Ruminations, Menstrations, and Celebrations
I really enjoyed reading about Alisa Valdes and her experiences in “Ruminations of a Feminist Fitness Instructor”. Alisa Valdes, a “musician/writer/social critic”, gives her tale of being conflicted over success within our patriarchal society and struggling to make a living out of the society. The chapter was well written and her genuineness really helped me understand what a woman in her situation was facing. Valdes was similar to many woman who had to choose whether to take the path of least or most resistance. In her case, while trying to make money to pay for her college, she started a whole other career. This happens to plenty of people who originally just need a means to a good end. I think her story shows how our society can manipulate and mold good people into lesser ones. Valdes consciously knew that even though she was fueling exactly what she was against, she says she betrayed herself. Similar to an addiction, Valdes even quit for a while, only to take it back up when she started struggling financially. Fortunately for Valdes, she started her business at a young age so by 23 she realized debt was worth being who she really wanted to be. I thought her story really just showed me how easy it is to get caught up in society and being “kept from the real business of our lives”. It is good to hear from a successful feminist who had to work from the bottom up. The only sad thing is most girls in her same situation probably won’t have the privilege to read this article.When I first saw the title of Anne Sexton’s “In Celebration of My Uterus”, I was actually pretty excited to read it. I was only largely disappointed when it was a poem bringing me back to American Literature and poem analysis. The short preface really was a lifesaver and I could understand the poem and its meaning much more. Sexton celebrates her uterus amongst other things about being a woman. The poem itself could be written by someone today and I think that what is so significant about it. As the preface says Sexton’s writing didn’t really get good reviews. Writing about these subjects during that time was pretty bold to say the least and I have to give her respect. Not only was she outraging the male critics, she was inspiring women.Reading Sterling’s article “Hormonal Hurricanes” was definitely a learning experience for me. Having a sister 21 months younger than me I remember her stressing out about the whole thing. I always tried to stay as far away as possible from the subject. The whole thing was always like an urban myth or something when I was younger. I remember my friends and I talking about girls who would be a little moody and instantly suggesting they were “PMSing”. Reading about how menstruation affected the lives of women in the past was really interesting. I feel like the ignorance of me as well as other young boys can almost be paralleled with the men from the past Sterling talks about. Reading this article really humbled me about my pubescent changes in comparison to those of females.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Newsflash: Working within the system may actually work
We have started this decade off like no other in U.S. history. With the inauguration of 44th president Barack Obama, a black man is leading America for the first time in history. With the rise of a minority to a position such as president, Obama really does give hope for anyone other than a wealthy white male. Obama’s opposing democratic candidate Hilary Clinton has also been an inspiration to women, being so successful in a male dominated government. The last few years have been all about change and hope for American citizens. One such as Betty Friedan might be excited about the future of minorities including women. Some feminists on the other hand might not be so optimistic, and for good reason.Perhaps Hillary Clinton was a part of 2nd wave feminism. After all she started her career in the late 1960s being the first student to give the commencement speech at Wellesley College. Following with Yale Law School she then became an important political figure in Arkansas. Going from First Lady of Arkansas to presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton surely has made her mark on politics as a female. What she has accomplished as a person is amazing, but has she dismantled the master’s house with the master’s tools?In Betty Friedan’s chapter she limits her audience to middle class white women. Hillary Clinton certainly fits the mold. She worked in a patriarchal society and became successful within that system. Now she along with a black president is at the top of the U.S. Government. It can only be expected that female and black citizens start to see a more equal system. The first law to help that cause was signed by Obama over a year ago, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.In 1998 Lilly Ledbetter tried suing Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company for pay discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Her case was thrown out because of a small rule saying employers cannot sue after 180 days. Ledbetter had worked at a plant in Alabama for 19 years and was one of four area managers. Just before she retired she received an anonymous letter informing her of the other three male managers. Each one was making a considerable amount more than her. Ten years later the act was finally introduced and subsequently signed into law.Recent 2008 statistics show that women are only making about 77 percent of what men make. It gets worse for black women at 68 percent and even worse for Hispanic women at 58 percent. What really makes these numbers look bad is that they all went down from the previous year. Now a year later, I am very anxious to see if all that work within the system will pay off. Ledbetter worked within the system and didn’t even receive money from the government or Goodyear, just the new bill in her name. She is currently still working within the system rallying for new bills such as the Paycheck Fairness Act that would further strengthen equal pay rights.Now obviously I am fully aware of how long it takes for a president to instill his policies upon his people. There are still many promises to be kept and people to make happy. Still, in a decade full of “firsts”, for the first time ever women might actually make just as much as men. System or no system, with two people who are not white males at the top of the government there is no telling what changes we will see.http://www.ajc.com/opinion/women-still-seek-paycheck-292576.html
We have started this decade off like no other in U.S. history. With the inauguration of 44th president Barack Obama, a black man is leading America for the first time in history. With the rise of a minority to a position such as president, Obama really does give hope for anyone other than a wealthy white male. Obama’s opposing democratic candidate Hilary Clinton has also been an inspiration to women, being so successful in a male dominated government. The last few years have been all about change and hope for American citizens. One such as Betty Friedan might be excited about the future of minorities including women. Some feminists on the other hand might not be so optimistic, and for good reason.Perhaps Hillary Clinton was a part of 2nd wave feminism. After all she started her career in the late 1960s being the first student to give the commencement speech at Wellesley College. Following with Yale Law School she then became an important political figure in Arkansas. Going from First Lady of Arkansas to presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton surely has made her mark on politics as a female. What she has accomplished as a person is amazing, but has she dismantled the master’s house with the master’s tools?In Betty Friedan’s chapter she limits her audience to middle class white women. Hillary Clinton certainly fits the mold. She worked in a patriarchal society and became successful within that system. Now she along with a black president is at the top of the U.S. Government. It can only be expected that female and black citizens start to see a more equal system. The first law to help that cause was signed by Obama over a year ago, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.In 1998 Lilly Ledbetter tried suing Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company for pay discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Her case was thrown out because of a small rule saying employers cannot sue after 180 days. Ledbetter had worked at a plant in Alabama for 19 years and was one of four area managers. Just before she retired she received an anonymous letter informing her of the other three male managers. Each one was making a considerable amount more than her. Ten years later the act was finally introduced and subsequently signed into law.Recent 2008 statistics show that women are only making about 77 percent of what men make. It gets worse for black women at 68 percent and even worse for Hispanic women at 58 percent. What really makes these numbers look bad is that they all went down from the previous year. Now a year later, I am very anxious to see if all that work within the system will pay off. Ledbetter worked within the system and didn’t even receive money from the government or Goodyear, just the new bill in her name. She is currently still working within the system rallying for new bills such as the Paycheck Fairness Act that would further strengthen equal pay rights.Now obviously I am fully aware of how long it takes for a president to instill his policies upon his people. There are still many promises to be kept and people to make happy. Still, in a decade full of “firsts”, for the first time ever women might actually make just as much as men. System or no system, with two people who are not white males at the top of the government there is no telling what changes we will see.http://www.ajc.com/opinion/women-still-seek-paycheck-292576.html
Rah-rah-ah-ah-ah! Roma-Roma-ma-ah!
Since we started reading Levy’s book I have thought about any and every girl I know who take part in the Raunch Culture. All I had to do was log onto Facebook and take a look at some photo albums. Why do these girls dress the way they do? Why do they act the way they act? I actually came across a picture of three girls doing the whole peace sign below the mouth deal. Underneath the picture a comment from one of the girls saying… “wow drunk, classy, hoes…enough said. lol”. So why do girls do stuff like this? Why do they like showing off their tits and asses? For attention? For power? For sexual liberation? Christie Hefner would probably say something along the lines of they are just having fun and “taking control of how I look” instead of looking embarrassed. Levy of course would just call it pathetic. I kept searching though; I still wanted to find a girl in the Raunch Culture who Levy might actually think twice about whether she was indeed a Female Chauvinist Pig.Christina Aguilera, Pamela Anderson, Debbie Cope, and Jenna Jameson. All of these women are definitely in Ariel Levy’s eyes apart of the problematic Raunch Culture. Each have used the Raunch Culture for their benefit or pleasure. For power, liberation, whatever it may be they are all guilty. Recently however there has been a new name who has risen to the top of the so called Raunch Culture. Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta was born and raised in the Upper West Side of Manhattan in 1986. A very talented musician having learned piano by ear at the age of 4, she attended Tisch at the age of 17. After withdrawing to pursue her music career, she moved to the Lower East Side where she started performing in clubs. Shortly after, the artist now known as Lady Gaga had become the first artist to ever have four number one hits on a debut album. As all of you know Lady Gaga has used her appearance to gain success, or at least be noticed. However, while I would agree that she is similar to the women afore mentioned, I am reluctant to put her in the same category.When I first saw Lady Gaga she struck me as a very interesting character. She definitely fits the frame of a Female Chauvinist Pig embracing Raunch Culture. Extremely high heels, lots of skin and cleavage, she is pretty sexual to say the least in her music videos. She definitely doesn’t have hairy legs, I doubt she burns her bras, and after the Grammy’s the other night I would make an educated guess that she may have once or twice had a bikini wax. On the surface Lady Gaga is just another pop princess who knows how to strut her stuff and get any man’s, or woman’s for that matter undivided attention. However, Lady Gaga doesn’t just use her tits to be successful, I believe she uses her mind even more.I mainly focused on Lady Gaga’s music video for her song “Bad Romance”. If anyone has seen the video then they know how extremely bizarre it is. In the video Gaga wears a total of about 12 different outfits, all in six inch heels or bigger, ranging from total nudity to showing nothing but her mouth. If I had to describe the video I would probably say it was a strange mix between Britney Spears’ “Womanizer” video and Nine Inch Nails’ Closer music video. There are definitely pieces of choreography where she is doing the whole “take my clothes off and degrade my body”. But then there are others like as when she is doing the “Thriller” move with her entire body covered. The video has a pretty straight narrative and basically Gaga along with other women are slaves who perform for a group of men. Throughout the entire video we see her dancing, stripping, etc. for some weird looking dudes. We also hear in the song her saying the line “I’m a free bitch, baby”. And then of course the finale where she walks in wearing lingerie with a big polar bear fur thing over her and sets a guy on fire. At the very end she is smoking a cigarette on a burnt bed next to the skeleton. She is wearing some nice black lingerie with fire sparking out of her bra. Now I’m not sure if Levy would like all the outfits and sexual choreography, but I’m pretty sure she’d get a kick out of the outcome.Even the outfits that do show off some skin aren’t exactly the stereotypical pop princess slutty costumes. Everyone has seen videos or pictures of the stuff she wears to events such as the Grammy’s or the VMA’s. It isn’t something you see walking down the street even in New York City. Gaga has a unique style that while sometimes may show off her ass and tits, it always seems that she is making a statement. She has said in several interviews that her reasoning behind all the outlandish and controversial stuff she wears is to expand the standards for beauty . In high school Gaga felt like a freak and now she says she wants to help anyone who feels like she did.In Levy’s book she criticizes these women who put on a show and act differently for satisfaction or to impress a man. Gaga differs from that because she isn’t putting on an act. She is different and it shows in the way she dresses and performs. She isn’t acting like a man or dressing slutty for liberation and empowerment. Gaga does the things she does because she is an artist and it is who she is. I would like to think that Levy would appreciate this and see Gaga doing everything for her own pleasure and not for some guy’s.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrO4YZeyl0I
Since we started reading Levy’s book I have thought about any and every girl I know who take part in the Raunch Culture. All I had to do was log onto Facebook and take a look at some photo albums. Why do these girls dress the way they do? Why do they act the way they act? I actually came across a picture of three girls doing the whole peace sign below the mouth deal. Underneath the picture a comment from one of the girls saying… “wow drunk, classy, hoes…enough said. lol”. So why do girls do stuff like this? Why do they like showing off their tits and asses? For attention? For power? For sexual liberation? Christie Hefner would probably say something along the lines of they are just having fun and “taking control of how I look” instead of looking embarrassed. Levy of course would just call it pathetic. I kept searching though; I still wanted to find a girl in the Raunch Culture who Levy might actually think twice about whether she was indeed a Female Chauvinist Pig.Christina Aguilera, Pamela Anderson, Debbie Cope, and Jenna Jameson. All of these women are definitely in Ariel Levy’s eyes apart of the problematic Raunch Culture. Each have used the Raunch Culture for their benefit or pleasure. For power, liberation, whatever it may be they are all guilty. Recently however there has been a new name who has risen to the top of the so called Raunch Culture. Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta was born and raised in the Upper West Side of Manhattan in 1986. A very talented musician having learned piano by ear at the age of 4, she attended Tisch at the age of 17. After withdrawing to pursue her music career, she moved to the Lower East Side where she started performing in clubs. Shortly after, the artist now known as Lady Gaga had become the first artist to ever have four number one hits on a debut album. As all of you know Lady Gaga has used her appearance to gain success, or at least be noticed. However, while I would agree that she is similar to the women afore mentioned, I am reluctant to put her in the same category.When I first saw Lady Gaga she struck me as a very interesting character. She definitely fits the frame of a Female Chauvinist Pig embracing Raunch Culture. Extremely high heels, lots of skin and cleavage, she is pretty sexual to say the least in her music videos. She definitely doesn’t have hairy legs, I doubt she burns her bras, and after the Grammy’s the other night I would make an educated guess that she may have once or twice had a bikini wax. On the surface Lady Gaga is just another pop princess who knows how to strut her stuff and get any man’s, or woman’s for that matter undivided attention. However, Lady Gaga doesn’t just use her tits to be successful, I believe she uses her mind even more.I mainly focused on Lady Gaga’s music video for her song “Bad Romance”. If anyone has seen the video then they know how extremely bizarre it is. In the video Gaga wears a total of about 12 different outfits, all in six inch heels or bigger, ranging from total nudity to showing nothing but her mouth. If I had to describe the video I would probably say it was a strange mix between Britney Spears’ “Womanizer” video and Nine Inch Nails’ Closer music video. There are definitely pieces of choreography where she is doing the whole “take my clothes off and degrade my body”. But then there are others like as when she is doing the “Thriller” move with her entire body covered. The video has a pretty straight narrative and basically Gaga along with other women are slaves who perform for a group of men. Throughout the entire video we see her dancing, stripping, etc. for some weird looking dudes. We also hear in the song her saying the line “I’m a free bitch, baby”. And then of course the finale where she walks in wearing lingerie with a big polar bear fur thing over her and sets a guy on fire. At the very end she is smoking a cigarette on a burnt bed next to the skeleton. She is wearing some nice black lingerie with fire sparking out of her bra. Now I’m not sure if Levy would like all the outfits and sexual choreography, but I’m pretty sure she’d get a kick out of the outcome.Even the outfits that do show off some skin aren’t exactly the stereotypical pop princess slutty costumes. Everyone has seen videos or pictures of the stuff she wears to events such as the Grammy’s or the VMA’s. It isn’t something you see walking down the street even in New York City. Gaga has a unique style that while sometimes may show off her ass and tits, it always seems that she is making a statement. She has said in several interviews that her reasoning behind all the outlandish and controversial stuff she wears is to expand the standards for beauty . In high school Gaga felt like a freak and now she says she wants to help anyone who feels like she did.In Levy’s book she criticizes these women who put on a show and act differently for satisfaction or to impress a man. Gaga differs from that because she isn’t putting on an act. She is different and it shows in the way she dresses and performs. She isn’t acting like a man or dressing slutty for liberation and empowerment. Gaga does the things she does because she is an artist and it is who she is. I would like to think that Levy would appreciate this and see Gaga doing everything for her own pleasure and not for some guy’s.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrO4YZeyl0I
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Newsflash
Same sex Marriage
Same sex relationships are very high in the most frequent topics of conversations in America. As an American I cannot understand why people of the same sex cannot unite and legitimize their relationship publicly. What is it about same sex marriage in the country? Why has it been legal in many other places that are linked closely with the United States, educational, legislative, economic policies? Looking at this from a historical context, since America and Canada are so similar what has caused this variance? Have Canadian people been socialized differently and may this be a result of educational, religious and policy differences? To say the least what type of people are here in America, also what kinds of leaders do we have when this is occurring? What type of country has a problem creating a legitimate policy that allows for same sex partners to be together legally? What country creates legislation that does not recognize people for what they are? What kind of leader allows this to occur? A leader that cares more about the number of votes he receives. Why does this happen? Obviously, the United States and many other parts of the world do not care about the rights of people with different sexual orientations. The reason I find this sad in the United States is because we live in a country where the foundation of our culture was built on ensuring the equality of human rights for everyone. Also because same sex couples have the abilities to challenge what is normal create perspectives on power structures and ultimately should be allowed to be with someone they have been with for an extended amount of time.
However, our country allows same sex couples to not feel like first class citizens. This is sad because these couples are tax payers, voters and citizens too. They deserve an opportunity to marry just like heterosexual people in our country. Our country has socialized people to oppose same sex marriage because they “agreed that marriage is a fundamental bond with ancient roots”. What I cannot understand is what makes the people of the same sex different from the “normal” people from the ancient roots, homosexuality has ancient roots. I also cannot understand how same sex marriage can undermine the legitimacy of marriage if it is not between a man and a woman. What the article is implying is that Americans are wrong in the ways in which they treat people of the same sex. The article just shows how the legislature is controlled by a vote of the American people. If it were not, the federal government would just abolish legislation that bands it.
I believe that the American president and congress are influenced by how many voters vote for them on the issue of same sex marriage. They do not care if the legislation is being passed, that is consistent with the constitution: they care about being reelected. The president states that he supports civil unions, but as a Christian believes that marriage is between a man and a women, but this stand make it seem that he is listening more closely to what the of the population is saying and not distributing the power of legislature that lies in what the constitution was created for. The Declaration of Independence said that everyone is created equal, so why are same sex couples not treated like it. Not until time later has the United States allowed for states to make the decision. I think that this is a copout from a citizen’s standpoint to make decisions. The United States is a community, so why not make it a collective decision. Same sex marriage has been considered legal for majority of countries with their federal government overseeing the country as a whole. Example Canada federal government had created legislation that states all places in Canada must legalized same sex marriage. I find this appalling because America is similar to Canada, but what has made people of America less accepting of the understanding these couples.
I believe that people are less accepting of same sex marriage because it takes the power away while challenging what is normal. Paula asserts, “Justice for gay and lesbian couples will be achieved only when we are accepted and supported in this society despite our differences from the dominant culture and the choice we are make regarding our relationships”( Ettelbick, 306). United States will not move as Canada has because they will not accept that people of a different sexual orientation as “normal.” According to Wikipedia, In a court case Egan vs. Canada, Egan was tried for what was called “inappropriate behaviors with same sex”. Egan was in jail for six years until they let him out. While he was in jail he argued that the Canadian Charters and Freedoms did not explicitly prohibit different sexual orientations. The Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriage was illegal under the constitution in Canada. However, Egan had not broken the rules of the Charter. He was a man of a different sexual orientation and there was nothing in the constitution that said being gay was illegal. He stated under the Charter he was being discriminated against. The Supreme Court recognized that the sexual orientation was implicitly included in the section fifteen as an “analogous ground” and is therefore a prohibited ground of discrimination. The Supreme Court ruled that “sexual orientation” should be read into. Canada looked into and read about sexual orientation and was sympathetic because it’s simply who he was as a person.
United States has much work to do because the basic human rights guarantee our constitutions are not being attained for the people of the country it was created for. LGBTQ are being discriminated against explicitly out in private sphere and nothing is being done to stop or prevent it. I think that American people need to stop and look at themselves in the mirror. How different are they in that they live by the same rules as the same sex couple but believe that they should be offered more advantages in society. Reading the article also made me think about our current leaders in society for not standing up and speaking out against these overt forms of discrimination and racism. Although I am like the majority I do not agree with the ways in which they alienate marginalized people. I also do not agree with our system being hypocrites of our constitution.
Same sex relationships are very high in the most frequent topics of conversations in America. As an American I cannot understand why people of the same sex cannot unite and legitimize their relationship publicly. What is it about same sex marriage in the country? Why has it been legal in many other places that are linked closely with the United States, educational, legislative, economic policies? Looking at this from a historical context, since America and Canada are so similar what has caused this variance? Have Canadian people been socialized differently and may this be a result of educational, religious and policy differences? To say the least what type of people are here in America, also what kinds of leaders do we have when this is occurring? What type of country has a problem creating a legitimate policy that allows for same sex partners to be together legally? What country creates legislation that does not recognize people for what they are? What kind of leader allows this to occur? A leader that cares more about the number of votes he receives. Why does this happen? Obviously, the United States and many other parts of the world do not care about the rights of people with different sexual orientations. The reason I find this sad in the United States is because we live in a country where the foundation of our culture was built on ensuring the equality of human rights for everyone. Also because same sex couples have the abilities to challenge what is normal create perspectives on power structures and ultimately should be allowed to be with someone they have been with for an extended amount of time.
However, our country allows same sex couples to not feel like first class citizens. This is sad because these couples are tax payers, voters and citizens too. They deserve an opportunity to marry just like heterosexual people in our country. Our country has socialized people to oppose same sex marriage because they “agreed that marriage is a fundamental bond with ancient roots”. What I cannot understand is what makes the people of the same sex different from the “normal” people from the ancient roots, homosexuality has ancient roots. I also cannot understand how same sex marriage can undermine the legitimacy of marriage if it is not between a man and a woman. What the article is implying is that Americans are wrong in the ways in which they treat people of the same sex. The article just shows how the legislature is controlled by a vote of the American people. If it were not, the federal government would just abolish legislation that bands it.
I believe that the American president and congress are influenced by how many voters vote for them on the issue of same sex marriage. They do not care if the legislation is being passed, that is consistent with the constitution: they care about being reelected. The president states that he supports civil unions, but as a Christian believes that marriage is between a man and a women, but this stand make it seem that he is listening more closely to what the of the population is saying and not distributing the power of legislature that lies in what the constitution was created for. The Declaration of Independence said that everyone is created equal, so why are same sex couples not treated like it. Not until time later has the United States allowed for states to make the decision. I think that this is a copout from a citizen’s standpoint to make decisions. The United States is a community, so why not make it a collective decision. Same sex marriage has been considered legal for majority of countries with their federal government overseeing the country as a whole. Example Canada federal government had created legislation that states all places in Canada must legalized same sex marriage. I find this appalling because America is similar to Canada, but what has made people of America less accepting of the understanding these couples.
I believe that people are less accepting of same sex marriage because it takes the power away while challenging what is normal. Paula asserts, “Justice for gay and lesbian couples will be achieved only when we are accepted and supported in this society despite our differences from the dominant culture and the choice we are make regarding our relationships”( Ettelbick, 306). United States will not move as Canada has because they will not accept that people of a different sexual orientation as “normal.” According to Wikipedia, In a court case Egan vs. Canada, Egan was tried for what was called “inappropriate behaviors with same sex”. Egan was in jail for six years until they let him out. While he was in jail he argued that the Canadian Charters and Freedoms did not explicitly prohibit different sexual orientations. The Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriage was illegal under the constitution in Canada. However, Egan had not broken the rules of the Charter. He was a man of a different sexual orientation and there was nothing in the constitution that said being gay was illegal. He stated under the Charter he was being discriminated against. The Supreme Court recognized that the sexual orientation was implicitly included in the section fifteen as an “analogous ground” and is therefore a prohibited ground of discrimination. The Supreme Court ruled that “sexual orientation” should be read into. Canada looked into and read about sexual orientation and was sympathetic because it’s simply who he was as a person.
United States has much work to do because the basic human rights guarantee our constitutions are not being attained for the people of the country it was created for. LGBTQ are being discriminated against explicitly out in private sphere and nothing is being done to stop or prevent it. I think that American people need to stop and look at themselves in the mirror. How different are they in that they live by the same rules as the same sex couple but believe that they should be offered more advantages in society. Reading the article also made me think about our current leaders in society for not standing up and speaking out against these overt forms of discrimination and racism. Although I am like the majority I do not agree with the ways in which they alienate marginalized people. I also do not agree with our system being hypocrites of our constitution.
Monday, April 19, 2010
How can one speak for all?
I found Mohanty's article very interesting in that she speaks about the oppression that Third world Feminist face. These women are being oppressed by First world feminist because they are trying to speak for all women. How can first world, upper middle class western women speak about the inequalities that third world women face. They have not experienced what they have experienced, they do not come from where they come from. Mohanty brings up some good points by explaining these challenges that first world feminist have when speaking about the third world women. My own implications from living in the US has made it clear as to how it occurs. For example, it's like me a black man trying to create liberalizing ways for people of a different culture to construct themselves and live. How could I possibly even compare my lived experience with in my system, with another lived experience in another system and culture. To me I understand that this cannot work because I don't value anything but what I believe to be relevant to me. However the point is, is that these women don't even have a chance because western ideolgy has already been deemed more important than all others, thus homogenizing all women giving them one face and one voice. Given that each individual women and experience is different how can that be possible. As Bunch argues, a sense of urgency needs to begin to unfold for women. Women are no longer safe period. Our country is quickly losing a feminist perspective as Bunch is arguing. The only way to sustain all women's rights and feminist approaches can best be articulated by helping everyone challenge the traditional mindsets of patriarchy of First world Freminst women and men.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Newsflash: Can't pay the bills? Get to the money. Strip.
There is no doubt that the current recession is affecting every single person in our country. From influential businessmen to McDonald’s janitors, everyone is feeling the pressure of the economic struggle in America today. However, some professionals are faced with the challenge of compensating their moral integrity in order to put food on the table. The adult-entertainment industry in Atlanta, Georgia is more popular than any other city in America. There are a multitude of strip clubs in the city, and more than enough girls to employ a full staff. In fact the business is estimated to bring in more than all four sports teams combined annually. But how much has the current recession affected the adult-entertainment industry in Atlanta? Or more importantly, how has the recession affected the girls who keep the clubs up and running? Although the entire American labor force is seeing the repercussions of the economic recession, its affect on the adult-entertainment industry is taking a serious toll on the women who depend on stripping as a means for an income.
In The Atlanta-Journal Constitution, Tammy Joyner and Megan Matteucci attempted to write an article on the very controversial issue of exotic dancing in Atlanta. With very little cooperation from many employers and employees, the two were able to get some insight into the not-so-thriving industry. Joyner and Matteucci first discuss the impact the economic recession has had on the adult-entertainment industry, in regards to strip clubs, strippers, etc. They make an important distinction and recognize that although the exotic and nude clubs have experienced serious cutbacks, the number of aspiring dancers has not diminished. In fact, the Atlanta police say that the number of college students applying for the $350.00 work permit for dancing has increased since the recession began. In addition, the state of Georgia recently reduced the age of nude dancers to 18 opening dancing opportunities to more eligible women. It would be stereotypical to say that all dancers dance because they have to. In some instances that is true, but for others it is not. Some women do enjoy stripping. However, this article focused on a few women who had steady day-jobs but got cut when the economy slipped. Many women who would have never considered dancing are now applying to be strippers. But even though many more women are considering stripping, the industry is still getting hit by the recession. Joyner and Matteucci make a good point, in that there are no concrete figures because many employees in this industry do not want to spoil their reputations by giving their real names. However, strippers have said that they have experienced financial cuts in recent years.
While tips are lower and the “regulars aren’t so regular”, the stripping industry in Atlanta is still thriving. But at what point should a woman compensate her moral values for a steady paycheck? This issue seems to be a hot topic for both feminist and non-feminists alike. In Aisha Hakim-Dyce’s article, Reality Check, Hakim faces the tough decision of becoming a dancer in order to receive some type of income. She claims that stripping was her only option and she had exhausted every other opportunity for a possible career. It seems hard to believe that she couldn't find any other jobs but nevertheless this dilemma is not exclusive to Hakim-Dyce. Joyner and Matteucci’s article, they speak of the thousands of women who are in the same predicament as Hakim-Dyce. Many women, such as those previously mentioned, have to compensate moral integrity to make ends meet. Hakim-Dyce makes a valid point that Joyner and Matteucci would agree with, “Our reality simply is that we are sometimes faced with crucial choices that are limited-are that are neither easy nor simple to make”. Especially after the articles we’ve read this past week, it is easy to understand why someone might choose The Cheetah Lounge over McDonalds. Dancing may be a pretty raunchy job, but strippers in Atlanta know how to make money. As the picture implies, any amateur stripper out on the streets in need of money can win an easy thousand bucks or so. If Hakim-Dyce did choose a lesser paying job the possibility of her filing for welfare would certainly go up. And as we have learned, the welfare system is not exactly efficient or fair. For so many of these women, the dancing industry is either “a stepping-stone or a tombstone”, says former stripper Angelina Spencer. Hakim-Dyce was fortunate enough to use it as a stepping-stone, but some are not so lucky. Most women go into the business with the intention of getting out but when the pay is so steady it is difficult to get out once you’re in.
The recession has taken a toll on the entire spectrum of jobs in America. Unemployment rates have risen, and opportunities have become rare. The exotic dancing industry in Atlanta, Georgia, or across the nation for that matter, is no exception. The fact that Georgia lowered their age for nude dancing just shows their recognition of the high demand for any source of income. Exotic dancing has become a backup plan for numerous women in Atlanta because of the bad economy. Desperate times have called for desperate measures and these women have certainly had to lower their standards in order to pay the bills. They can only hope that eventually the economy will rise again and her choice to dance won’t become a tombstone.
In The Atlanta-Journal Constitution, Tammy Joyner and Megan Matteucci attempted to write an article on the very controversial issue of exotic dancing in Atlanta. With very little cooperation from many employers and employees, the two were able to get some insight into the not-so-thriving industry. Joyner and Matteucci first discuss the impact the economic recession has had on the adult-entertainment industry, in regards to strip clubs, strippers, etc. They make an important distinction and recognize that although the exotic and nude clubs have experienced serious cutbacks, the number of aspiring dancers has not diminished. In fact, the Atlanta police say that the number of college students applying for the $350.00 work permit for dancing has increased since the recession began. In addition, the state of Georgia recently reduced the age of nude dancers to 18 opening dancing opportunities to more eligible women. It would be stereotypical to say that all dancers dance because they have to. In some instances that is true, but for others it is not. Some women do enjoy stripping. However, this article focused on a few women who had steady day-jobs but got cut when the economy slipped. Many women who would have never considered dancing are now applying to be strippers. But even though many more women are considering stripping, the industry is still getting hit by the recession. Joyner and Matteucci make a good point, in that there are no concrete figures because many employees in this industry do not want to spoil their reputations by giving their real names. However, strippers have said that they have experienced financial cuts in recent years.
While tips are lower and the “regulars aren’t so regular”, the stripping industry in Atlanta is still thriving. But at what point should a woman compensate her moral values for a steady paycheck? This issue seems to be a hot topic for both feminist and non-feminists alike. In Aisha Hakim-Dyce’s article, Reality Check, Hakim faces the tough decision of becoming a dancer in order to receive some type of income. She claims that stripping was her only option and she had exhausted every other opportunity for a possible career. It seems hard to believe that she couldn't find any other jobs but nevertheless this dilemma is not exclusive to Hakim-Dyce. Joyner and Matteucci’s article, they speak of the thousands of women who are in the same predicament as Hakim-Dyce. Many women, such as those previously mentioned, have to compensate moral integrity to make ends meet. Hakim-Dyce makes a valid point that Joyner and Matteucci would agree with, “Our reality simply is that we are sometimes faced with crucial choices that are limited-are that are neither easy nor simple to make”. Especially after the articles we’ve read this past week, it is easy to understand why someone might choose The Cheetah Lounge over McDonalds. Dancing may be a pretty raunchy job, but strippers in Atlanta know how to make money. As the picture implies, any amateur stripper out on the streets in need of money can win an easy thousand bucks or so. If Hakim-Dyce did choose a lesser paying job the possibility of her filing for welfare would certainly go up. And as we have learned, the welfare system is not exactly efficient or fair. For so many of these women, the dancing industry is either “a stepping-stone or a tombstone”, says former stripper Angelina Spencer. Hakim-Dyce was fortunate enough to use it as a stepping-stone, but some are not so lucky. Most women go into the business with the intention of getting out but when the pay is so steady it is difficult to get out once you’re in.
The recession has taken a toll on the entire spectrum of jobs in America. Unemployment rates have risen, and opportunities have become rare. The exotic dancing industry in Atlanta, Georgia, or across the nation for that matter, is no exception. The fact that Georgia lowered their age for nude dancing just shows their recognition of the high demand for any source of income. Exotic dancing has become a backup plan for numerous women in Atlanta because of the bad economy. Desperate times have called for desperate measures and these women have certainly had to lower their standards in order to pay the bills. They can only hope that eventually the economy will rise again and her choice to dance won’t become a tombstone.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Newsflash: A Barely Dented Ceiling
Link to article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/business/07gender.html
The glass ceiling has been broken. How many times have we heard that same mantra? True, women have made some great strides since the times of standard (and limited to) teachers and nurses, but has all discrimination really been shattered? Is the old statistic of “sixty cents to every man’s dollar” still holding true? It’s easy to try to deny this in light of all the successful women out in the work world today, but their success stories should not be taken as the norm. 
There are in fact many biases still in place where women and work are concerned and no matter what is attempted to stop them, it is difficult to suppress them completely. In his April 6th article “Novartis Bias Suit to Begin,” published in The New York Times, Duff Wilson explores this issue as he brings to light the recent sexual discrimination suit brought up against Novartis Pharmaceuticals for their mistreatment and discrimination against more than 5,600 female employees. It is through this burgeoning trial and many others like it that Duff exposes the discrimination that females still face in the workplace today, despite whatever ground they seemed to have gained.
Novartis Pharmaceuticals is a branch of the Swiss-based drug company giant that runs in the United States. The company has been “cited by Working Mother magazine as one of the 100 best companies in the nation for 10 years in a row, through 2009” (Duff 1). Yet, despite this long-time accolade, Novartis presently finds itself on the wrong end of one of the largest sexual discrimination lawsuits in the country. The female employees behind these accusations are suing for over $200 million in damages that they believe were inflicted upon them simply due to their gender. The issue is firmly intertwined with issues of pregnancy and motherhood and many of the women involved in the suit feel that they were slighted and passed over because of their families or even simply because of the potentiality of them becoming pregnant. Fourteen women will be testifying at the upcoming trial, and among their complaints are 
“one woman…states that her Novartis manager told her he preferred not to hire young women, saying, ‘First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes flex time and a baby carriage,’” another “claims she was encouraged to get an abortion,” and finally, the lead plaintiff claims that after she had twins, she “was repeatedly passed over for promotion by men who had inferior sales numbers” (Duff 1). These women feel that they have sufficient evidence to make a case, but Novartis claims innocence, insisting that they don’t “discriminate against women. [Novartis’s] policies and practices are absolutely cutting edge and are very, very favorable to women” (Duff 1). Though there is precedent of Novartis sexist crimes, the outcome of this trial is still very up in the air. Even with firm evidence, the case could be tied up in court for years.
The Novartis case is not an anomaly. Even the most “women-favorable” companies can play into these games of gender discrimination and then use these ill-begotten honors as shields. Ann Crittenden reveals a similar situation when following the life of interior designer Virginia Daley in “The Mommy Tax.” After Daley had a child and tried to cut back her hours in accordance with her company’s maternity policies, she was denied her lessened hours and was in fact given more work. Her company, Aetna Life & Casualty, was also one of the leaders in Working Mother’s annual list, but Daley nonetheless found herself being forced out when she was unable to maintain the hours demanded of her and her family. She was fired soon after. When she went to trial in 1997, Aetna was the victor. This is also unfortunately not an anomaly. Even worse, most cases of gender discrimination don’t even get to a hearing. In his article, Duff speaks about how even the largest sex discrimination case, one concerning over two million women and Wal-Mart, “was tied up in appeals over class certification and years from a possible trial” (Duff 1). If even a suit of that size and stature cannot get a fair trial, imagine what it would be like on a smaller scale. Cases like this are almost always their-word-versus-mine and I suppose that it can be said that it just goes to show that these women aren’t lying when their voices are often the ones being ignored or called false.
Anti-discrimination laws were made to protect people—in many cases women—but what’s the use of having them if they’re never enforced? With many cases of sexual discrimination going untold, another percentage ignored and discounted, a smaller percentage settled out of court, and another even smaller percentage perhaps getting their change to speak to a jury, only to have them discount the evidence as well, it seems a never ending cycle. It often seems that one of the only ways for women to try to avoid this cycle is to give up their lives as mothers and to embrace the sort of “like a man” work persona and aesthetic that Ariel Levy is so critical of in Female Chauvinist Pigs. But is that a solution at all? Why should women have to compromise themselves, their futures, their families, simply in order to earn what they deserve? Women didn’t ask to be the gender responsible for baring children. It is no personal crime of theirs, is not something they do just to spite their employers. Yet, that is exactly what it’s treated like. Crittenden is more than correct when she calls motherhood a “tax,” and perhaps it’s even worse than that. Until motherhood is given the dignity that it is deserved and women are accepted as workers and mothers without conditions or qualms, sex discrimination in the workplace will continue. And with the legal system doing so little to discourage it, the possibilities of that happening grow slimmer and slimmer.
The glass ceiling may have been cracked, but it has by no means been shattered. Duff Wilson makes that clear in his article through the example of the female employees’ struggles as they fight for the equal treatment that they deserve from Novartis. Being a mother is hard enough without having to pay yet another price for it. One might think that women would be thanked for bearing future generations, but that fact hasn’t seemed to been properly conveyed to employers yet. Until that time, women will have to continue to fight, because whatever the “women cents to men cents” ratio is these days, it’s certainly not an equal one.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)