding one of the newest, so-called feminist movements. Levy begins with a picture of Susan Brownmiller, one of the original members of the women's liberation movement. In the 1970s, the feminism movement believed that marriage was a way of forcing women into submissive and obedient roles. Men had forced women to be subservient and passive. Women did not have the chance to rebel and become impassioned individuals. Brownmiller described the women’s revolution as working to break free of these roles in life and thus allowing women to become empowered, sophisticated individuals. Furthermore, the movement did not want to simply fine-tune the established social system. They wanted a “total transfiguration of society” (48).
Levy goes on to describe how the movement originally got started. Women got their first taste of power and work experience outside of the house during the civil rights movement. However, even with this small gain, they were still treated as supporting figures. Thus, women began to assemble without men for ‘conscious-raising.’ These females wanted to destroy the patriarchal American society. They wanted big changes immediately. One such change occurred in 1973 with the ruling of Roe v. Wade, legalizing abortion. This sent the feminists into an ecstatic frenzy. This was their first major win, a moment of ‘sororal magic’ (52).
Soon after this victory, a separation occurred between the women’s liberation movement. One side sought to progress and enhance women’s sexual fulfillment. Women such as Hite publicly asked questions about female orgasms and pleasure. Hugh Hefner played a part in this movement. He financed court cases to dispute laws that obstructed sexuality. He insisted that he ‘was a feminist before there was such a thing as feminism’ (56). However, Hefner was no such thing. As Playboy gained popularity, Hefner showed his true colors. He stressed that women should be mindless objects. His views on sexuality was only applied to men. He also believed that women should not be sexual and promiscuous. There was massive double-standards within his beliefs, decrying him as no feminist.
The Women’s movement thus began fighting pornography, believing that it demoralized women as well as corresponded to rape and male sexual dominance. With these beliefs, the movement split in half. The ‘sex-positive feminists’ felt that sexual freedom was the number one priority and this included the right to look at or act in pornography media. Feminism was starting to unravel from its tight cohesive beginning. Now there were many different sects of feminists all with different beliefs ranging from S/M lesbian feminists to feminists working with Republicans.
Levy next jumps to the modern day and CAKE. CAKE is a ‘hypersexual sorority’ (71). It promotes promiscuity and insane pornographic parties. CAKE believes in raunch feminism. It brings women together and creates an atmosphere of sexuality through skimpy clothes and attractiveness. They believe they are recreating and defining the present limits and borders of female sexuality. However, there are other ways to do such instead of simply playing into men’s fantasies and giving them exactly what they want. CAKE’s founders believe that putting girls on exhibit and having them flaunt their bodies will give women freedom but there are other ways to do that. Sexuality does not have to be explored and embodied in this manner.
Today, feminism is a word that is slowly losing its excitement and attractiveness. Furthermore, the term is no longer understood or defined in the same way as it used to be as exemplified by CAKE. Feminism has become “an almost opposite style, attitude and set of principles” (87).
In Echols article, we learn about why and how women were able to rebel in the first place. Echols first outlines the general context of the time period, describing the civil rights movement. For women, the civil rights movement gave them the chance to break away from their household role and hold jobs. They began to develop political expertise and other skills. However, the movement was very sexist as “women were effective but men were the stars” (28). Many white women also made their roles seem less official by sleeping with black men of the movement. This led to Stokely Carmichael’s famous quote “The position of women in SNCC is prone” (31).
Furthermore, there were problems between white and blacks in the movement due to where authority should lie. Eventually, the black community realized that they needed a fully black movement to gain power and realize their goals of racial consciousness and equality. Black power became an example for the women’s movement. Women realized that if they were to get anything accomplished, they would have to mobilize within their sex alone.
In 1967, women brought up the issue of sexual disparity at the National Convention of SDS. Men were astounded and enraged as the women compared themselves to a colonized race. Women continued to fight by drafting a resolution demanding convention votes and committee representation at the NCNP. Although the resolution was put on the agenda of the conference, it was almost altogether ignored. The chair of the board even said “we have more important issues to talk about here than women’s liberation” (49).
With this final blow, women decided that to come together as a group and actually make progress, they would have to define their own issues, methods and goals. They could not let men identify or outline any of their objectives. As black power had done, the women showed that it was legitimate to “organize around their oppression and to define the terms of their struggle” (49).
The last reading talked about Betty Friedan and her work and success as a feminist. Interestingly, Friedan began life as an uptown woman with a college degree and a family of five. In 1963, Friedan published the Feminine Mystique. The phrase ‘feminine mystique’ was used to describe the ‘movement’ against females to persuade them that contentment and bliss can only be attained through marriage and motherhood. The reason for this crusade was to primarily put the female worker, employed in time of war, back into the kitchen allowing jobs for soldiers and to make women buy new appliances to strengthen the economy. Friedan also believed that society did not allow women to grow or mature and become real human beings. Their growth was stunted by lack of opportunity and freedom. Women were constantly told that they should not have careers or an education. They should concentrate on their family life. As this ‘campaign’ continued, women started getting married younger and younger. The birthrate of the States was slowly increasing as women were having children at a younger age and thus could have more children overall. Women were taught to put themselves last. Men came first. They were to fit the image of the woman that a man wanted. All a woman was supposed to want was “to get married, have four children and live in a nice house in a nice suburb” (52). This was supposed to be the perfect feminine specimen. However, eventually, women begin to realize that there is an inherent problem in their lives. There is a sense of dissatisfaction and unhappiness stemming from suppression of self. Although people realized there was a problem with these suburban women, many just simply passed it over saying that these women did not understand how lucky they were. They were so happy that they were unhappy. Friedan insists that this problem cannot be ignored. It is a real dilemma. Women are actually suffering. As one woman said “the problem is being the children’s mommy, or the minister’s wife and never being myself” (63). Friedan realizes that the “chains that bind a [woman]…are chains in her own mind and spirit…made up of mistaken ideas and misinterpreted facts, of incomplete truths and unreal choices” (66). These women want more than these lives that society has constructed for them. Their true fantasies do not lie within the ideal family unit.
Levy goes on to describe how the movement originally got started. Women got their first taste of power and work experience outside of the house during the civil rights movement. However, even with this small gain, they were still treated as supporting figures. Thus, women began to assemble without men for ‘conscious-raising.’ These females wanted to destroy the patriarchal American society. They wanted big changes immediately. One such change occurred in 1973 with the ruling of Roe v. Wade, legalizing abortion. This sent the feminists into an ecstatic frenzy. This was their first major win, a moment of ‘sororal magic’ (52).
Soon after this victory, a separation occurred between the women’s liberation movement. One side sought to progress and enhance women’s sexual fulfillment. Women such as Hite publicly asked questions about female orgasms and pleasure. Hugh Hefner played a part in this movement. He financed court cases to dispute laws that obstructed sexuality. He insisted that he ‘was a feminist before there was such a thing as feminism’ (56). However, Hefner was no such thing. As Playboy gained popularity, Hefner showed his true colors. He stressed that women should be mindless objects. His views on sexuality was only applied to men. He also believed that women should not be sexual and promiscuous. There was massive double-standards within his beliefs, decrying him as no feminist.
The Women’s movement thus began fighting pornography, believing that it demoralized women as well as corresponded to rape and male sexual dominance. With these beliefs, the movement split in half. The ‘sex-positive feminists’ felt that sexual freedom was the number one priority and this included the right to look at or act in pornography media. Feminism was starting to unravel from its tight cohesive beginning. Now there were many different sects of feminists all with different beliefs ranging from S/M lesbian feminists to feminists working with Republicans.
Levy next jumps to the modern day and CAKE. CAKE is a ‘hypersexual sorority’ (71). It promotes promiscuity and insane pornographic parties. CAKE believes in raunch feminism. It brings women together and creates an atmosphere of sexuality through skimpy clothes and attractiveness. They believe they are recreating and defining the present limits and borders of female sexuality. However, there are other ways to do such instead of simply playing into men’s fantasies and giving them exactly what they want. CAKE’s founders believe that putting girls on exhibit and having them flaunt their bodies will give women freedom but there are other ways to do that. Sexuality does not have to be explored and embodied in this manner.
Today, feminism is a word that is slowly losing its excitement and attractiveness. Furthermore, the term is no longer understood or defined in the same way as it used to be as exemplified by CAKE. Feminism has become “an almost opposite style, attitude and set of principles” (87).
In Echols article, we learn about why and how women were able to rebel in the first place. Echols first outlines the general context of the time period, describing the civil rights movement. For women, the civil rights movement gave them the chance to break away from their household role and hold jobs. They began to develop political expertise and other skills. However, the movement was very sexist as “women were effective but men were the stars” (28). Many white women also made their roles seem less official by sleeping with black men of the movement. This led to Stokely Carmichael’s famous quote “The position of women in SNCC is prone” (31).
Furthermore, there were problems between white and blacks in the movement due to where authority should lie. Eventually, the black community realized that they needed a fully black movement to gain power and realize their goals of racial consciousness and equality. Black power became an example for the women’s movement. Women realized that if they were to get anything accomplished, they would have to mobilize within their sex alone.
In 1967, women brought up the issue of sexual disparity at the National Convention of SDS. Men were astounded and enraged as the women compared themselves to a colonized race. Women continued to fight by drafting a resolution demanding convention votes and committee representation at the NCNP. Although the resolution was put on the agenda of the conference, it was almost altogether ignored. The chair of the board even said “we have more important issues to talk about here than women’s liberation” (49).
With this final blow, women decided that to come together as a group and actually make progress, they would have to define their own issues, methods and goals. They could not let men identify or outline any of their objectives. As black power had done, the women showed that it was legitimate to “organize around their oppression and to define the terms of their struggle” (49).
The last reading talked about Betty Friedan and her work and success as a feminist. Interestingly, Friedan began life as an uptown woman with a college degree and a family of five. In 1963, Friedan published the Feminine Mystique. The phrase ‘feminine mystique’ was used to describe the ‘movement’ against females to persuade them that contentment and bliss can only be attained through marriage and motherhood. The reason for this crusade was to primarily put the female worker, employed in time of war, back into the kitchen allowing jobs for soldiers and to make women buy new appliances to strengthen the economy. Friedan also believed that society did not allow women to grow or mature and become real human beings. Their growth was stunted by lack of opportunity and freedom. Women were constantly told that they should not have careers or an education. They should concentrate on their family life. As this ‘campaign’ continued, women started getting married younger and younger. The birthrate of the States was slowly increasing as women were having children at a younger age and thus could have more children overall. Women were taught to put themselves last. Men came first. They were to fit the image of the woman that a man wanted. All a woman was supposed to want was “to get married, have four children and live in a nice house in a nice suburb” (52). This was supposed to be the perfect feminine specimen. However, eventually, women begin to realize that there is an inherent problem in their lives. There is a sense of dissatisfaction and unhappiness stemming from suppression of self. Although people realized there was a problem with these suburban women, many just simply passed it over saying that these women did not understand how lucky they were. They were so happy that they were unhappy. Friedan insists that this problem cannot be ignored. It is a real dilemma. Women are actually suffering. As one woman said “the problem is being the children’s mommy, or the minister’s wife and never being myself” (63). Friedan realizes that the “chains that bind a [woman]…are chains in her own mind and spirit…made up of mistaken ideas and misinterpreted facts, of incomplete truths and unreal choices” (66). These women want more than these lives that society has constructed for them. Their true fantasies do not lie within the ideal family unit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)