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?