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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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 6^th 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.

NEWSFLASH:"WHAT IF ITS (SORT OF) A GIRL AND (SORT OF) A BOY"

Amanda Eccleston

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/magazine/24intersexkids.html



“What if It’s (Sort of) a Boy and (Sort of) a Girl?” by Elizabeth Weil draws very similar connections to the struggles of being intersexed. Simple things like marking either male or female on a survey or walking into the men’s or women’s restroom signify societal gender constructions. Fausto-Sterling, as well as majority of the writers whose works we have read, points out that the social construction of gender is seen as a binary. A person is forced to be either male or female, and this is problematic that there is no room for the people in the middle and it does not account for the fluidity of gender. It is interesting to see an article on this becaue it is all about the people that western culture has forgot about, the intersexed people who are seen as being born “abnormal” with the condition of having genital, gonadal, or chromosomal characteristics that are neither all 'female' or all 'male’. In this article, Chase was born with ambiguous genitals that “looked like a little parkerhouse roll with a cleft in the middle and a little nubbin forward”, and initially raised as a boy for 18 months. However, once the doctor did exploratory surgery and found ovaries then they decided to remove the ‘clitoris’, move to another area and raise Chase as a girl and never look back. The most interesting part of the article was that the doctor convinced Chase’ parents to do this surgery by saying Chase would “grow up normal, happy, heterosexual and give them grandchildren” as if that you can guarantee that for any child. I thought this story was so important because it forced people to analyze medical research, interviews with adult intersexuals, parents of intersexed children, and physicians who treat intersexed infants, and discuss solutions to what is deemed as an intersexed “problem”.
There are three options when an infant is born interesexed: immediate surgery where the parents choose which sex to make the genitals, waiting to see what the child identifies with to do the surgery, or keeping the genitals the same and allowing for difference, society has created it as a birth defect that must be dealt with a protocol to immediately “fix”. However, feeling obligated to fit into “normalized” male or female genital categories is the real problem. Because being intersexed is generally not life threatening, it is the “fixing” surgeries that are more dangerous. Society is shallow in that parents would rather put their children into genital surgery to appear normal, even when post surgery genitals are usually not fully functioning and this is especially true in this instance with Chase because the entire clitoris was removed. Another problem with this is doctors encourage parents to make quick decisions entirely affecting their child’s future while they are infants, and this decision is commonly based solely on the size of the penis or the appearance of the vagina, which does not take personality or any other factors. Surgeries often psychologically damage the intersexed persons and just serve to promote societies construction and normalization of gender. Without giving in to the pressure and genital surgeries, the intersex community can challenge the socially constructed notions of gender, and some of the biggest critics of intersexual surgery are post surgery intersexual individuals themselves so that should say a lot in itself.
Intersexuality is not a problem because gender is not necessarily necessary. Society has an obsession with genitals as the essential markers of gender, taking genitals too seriously and therefore gender too seriously. It shouldn’t matter if a person is a man, woman, or somewhere in between, and people shouldn’t feel forced to fit into these culturally established molds if they born outside of them. To solve this negative notion towards intersexed persons, there calls for a moratorium on infant intersex surgeries. It is believed that if parents raise their intersex child as a boy or girl and do not surgically alter their genitals, it will eventually break down gender in society. Ideally we would be better off with a world where gender doesn’t matter so much, and there is no need to intervene medically with an intersex infant. By refusing to give in to the binary, it will cut the connection between gender and genitals.
This article really opened my eyes to the struggles intersexed people are put through and helped me to understand a new type of person. Before reading it and taking this course, I fit right into societies ideal of thinking anything other than a “normal” male or female was strange and should be fixed. However, she showed that just because intersexed people are born with something that is not common, they are still human beings and should not have to go through painful procedures to try to secure a place in our constructed idea of “normalness”. I also thought this article was powerful because it talked about the parent’s prospective, and the role they played in decision making and raising their children. All the blame is usually put onto the doctors in these situations, but parents are ultimately agreeing to the surgeries. Yet although it would be ideal to have a society where we could stop these surgeries I have to wonder still what I would do if my child were to come out intersexed. It is hard to think that we can just stop surgeries and everything will be happy go lucky for these people. Homosexuality has been attempting for several decades to become normalized in society and has only had some success, but propositions to ban same sex marriage are just one example to show how difficult it is to change ideologies. I feel that intersexuality would be more extreme and a harder case to improve upon because it deals not only with sexuality, but sex and gender.

What I Didn't Know About Welfare...

Growing up in an upper-middle class household, I’ve never had to worry about something like welfare or seriously consider the rights and parameters surrounding it. Until reading this article by Mink, I never really understood the extent to which welfare played a role in supporting people’s lives because I was always taught that people go on welfare until they get a job and if they aren’t getting a job, that’s often their fault. It’s a completely stereotypical claim, but it’s one that I haven’t had to question much yet. From what I gathered reading the Mink article, I’m not the only feminist who is stuck in that place. It’s somehow always a shock to learn that even the most devoted of feminists aren’t fighting for things that are so obviously necessary in bettering the lives of women, simply because they’re not aware of the problem because it doesn’t touch them. It’s no surprise that there have always been divides in the feminist movement—race and class are two factors that shouldn’t matter, but do—but it still disheartening to read an article like this one and realize that before reading it, I too may have reacted like many of the middle-class feminists who were trying to get women out of the house to work without realizing that important and necessary work was being done inside the house and that that should be acknowledged. This goes back to our discussions yesterday about how typical “women’s work” or anything domestic have come to be labeled as inferior work—if it’s even work at all. I don’t think anyone would think that a stay-at-home mother should be paid for what she does, but isn’t her work more difficult and more important than many others? And when a woman has no choice but to stay home, when she’s of lower economic status or various other reasons, this “payment” for staying home is what can keep them from floundering into complete ruin. I’ve never seen welfare that way, but Mink makes her points very clearly and I’ve found myself questioning not only this view, but others that also might hold a complete upper-middle-class bias. Single mothers struggle enough as they raise a child or children on their own, they shouldn’t have to be denied further rights and support because of misconceptions about them and about the world we live in. There should certainly be more respect allotted to the things that they do, but it seems that single mothers only earn this respect if they are somehow managing to juggle jobs and their children, whatever the expense. People love the rags-to-riches story, but what about those who have no choice but to remain in their rags because it’s just not possible to juggle it all. The view of single mothers—and especially single, lower-class mothers—has to change in order for anything to be done about this problem and so many others stemming from them.

Power

One of the main connections that I found in reading all of the articles this weekend, was that the people in the stories were being exploited in some ways by our current patriarchal system. First example look Ann speak about the burdens that babies put on mothers once they have them. Women cannot have kids and become economically stable because, one they cannot get paid and keep the benefits they once had and second, because our country places to much emphasis on making money. I find this strange because that is what all the underlying assumptions are about people in America. Can people be controlled and can the dependency of mans system create equality for all people. The Barbra Enhrenriech article speaks about our system in ways that many Americans wouldnt believe. Is house work for the poor and not the elite? She suggest that it is because workers of upper middle class don't clean or rather do lower middle class work. One could agree with this after reading Knowledge is power. Maria makes a good argument that knowledge is power by explaining my connection as to how people are being exploited by our education. Although she was trying to recieve an education she did not have the money to do so. Maria shows me that she was exploited by the system because she believed in it. Although she received her education she did not receive her diploma and because she still lived in poverty. In America it does not matter if that empowered you, getting the diploma mailed to you by paying the debt back does. I like her will to survive and fight, very empowering. Last but not least, the article called reality check displayed a woman's ability to not be exploited by the system while at the same time allowed for the system to program her into not being a go go dancer because of the image society had created for her. She was very poor and needed money and she would not dance because she would feel less of a human. Society as create restraints that either exploit you as a person or makes you adhere to the culture of power. I feel that there are less people being created to do their own things in life. I wonder what a place would look like if people were allowed to just act and not think?

Keep it in the Family

www.samesexmarriage.ca
I found that all of the aritcles that we had to read have a great deal in common. First and foremost equality for same sex couples need to be addressed. In the article "When is Marriage a Path to Liberation", Puala spoke about the ways in which marriage was considered similar to the patriarchial system that people live in right now. I agree with her because same sex marriage still adhers to the culture of power and it really does not serve as a legitimate relationship for either heterosexual or homosexual people. Nancy Naples takes it a step further by talking about the ways in which people are constructed to understand the child rearing process. I also agree with her when she speaks about the awarness that needs to be brought to our country so that LBTQ people can raise biological kids. It is not ok for Homosexuals to be excluded from the "normal life" and from having kids and raising them when they are considered different. She brings up some good points about how the country is influenced to believe that the "welfare of the child" is at state if the parents are not from the opposite sex. Actually parents that are from the same sex have more to offer becuase they do not live in the illusion that most of the americans of the same sex do. They can challenge the culture of power, this is where the problem to me lies. I agree that people need to challenge the heteronormality of the country if it ever wants to get to a place that displays equality and democracy. To say the least, the facts about same sex marriage need to be taught in school. I say this because otherwise no one will talk about the issues that these people face on the day to day basis. United States is a developed country and it needs to legitmize the lives of same sex partners by giving them thier licsense to be together as normal people are. People are just as "normal" in canada and it has legitimized same sex marriage for their citizens why haven't we?

Who is in control

I found the articles very interesting in that they explain the American culture. If we are not manipulating we are lying, if we are not lying we are false advertising. In the article Brumberg's Body Project, and Steins Sex Lies and Advertising, reading about women and their ability to not be able to think for themselves really struck me. It also struck me that women are being tricked by their own people in order to define who they are as individuals. I found it interesting to read about how women became socially constructed to wear bra's. This really made me think about the ways in which american society is controlling every aspect of peoples lives. In the article it explains how girls were tricked into shaping their bodies according to how america wanted them to be. Yovoun's personal essay real touched home to me. This is really true as to how women begin these mass diets and looked to manipulating people for advice. I found the article very heartbreaking because women have had a hard time living their lives as they envision themselves. They are always adhering to a higher power. This is a very hard issue because people in society are just robots, never looking out side of whats normal. People need to start taking responsibilities for themselves because ultimately at the end they control their life decisions.

Voices that need to be heard

To say the least the article about the "Hook Up" culture in pigs in training needs a little less thought. It is not important to waste countless time trying to stop a culture that has been created by a our media culture. Obviously these upper class boys and girls no what they are doing. In the chapter, evidence in the book showed that abstinence has not been taught right or even at all. Lying to young teens only fuels the fire even more. As an experienced person on sexuality letting those girls do what they want until they figure out the actual consequences is necessary. I can not believe that girls these days are selling themselves short when guys do not care what they wear. It is also shocking to hear that these girls like doing oral sex for nothing. After reading I could not hear Levy's solutions or why this is even a interesting topic of discussion. What is more important is helping young girls like Emile Morgan who have been branded for life because people of our country have not posed consequences for men who partake in such sexual violence. Reading that article only made me sick. Reading Levy only made me more mad because obviously no one is teaching these girls what real life is. How can our current patriarchal society allow this to happen. This is devastating that not only do women this for men, but for themselves. I am at a lost for words with this right now. What I can say is that women should find something like Rebeca Walker did. They should find something that gives them security. They should also do it to protect themselves from the harsh country. From reading these articles nothing can protect women except themselves. This a harsh reality but, what more can you ask for when you live in one of the most embarrassing hypocrisy in the world. Not everyone is created equal according to the articles we have just read.

Childbirth: Industrial v. Domestic

For this week’s reading we get to look at a doctor’s biased history of the progress of pregnancy in the past 500 years or so. Alongside that article we also have a critique from a non medical perspective. I think both articles have valuable points on different aspects of childbirth but reading these two articles more than anything just made me unsure about childbirth.
Gawande’s article made a number of points which I thought were interesting and worthy for any family expecting a baby. He narrates a story of the Rourke family’s pregnancy while giving us a long detailed history of how far childbirth has come. His ongoing narrative of Rourke and everything she had to go through was really a strong point in the article. We weren’t forced to read a long article about scientific childbirth jargon but had a remarkable and I’m assuming true story for relief. Gawande gives us fact after fact about childbirth and it all seems valid yet overwhelming. His main point of the article is how childbirth has become a meticulous form of art through all the new advancements in technology. A woman has so many more choices now of how to have her baby and according to Gawande they are for the better. He specifically claims that “almost nothing else in medicine has saved lives on the scale that obstetrics has”. Gawande’s point really hits home when Rourke, who all along wanted an au natural childbirth, was saved after 40 hours of labor through the new technologies of today.
Goer on the other hand seems to believe that the old way of doing things is the best. After reading all the facts about the new industrial childbirths of today, Goer gives us a counter argument for all of it. While it is called a “deconstruction” and Goer certainly does have somewhat of an angry undertone, she gives us numerous facts and numbers that work against Gawande’s argument. She definitely did her homework with close to half of the entire article being statistics on childbirth.
After reading both of these articles I really didn’t know what to think. I want to trust the doctor who should know what he is talking about. But Goer does such a good job contradicting Gawande I was left without closure. Technology is without a doubt something good and many of us might not be here today if not for all the medical advancements in the past century. I also believe that doulas and other methods Goer talks about can be very useful in childbirth. Much like the abortion topic we discusses on Tuesday, I think that every woman is different and the choice is ultimately hers. Bodies react differently and different doctors might have different styles. The best a woman can do is research and learn as much as possible and hope for the best.

News Flash: The image of the Drag Queen

http://www.vh1.com/video/rupauls-drag-race-2/full-episodes/episode-2-starrbootylicious/1631762/playlist.jhtml

http://orvillelloyddouglas.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/rupauls-drag-race-logo1.jpg

http://www.poolparty.com/quotes/images/2007/04/28/rupaul.jpg


Amanda Eccleston

News Flash: The image of the Drag Queen…
About a week ago I was watching VH1 and this show called RuPaul’s Drag Race came on and the name of the episode was Starrbootylicious and immediately I began to draw conclusions to Middle Sex. For those of you who have not seen the show, it is a combination between Americas next top model and project runway however the contestants are mostly gay men who dress in drag. In this episode the challenges consisted of; transforming a Barbie doll and I quote “from a lady into a tramp”, learning how to dance on a pole and performing it, and using their bodies to sell cherry pie in the streets. Falsetto-Sterling’s discussion about the difference between sex and gender is very apparent in the ways gender norms are reformed by these men. Everything from appearance to attitude was magnified and did prove the points that sex and gender are much less socially constructed then we want to believe. The episode was absolutely hilarious and I have even watched a few episodes since, so initially I thought that it was extremely positive for promoting differences and to see something that is so controversial getting such great reviews is amazing. However as I continued to watch the show I saw a few major issues with how women, gay men and black men were being portrayed and how Levy would have a field day with the ways in which this shows perpetuates the female raunch culture and is still working within the male dominated system. Drag Queens often put on an elaborate show filled with drama and stereotypical behavior that has been shown to have a negative effect on the image of the LGBTQ community and women in general.
This portrayal of the LGBTQ is not representative of the majority of the community yet it is one of the only ways in which the mass society will be exposed to difference. Is this the way we want our already ignorant society to view gay, especially minority, men? Many people don’t know the difference between a Drag Queen, a transsexual, and someone who is intersexed so much the flamboyant actions of the drag queen often equate a negative image and continue stereotyping about members of society who were born with male and female organs or felt like they were in wrong body or simply gay men who don’t want to be women and still obtain very masculine qualities. Often transgendered women are stereotyped as Drag queens and the over the top impressions that are put on them as if they chose specifically to act and look a certain way. This over the top impressions is referred to as creating a ‘freak show’ in order to make people feel more comfortable watching and experiencing something that are very touchy in our society today. Immediately I drew references to Middle Sex and how it was hard to decide if the story reinforced strangeness or allowed us to further understand and become emotionally connected to a different lifestyle. Reading the story of Cali makes us feel comfortable with the fact that incesed is a choice so therefore being intersexed couldn’t happen to me…right? Just like being a Drag Queen is a choice so that is equated with intersexed being a choice. The extremity of these caricatures that are portrayed in the media either are allowing for the continuance of stereotyping or by staying away from normalcy, actual differences become much less apparent because we are exposed to only the extremes.
The definition of a Drag Queen is a man that dresses and takes on qualities and personality traits of a woman. This portrayal of femininity is extremely problematic towards the progress of women in society. Although in the Manifesta it could be argued that men embracing girly culture and the traditional female traits is empowering towards women levy would argue that it is working within the system to do the exact opposite. In class we often discuss patriarchy and the ways in which male dominance controls our society and the roles in which men and women have to fit into. Watching this episode it was interesting to me to think about how unusual it was for men to give up their power by dressing and acting like women. Throughout the entire episode the men were addressed as ladies or bitches and all feminine stereotypes, body image issues, and sexualization were magnified. The opening shot of the film was a close up of one of the contestant’s thong as he was getting dressed in the morning and that was literally only the beginning. When split into groups they were referred to as the pretty and skinny bitches and the other group said they were all about the titties. Majority of the scenes were either the contestants putting on makeup, getting dressed, or being overly emotional in some way. The main challenge was a pole dancing contest in which they were judged on who could make the most money from an audience of men. Levy would argue that this is a negative portrayal of women and how they “act” because sexual pleasure is about yourself and it should not be liberating to use sex as a performance. In order to be successful these women needed to be sexy and with that idea the power stays with the men because although they feel as though this is liberating it is actually false power. However it was interesting that throughout the show men in the audience and along the street were constantly being referred to as a “piece of meat” rather than women for a change.
Although there is some empowerment that comes from RuPaul and the publicity that the show have created, I think that it is seen as a joke and a way for people to make flamboyant “freaks” out of actual peoples lifestyles. It was even stated by some of the contestants that they did not want to be seen outside like they were and it is still a very private and difficult experience for many Drag Queens, transsexuals, gays and lesbians to come out and be open in public. Yet, on this show it is only emotional because the men are “bitches” to one another, not because we get to see the actual experiences and hardships that the LGBTQ members and women face to this day.

Newsflash: Black Abortions are the "Darfur of America"

Abortion has been and still is one of the most controversial issues in America. Since the Roe v. Wade decision 37 years ago, pro-life groups and pro-choice groups have put out thousands of mediums of propaganda. Pro-life groups have done nearly anything and everything in their power to make abortion illegal. Abortion is still legal in American but pro-life groups have recently taken a different route to make abortion illegal. Although this battle has been a heated issue for years, it was not until recently another factor was added into the equation: about a month and a half ago, Georgia Right to Life and the Radiance Foundation brought race into the picture. This issue has gained strong interest by the media. I have chosen to include three different articles (ABC, AJC, AJC) all covering the same topic, all from different perspectives.
At the beginning of February the Radiance Foundation, funded by GRTL started putting up billboards in predominantly black neighborhoods of Atlanta that read: “Black Children are an Endangered Species”. The sign featured a black baby and at the bottom was the group’s website TooManyAborted.com. The website contains the statistics on abortions in America as well as in the state of Georgia. The most recent numbers were from 2006 and in that year there were an estimated 1.2 million abortions. With the U.S. population just under 40 thousand, 13 percent are black and are responsible for about 39 percent of those 1.2 million abortions. Another outrageous statistic on the website showed that there were about 16 thousand more abortions than deaths in 2006 among the black population. The numbers in Georgia are even higher with 58 percent of all abortions from black women. The statistics are numerous and they all support the anti-abortion cause.
If the statistics and billboard weren’t enough, the website uses the “Negro Project” and planned parenthood to their advantage. In the early 20th century Margaret Sanger started planned parenthood clinics. Sanger promoted eugenics and used her clinics to get black women to have abortions and thus decreasing the black population. Now almost a century later, pro-life groups such as GRLT claims the PPFA is still racist and endorses eugenics. Catherine Davis, director of minority outreach for GRTL suggests that these clinics are attempting “to control the birthrate of the African-American community” because of the lack of clinics in the suburbs. 94 percent of all birth control clinics in the U.S. are in urban communities where the population is mostly black. GRTL and the Radiance Foundation have thoroughly used the statistics and the “Negro Project” to put themselves out there as the “ the last line of defense against a widespread plot to wipe out black people”.
Following these provocative billboards have been legislation that would make it illegal for “a woman to have an abortion based on the race or sex of the unborn child.” I wouldn’t expect this bill to be passed for a number of reasons that are mentioned in the articles. The most important, as Lynn Hogue, law professor at GSU points out, the reasons behind a woman’s abortion are “constitutionally irrelevant”.
The goal of this Endangered Species Project is to eliminate abortion in America. Bringing race into the issue and specifically targeting black females is just as manipulating as what they claim the planned parenthood organizations are doing. Crews, Arcana, and Muscio would all agree that the bottom line isn’t about the propaganda, or statistics, but about the mother. Crews makes it especially clear that resources and information must be available and easily accessible to all women. Nowhere does she specify that the requirement to receive this information is that the woman must be white. It can be assumed that this idea of white privilege, as described by Peggy McIntosh, can also be relevant to these outrageous statistics regarding black women and abortion.
Often times, pro-life groups tend to portray their ideals as the “right” or “ethical” way of doing things. However, ridiculing women because of the choices they make, especially intimate choices such as abortion is nowhere near right or ethical. Women who get pregnant don’t want to be persuaded to have or abort the baby, they just need to be supported. Pro-life groups claim that women are “duped” by pro-choice propaganda, but by calling it “the Darfur of America” they do the same thing with guilt and shame.
Unless you have experienced what these women go through you can never know what it is like and how hard the choice can be. The website has abortionists speaking out how bad they feel for helping aborting so many babies but it still ignores what the actual mother went through. The two contributors are both well educated black people who have been very successful. While they are both black, they still may never know what it is like for the black population living in the projects struggling to survive.

Newsflash: This is a Problem. Period.

Link to Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/business/media/16adco.html

Link to Kotex Commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpypeLL1dAs

For most people, even the simple words ‘period’ or ‘menstruation’ are causes for cringing. For something that is so natural, there is a distinctly unnatural reaction that comes along with any mention or discussing pertaining to the topic—even females’ responses to the subject are reduced to giggles and uncomfortable groans. But why is this? And what role, if any, does the media play in perpetuating this idea? Only this past week, a new ad campaign for Kotex, a feminine care brand, has been seen on various television stations. The commercials in the campaign poke fun at the unrealistic clichés and often times uncorrelated images that have been portrayed in feminine care campaigns, using the tagline, “Why are tampon ads so ridiculous?” In this article, “Rebelling Against the Commonly Evasive Feminine Care Ad” from The New York Times, Andrew Adam Newman looks at this new ad campaign and recognizes the deeper problem that Kotex is now—albeit, jokingly—revealing. Why are feminine product ads so vague? Though it may seem like nothing, this advertising trend is actually playing a role in continuing the societal idea that women’s natural body functions are something inappropriate and gross that should be glazed over and properly hidden.

The commercial opens with a women saying, “How do I feel about my period? I love it.” She talks about how she enjoys frolicking on the beach and dancing and adds, “The ads on TV are really helpful because they use that blue liquid, and I’m like, ‘Oh, that’s what’s supposed to happen.’ ” The irony and obvious humor of the commercial is enough to entertain audiences, but it got Newman and many others to thinking—why is this the first frank admission about the silliness of tampon ads? And how can this admission change things? Kotex is not just poking fun at other brands; they are poking fun at themselves, too. Previous ads of theirs have featured these happy women running on the beach and dancing around, never directly mentioning or showing anything with any menstruation authenticity. As Elissa Stein, co-author of the book Flow: The Cultural Story of Menstruation says, “Fem-care advertising is so sterilized and so removed from what a period is. You never see a bathroom, you never see a woman using a product. They never show someone having cramps or her face breaking out or tearful—it’s always happy, playful, sporty women” (Newman 1). But why aren’t these things shown? Newman reveals that censorship has a lot to do with it, as “that approach turns out to be a bit too frank for some networks” (Newman 1). Many television companies feel it is necessary to censor and will refuse to run blatant and direct feminine product advertisements. Kotex’s ads originally included words like “vagina” which was then turned into “down there,” both of which were rejected by television companies. Merrie Harris, global business director for the company that is responsible for these Kotex ads, puts it best when she says, “The whole category has been very euphemistic, or paternalistic even, and we’re saying, enough with the euphemisms, and get over it. Tampon is not a dirty word, and neither is vagina” (Newman 1). Kotex is trying to defy the stigmas that have been associated with women’s health and body issues. They are not “dirty” or wrong, but society is demanding that they be censored as if they were. Though they are relying on humor to make a subtle point to this, Kotex has done this deliberately and is “vowing to defy societal pressures that discourage women from speaking out about their bodies and health” (Newman 1). It’s a small step in the right direction, but someone had to make it so that later steps could follow.

After seeing these Kotex ads myself and reading through Newman’s article, I think that this issue relates greatly to what we’ve been discussing in class. The idea that women’s bodies and functions are somehow wrong and dirty is an issue, and whether or not they have meant to do this, feminine product ads have been perpetuating that idea. Much of it has to do with this “elusiveness” that Newman points out. No one will speak about periods or menstruation or feminine products, so the silence makes it seem like it’s something to be ashamed of. Anne Fausto-Sterling acknowledges this in her article, “Hormonal Hurricanes: Menstruation, Menopause, & Female Behavior.” She says that menstruation is perceived as this “dark shadow” that is “cast…on women’s lives” (Fauto-Sterling 93), but the problem is that these female body functions are not understood! People—women and girls—are not told enough to know that what they are being taught indirectly by society’s silence is wrong. Getting your period shouldn’t be something that a female is ashamed of, but that’s the result of this silence. However, now that the silence is trying to be broken in some way, the efforts are being rebuffed. If Kotex commercials can’t say something as simple and frank as “vagina” or even the ambiguous “down there,” how can progress ever be made? It seems ludicrous to me that something like that could be censored, when so much on television is blatantly sexual and crude without any ramifications. This is not Ariel Levy’s raunch culture, this is a woman, her body, and its functions—there should be nothing dirty or scandalous about it. However, that’s not what society is advocating. They are turning menstruation into something that needs to be turned into a series of images of happy women in order to be made “decent.” And while yes, Fuasto-Sterling says, things like PMS and bloating and cramps happen, but they should not define these female functions and they shouldn’t cause menstruation to become something horrible. Another problem is that there is an inadequate amount of information and research sought for these things, which make them even more ambiguous and unspoken about. Until the judgments and censorship concerning women and their bodies is broken, how can anyone expect a female’s body image to be healthy? The truth is, I don’t think they can.

Kotex’s frank and humorous ads may seem like a frivolous jest, but they are actually a representation of an important issue concerning women’s health. When the product used to help women can’t even be explained or directly discussed, menstruation itself is never going to become a comfortable topic. The giggles and groans and cringes will continue until someone steps up and asks why they’re necessary. Kotex may only be calling out their own and their fellow competitors advertising follies, but their frankness could go a long way. Women’s health is not a small issue, so it shouldn’t be made into one with ignorance and shame.

3/11: Hey, Levy. Over here!

vs.

Reading through the articles for this week, I couldn't help but wish that Ariel Levy might pick a few of them up as well and give them some serious consideration. I don't mean to discount everything that Levy says or suggest that perhaps she hasn't read these articles or ones similar to it--I think that Female Chauvinist Pigs actually made several good points and had a basis in its skepticism, if not always a legitimate one. Still, the thing that always stood out for me while reading that book was the question of, "But what if sexuality is not about that? Can't it be for women?" In my opinion, Levy was too busy judging all of those who blatantly indulge in "raunch culture" to consider that majority of women who are just trying to negotiate self-happiness with themselves and their sexuality.

The article that really stood out to me the most in this way was Rebecca Walker's, "Lusting for Freedom." You might hear Walker's story--a girl who'd lost her virginity at eleven--and instantly shake your head in regret, thinking of the bad things that must have come for her. No one would stop to think that exploring her sexuality so young allowed her a certain freedom from the limitations that older women face every day. I'm not promoting women going off and having sex at eleven--I think it's illegal for a reason. Girls that young usually can't understand the extent of their actions--but I think that Walker has a point in saying that women shouldn't be ashamed of having a sexual side. Sex in terms of women is so often judged, whether it's as Levy does it saying that women indulge in their sexual sides because of men and the system they live in so that it's actually an act of submission, or in terms of violence and disease. There is so very rarely a healthy in between. Walker sees this. If Levy does, she doesn't focus at all on it. Women's sexuality seems to be constantly termed in binaries: virgin vs. whore, rape vs. making love, lesbian vs. heterosexual, love vs. lust. People are so busy trying to navigate these categories that they don't take the time to explore outside of them, or in between them. Just like Sonia Shah's sister, who had to pick one kind of sexuality, Indian or American, and was judged for that, women are judged all the time for picking a side that, in all reality, they don't have a chance of avoiding. If they don't pick a side themselves, someone will push the label onto them anyway. Healthy views of sexuality don't stand a chance.

2/3 main post

in Fausto-Sterling’s article, “Hormonal Hurricanes" it was interesting to think about the limitations that menstration puts on a woman compared to a man. And that hormones could be the justification for believing why women were les competent than men. it made me think of when Hilary Clinton was running for president and almost everyone reason for why a woman wouldnt make it in the white house was because they are too emotional and couldnt handle the pressue. i used to laugh because we put these stereotypes on women based off hormones and mood swings that come with the menstral cycle but i have met more men that are emotional and unstable than i have women. And we say that a woman cannot be succesful because of this, and not only men but women believe that this is the case as well. It then was interesting to read Sextons poem that was celebrating being a woman and everything that being a woman entaled; even menstration. it was difficult to understand besides the fact that you should be proud to be a woman. I found Valdes representaion more interesting because it is from a more diverse perspective than most. her struggle to maintain being a feminist in society while also living as a woman was interesting because i think that that is a struggle for a lot of women. to be accepted we have to play into certain roles but how many of those roles go against us being feminist and fighting for what we believe in. i want equal rights and to be seen equally as competent to men however if i wear makeup and a tight skirt does that compromise that? am i being a hipocrite?

Body and Image: A Powerful Thing

In both the Gloria Steinem reading, "Sex, Lies & Advertising," and Joan Brumberg’s essay, “Body Projects” the one thing that really stood out for me was simply the power of an image, especially in the case of women. It’s really a vicious cycle—women see images of the “ideal” body and type and work to match that, which in turn perpetuates the exalting of this image, which makes advertisers want to portray it. Where does it end? And how much of it shapes our psyches. I would say it shapes it quite a lot. In my opinion, it really all comes back to just that idea of comfort with conventions and how tangled up conventions are with power. Is it possible to have a “bad” outer image and still succeed, or will you always be frowned down upon for your looks? I think it’s easy to say that we would never judge someone like that, but there’s probably very little truth in it. Cal’s discomfort with himself and his intersex condition is an extreme case of this. He knows that regardless of the person he is, he will be judged because he is not gender typical. The fact that he isn’t even sure if his parents could understand and is in fact glad in a way that his father never had to deal with his life as a man is proof of that. Whether a stranger or a parent, there is always going to be judgment when an image is broken.

Brumberg looks at women and their perceptions of body and the “ideal image” and wonders what we can do to stop this from happening. All it manages to do is breed an innate self-consciousness in females that seems to drive their every whim and decision. I don’t think that men are entirely an exception to that—image is universal to everyone—but it is certainly a much higher standard and a much bigger problem with women. And as Steinem points out, these advertisers working in “women’s magazines” are not helping. Is there any way to undermine this power that image is holding? If there is—which, honestly, I’m not sure about—I think you might even find that women would shy away from such a thing, so ingrained in them is that need to be the “pretty” or “skinny” one. The focus may shift from one aspect of the body or the image to another, but that doesn't mean that we are making progress to defying these things. Once again, it’s just the social norms. To break the connection between women and image would be to break down barriers of both history and society, and that takes a lot.

2/22

In Fausto-Sterling’s chapter "Of gender and genitals" i found it very interesting to think about the decisions that are forced to be made by the parents of an intersexed child. The uncertainty that comes along with change is a continuous problem that comes with our society. When i read this chapter i think about how ridiculous it is to put such pressure on the reconstruction of a perfectly healthy childs sexual organs. Sex is something that we only want to see when it is perfectly constructed, whether it just strictly between a man and a woman, with perfectly constructed genitals; the woman being viewed as pure and tight and the males masculinity being associated with the largness of his penis. We want to view these ideas of perfectly binary sexual beings as the norm whn really not everyone fits into those distinctive categories, there is a continuum between the sexes and everyone in society fits somewhere along that continuum. unfortunately it would take an extreme change in how we have viewed society for so long in order to be on with such a continuum and as we have seen thoroughout hstory that is not something that easily occurs.Instead we stigmatize those people as being less man of less woman and then go even further, with many different surgical procedures, to make sure that those who more obviouly dont fit into the selected categories can be transformed into one. Being born intersexed is treated as if the child has to be treated for a disease and becomes imparative to immediately weight the options. after spending time reading this chapter and the Middlesex, i think that it is obsurd how much pressure we put on changing a perfectly normal human being into something that they are not however when i think about what i would do if i was a parent it becomes a more complicated issue. I cant look at the parents and the doctors and think negatively upon how much pressure they put on this because it is society that lays the pressure. i absolutely would want my child to have a "normal" life (by societal measures) so if that ment choosing the replace the more "appropriate" genitals for my child then i would do so and would have a hard time telling them why and how i chose to come to that decision besides the fact that society would prefer someone to be a changed, confused, and often not sexually pleased human being in order to not face the truths of reality.

Intersex

The chapter “That Sex Which Prevaileth” in Sexing the Body by Anne Fausto-Sterling focuses on the social and cultural stigmas attached to hermaphrodites. First focusing on the history of sexes and how two main sexes have been put into to place to define "normality" in our society and that now that we have MADE these categories it is difficult to see the world as being normal any other way. In fact it has become so important for one to fit in either one category or the other that there are numerous surgeries involving anything from changing the shape and/or function of everything involving sexual organ and outer appearance. If you really think about it, what makes someone more man or more woman? Is the typical girly girl less of a woman if she has a slighly larger clitoris or has a slight mustache? or the hegemonic male less powerful if his penis isnt large enough? these arent even situations of a male or female being hermaphrodites however we often treat them in similar respect with confusion and judgement. Therefore it only makes sense that we have come up with so many different ways to fit everyone into two COMFORTABLE categories, and it is even hard for me to say that because who is it comfortable for? We tend to focus on only the opinion of the majority and ignore how those decisions that we make affect ourselves or our society as a whole. Like Emma for example who is forced by society to fit into a world by ignoring her pleasure and happiness.

In book one of Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides we see a greater inside on Cal's own feelings on being intersexed. After deciding to become a boy it was interesting to read about his search through his ancestory to figure out what mutations in his chromosomes lead to being born a woman with male parts. This idea is very disturbing to a lot of people and you see it on TV with celebrities or on talk shows and it almost seems unreal because ill admit that even i was conditioned to think that there is hardly anyone in the world who is both male and female. We are so sheltered to the truth because we are afraid of it and majority of the time these children are altered at birth. Even so many different doctors and psychologists have so many different opinions on how this should be handled, whether they should wait till the child is older, let them decide, let the parents decide, or just handle it at birth and we forget that these are actual human beings who are made to live that way.

Barbie

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/barbies-next-career-computer-engineer/?scp=2&sq=barbie&st=cse

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2010/02/15/barbie-becomes-computer-engineer/1


Amanda Eccleston

Barbie has been and will continue to be one of the most important and enduring toys within the doll industry. Since the 50’s, when Barbie originated, women have been fighting for the rights of equal rights and respect while one of the most influential toys for young girls is programmed to say things like “I love shopping.” There has been much controversy over this “role model” for your girls not only in what the figure represents but also in the lack of diversity that it represents, when it comes to race, class and body shapes and sizes. Some would argue, however, that Barbie has gradually changes with the times and one of the most recent articles that would justify this was in the New York Times on February 12, 2010 and was titled “Barbie’s Next Career? Computer Science.”
The Article, by Claire Cain Miller, begins with a famous, degrading quote that Barbie has become known for, “Math class is tough.” Throughout history this toy has played into the stereotypes of women and in this instance, draws upon the absence of women in math and engineering related majors and professions. Men have dominated these fields and there have been few women to break into them and there is no clear reason as to why. Previously, Barbie worked in very gender divided professions however recently there has been a push to move Barbie from an aerobics instructor into more high powered professions so that young girls might be influenced to be more. In this article it was recently discussed how Barbie’s new profession was chosen by over half a million fans to be Computer Science. And although there has already been debate over the attire and accessories, Mattel makes a point to say that it was all chosen with the help of the Society of Women Engineers and the National Academy of Engineering. This career move has thrilled the women of the profession with the argument that “We can use any sort of positive influence that we have, because the number of girls studying programming is abysmal,” This article does an interesting job at looking at the positive side of this article and although it is a positive thing to see progression in an industry that have proven to be extremely sexist, I want to draw on the comments section to show how far we have NOT come.
Many women in this field were happy to see the way this profession was represented by Mattel however was not taken very seriously by the readers of the article. First of all there was a very negative reaction to the style of dress that this Barbie was wearing. “Computer Engineer Barbie still has her trademark cascade of blond hair, impossibly small waist, feet frozen on tiptoes to slide into her high heels and a whole lot of hot pink.” Baumgardner and Richards would not argue this as something negative, they would see this as successful, intelligent women embracing the girly culture by allowing traditionally feminine things to be seen as powerful. Through this the women in the Engineering field who chose their attire could be seen as using these stereotypical colors and beauty trademarks to empower what is naturally womanhood. However this could be viewed much differently because what these women see as a means to promote femininity in the profession is seen as merely a joke or as sexual objects by men in that same field. Majority of the comments to the article consisted of sexual comments by men, from simple comments like “she is hot” or “hubba hubba” to one guy who actually made a porn plot out of the thought of an attractive women working in computer science and then finished it off by saying, “Then their system suffered a serious hard drive failure which resulted in a huge order from an important customer was lost costing Ken's company millions of dollars…You see Mattel what happens when you put hot chicks in IT jobs!” His attitude is the reason why women need to act like men in order to survive in a successful job because our patriarchal society makes it impossible to get past the stereotypes that go along with having feminine qualities. It is comments like this, however, that make it hard to believe the arguments of Johnson that men’s attitudes are a product of our society as well because such blatant ignorance cannot be justified in a societal sense. However it could be easily argued that because the women in this profession want to be viewed as sexy and smart that they over feminized the appearance of the doll and therefore succumb and are trapped in the very system that oppresses them. They strive for the male approval and it is so subconscious that they think they are making these decisions that will benefit women when really they are accomplishing the opposite. It is hard not to completely agree with Levy in that it is hard for women to break out of this mold because we are so imbedded in society that to go against the norm is detrimental to status and how both men and women see you. One man posted a comment that said “hahaha representative of a real [female] computer engineer….closer to reality perhaps http://www.damnfunnypictures.com/weird/14000/fat-barbie-doll/” In some sense we can look at Computer Science Barbie as a step in the right direction for promoting and showing women that they have the same opportunities as men, however on the other hand it proves how quick we are, still, to sexualize or make a joke out of anything that involved a woman and success. It is not the Barbie at all that represents the gendered struggles in our society; it is the male and often female response to these very serious issues that need to be noticed and restructured.

Newsflash: Asian Countries and Women Leaders

Link to article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/world/asia/08iht-asiawomen.html

“This is still a man’s world, and you have to adapt to the men’s environment.” With these words, Dewi Fortuna Anwar, director for programs and research at an independent policy institute in Indonesia, encompasses the main plight of the woman in power. In this article from The New York Times “Family Vaults Women to Leadership in Asia,” reporter Seth Mydans looks at women in power in Asian countries and how that power both comes about and plays out. Although women in Asia have managed to gain positions of power in recent years more than any other region of the world, the article states that most of these women have gained these positions only through family connections and, furthermore, have not ruled any differently than their male relative predecessors. In reality, this article presents a legitimate concern for women in power and the privileges that they must have in order to reach such positions, though by questioning the missing female “different perspective,” (Mydans 1) the article is in fact also perpetuating some gender role labels.

Though many Asian countries—India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, the Philippines and Sri Lanka, for example—are more often thought of as places of female oppression rather than empowerment, they are all also places that have recently boasted female leaders. Some of these leaders include Sri Lanka’s Sirimavo Bandaranaike (who became the world’s first female elected head of state in 1960) and Indira Gandhi in India in 1966. Today, two women are in power: : President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in the Philippines and Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in Bangladesh. Most of these women, however, have had some sort of previous family connection to power and politics that Mydans believes accounts for their access to such positions. Along with revealing this injustice, the article discusses what these women have done differently from their male counterparts—namely, nothing. Advancements in women’s rights, something that most would assume to be a prime focus for a female leader, are usually not present or ever addressed. There can be a myriad of different explanations for this, but Mydans attributes it to the tentative position these women find themselves in. There seems to be “a glass ceiling that holds back women from reaching the very top purely on their own merits, and a political context that may limit their room to maneuver as leaders” (Mydans 1). It all comes back to the same challenges that women in any workplace are facing—the pressure to “act like a man” in order to succeed.

Ariel Levy talks about this plight in Female Chauvinist Pigs when she says that “women who’ve wanted to be perceived as powerful have long found it more efficient to identify with men than to try and elevate the entire female sex to their level” (Levy 95). A woman leader is the ultimate personification of “powerful,” so it can probably be assumed that the pressure for them is even more substantial, especially in these highly patriarchal Asian countries. Dewi Fortuna Anwar recognizes this, saying that these women leaders “need to be more manly, [they] need to show that [they] don’t cry in public, [and that they] are tough enough to order the military around” (Mydans 1). Stereotypes and prejudices make it so that conventionally, a woman is seen as less strong-willed, less able in matters of state and war, than a man. In order to gain the image that she needs to retain control and power, she has to behave as a man would. The whole idea behind this is really that being a woman and having feminine qualities is inferior to being a man and/or having masculine qualities. In fact, when speaking of the two Asian female leaders in power today, Mydans himself says that, “both are known for their toughness and combativeness” (Mydans 1). He says this as if women shouldn’t be known for such qualities. In that way, even Mydans, who is pointing out the injustices in this situation, is falling into the traps of stereotypes and expectations. It is probably not a deliberate action, but simply a norm that has become unconscious. This is closely tied with the patriarchal system that rules society—both America’s own democratic society, and these Asian countries’ alternate societies.

Though it might seem as if women gaining power is a step forward in challenging the patriarchal society, in fact, “the rise of female leaders does not seem to reflect any change in the patriarchal nature of Asian societies. Rather, it demonstrates the power of a name and the persistence of political dynasties, whether they involve women or men” (Mydans 1). The reasoning behind the elections is, in this case, more important than the election itself. Both patriarchy and privilege play a part in this phenomenon. Without the privilege of a connected family, a women most likely will not have any chance to even try for a position of government power, and patriarchy keeps women who are elected from ruling the way they perhaps might want to as opposed to the way men before them have previously. Johnson in “Patriarchy, The System” talks about the “path of least resistance” which describes “to go along, and unless [you’re] willing to deal with greater resistance, that’s the choice [you’re] going to make” (Johnson 4). Women in power can’t afford to deal with the greater resistance because their positions are already tentative. If they were do deviate from the previous paths set by men, their gender would be blamed for the change and they would probably lose their power. If a change is made because of this, it might seem worth it, but women in power are no different from men in power: “they are just as egomaniacal, in many cases, or just as intent on holding on to their own power and to heck with the next bunch that comes along as anybody else” (Mydans 1).

Whether you believe that men and women are innately different are not, society does see these differences and does exploit them to the disadvantages of women. In Asia, women may be gaining positions of power, but because of the privilege required and the inability to deviate from “man’s” way of ruling, there really are very little strives being made. To change this, these women would have to take a path of resistance and risk their power, which isn’t something anyone has been willing to try yet. Until they do this, however, the patriarchal system will continue to win.