Follow-Up: Responding to Rachel's Post 9/30/10

I found the evidence in "Of Gender and Genitals" mind-blowing. Throughout my life, I have vaguely heard of the concept of hermaphrodites, but have never actually known what this situation consists of. It is interesting to me that "albino births occur much less frequently than intersexual births--in only about 1 in 20,000 babies" (Fausto 53), and I still have never heard anything concrete about intersexuals. It bothers me to know that 1.7% of all births are intersex and that "surgeons make decisions based on their own beliefs and what was current practice when they were training" (Fausto 48). With such a large number of intersexual babies born, I would think that there would be some type of system or program to help the parents understand what was really happening with their child in order to make an informed and conscious decision. In fact, as I am typing this, the word "intersexual" is not even part of the dictionary and is marked as spelled wrong.

Another point that I found very interesting was that "in the development of masculinity, femininity, and inclinations toward homo- or hetero- sexuality, nurture matters a great deal more than nurture" (Fausto 46). This point could be seen as an argument for the concept that "gayness can spread" whether it's through the raising of a child by two gay parents or the instruction of children by a gay teacher. I would really like to see the evidence that supports the claim that nurture matters a great deal more than nature, because this would drastically change my perspective on these arguments if it turned out to be true.

Below is a link that relates to the issue of environmental pollutants that mimic estrogen that have begun to cause widespread increase in the incidence of intersex forms such as hypospadias:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/143994.php

After reading this chapter, I think one of the most important things I need to examine is how my conceptions of gender difference shape the way I understand physical bodies and view intersexuals integration into society. I am glad that this phenomenon has been brought to my attention, as it will make me a lot more open to the continuum of discrete categories.

Fausto-Sterling Chapters 3 & 4 - Main Post for 9/30/2010

In "Of Gender and Genitals," Fausto-Sterling examines social, parental, and medical attitudes towards and reactions to intersex individuals and how these views affect these individuals' treatment. She starts off by explaining that "[o]ur conceptions of the nature of gender difference shape, even as they reflect, the ways we structure our social system and polity; they also shape and reflect our understanding of our physical bodies (45)." In other words, the fact that we view sex and gender as having to be separate categories - either completely male or female, but nothing in between - affects how we understand ourselves, construct our society, and view people that do not follow these "normality guidelines." One example of this "either/or" view is the near-hysteria doctors and parents experience when an intersex child is born because they view this child as abnormal or unnatural because s/he is neither totally female nor totally male. S/he has to be fixed immediately because s/he does not fall neatly into what we have defined as sexually normal or natural; s/he is an outsider, a freak, a social outcast, a frightening threat, a monster even, just because s/he does not conform to society and ours "all-male or all-female" ideal standard. Thus, to "save" this child from a horrible life of confusion and ridicule, s/he must be made to agree with what society expects in terms of sex and gender as soon as possible, which has lead many doctors to assign "nature's intended sex" of intersex babies at birth. Doctors who follow this path usually explain to the parents that what has happened is a rare anomaly - that their child "'really' is a boy or a girl...not that they constitute a category other than male or female (50-51) -" which is a classic example of denying or ignoring the truth because it doesn't fit with our beliefs or it makes us uncomfortable. In describing multiple ways to "fix" intersex individuals, Fausto-Sterling remarks that if we can physically "fix" a person into a boy or girl and that we can decide what constitutes a boy or girl means that sex is culturally and socially determined as well as biologically determined (58). If there were no social component to sex, we would have no say in determining someone's sex - it would just be. Also, sex is constrained by local cultural traditions as well as broader ones, such as parents wanting their intersex children "fixed" or at least raised male because male offspring were preferred (58-59). On the psychological aspect, doctors touted that in order for children to be mentally sound, their sexual identification had to match their physicality since bodily and sexual clarity was crucial to proper psyche development; sexual ambiguity would destroy the child's developing self-image as well as the parents' ability to identify and raise it. Therefore, information sharing between the doctors and the parents and intersex child was nearly non-existent so as to "spare" them. Fausto-Sterling argues that our denial and silence as well as the attitude that intersexuality is wrong are proof that sex and culture are irrevocably linked - one's definition and rules are influenced by the other; we can see that '[o]ur theories of sex and gender are knitted into the medical management of intersexuality (77)." Because of this connection, intersexuality has the potential to change what society thinks of as sexually normal (77).

In "Should There Only Be Two Sexes," Fausto-Sterling continues to examine intersexual medical treatment and why we are so opposed to having more sexes than just male and female. She asserts that doctors that deal with intersex individuals should follow three simple rules to challenge the stigma of intersexuality: no unnecessary infant surgery, assignment of a "provisional sex (79)" based on physical evidence, and long-term counseling for the entire family. She says that infant surgery's importance is rooted in social norms, not medical or physical necessity since the child is not going to die if it doesn't have the surgery done; in other words, "reshaping a sexually ambiguous body so that it conforms to our two-sex system (80)" is for social acceptance, not for the health of the child. Also, she states that genital surgery on infants usually doesn't work, but the need to social conformity is so strong that doctors do it anyway and then try to keep medical information from these children supposedly for their own good, which damages trust between doctors and patients (80-85). So why continue doing it if it has such little merit? Fausto-Sterling also advocates the right of both intersexual individuals and their parents to refuse "fixing" surgery. Doctors usually think that performing this surgery is beneficial to the intersex individual and do it without consulting anyone; they just assume that these people and their families automatically share the same view and that they would thank them for it (92-93). To explain the reason behind these doctors' beliefs, she says that "[d]ogma has it that without medical care, especially early surgical intervention, hermaphrodites are doomed to a life of misery." However, these doctors are assuming the wrong thing - "Yet there are few empirical investigations to back up this claim. In fact, the studies gathered to build a case for medical treatment often do just the opposite (93)." Therefore, she concludes, there is no reason not to consider having other sex categories - transsexual and intersexual being two - because these surgeries have few, if any, benefits. She asserts that shifting attention away from biology and genitals to how people define themselves is a better way to deal with gender.

Follow-Up: Responding to Aridelle's Post 9/28/2010

I found these readings very interesting because I remembered times when I didn't know if a person was a man or a woman and it made me feel very uncomfortable. I didn't like feeling uncomfortable because I felt that it was disrespectful of me, that I was mentally insulting this other person even if I didn't say anything - why should I feel so uncomfortable and unsure what to do when I proclaim that I am a tolerant human being and accept everyone? Am I a hypocrite? I'd like to think that I am open to all people and that identification is a personal journey and understanding, but it's during those moments that my programming by society automatically resurfaces. I have been trained to view male and female are separate, different entities that never, ever cross because if they do, the product is abnormal and does not belong. I would like to believe that I am working to overcome my programming because I think that life and people cannot and should not pigeonholed into distinct categories because that is not how real life and people work.

I thought that the comments by Myrhe about how people, both men and women, have to put work into looking female, which supports the conclusion that "female" is not anatomically determined, but rather determined on how much effort is expended to look female. I know friends of mine that literally spend hours on their hair and makeup every day; they straighten their hair religiously, cannot leave the house without at least cover-up and mascara on, or refuse to wear a skirt without shaving their legs first. I distinctly remember one friend who would straighten her hair until it was poker straight, which would take her an hour to ninety minutes everyday before school; instead of sleeping, she would get up at 5 in the morning to straighten her curly hair for an hour. Sometimes it seems like they are a slave to their routine, like they subscribe to some creepy cult that brainwashes you into thinking that it is a sin to not have lipgloss on you at all times. I, on the other hand, usually spend very little time on my appearance. My hair cannot be tamed, so I just let it do whatever it wants because it's just easier that way; I like sleep way more than waking up early to do my makeup; and I don't bother shaving that often because soon I'll just be wearing sweatpants all the time because it will be cold and no one is going to be touching my legs anyway. I like being free of that routine for most of the time (I do put on makeup if I "have to" for a party or a special event) because I have more time for other "more important" things like homework, hanging out with friends, eating a good breakfast, taking a shower. I like feeling comfortable to go out in public with no make up on unlike other girls. I like feeling just fine in a tee and sweatpants without feeling the pressure that I should look cute all the time or that I should be wearing a nice top and skirt. But am I less of a woman in others' eyes because of my refusal to spend hours on my appearance?

SB and LU readings for 9/28/10

The Dueling Dualism article explores the issue of sex and how recently there has been the formation of new categories due to intersex gendered individuals. This is an interesting issue in which gender cannot be completely defined within such individuals thus sparking a revolution in science and in social constrictions that limited genders to strictly male and female. Science along with cultural concepts such as religion have kept society close-minded towards homosexuality and inter-sexual individuals, but now science is helping to pave the way in educating society that sex is not limited to male and female because there are people that are born with both sexes (inter-sexuals) or with opposite sex tendencies (e.g. transexuals, transgender). Another important dueling dualism that the author targets is the concept of nature vs. nurture when targeting specifically the issue of homosexuality. There is a huge debate that continues today as to whether homosexuality is inborn or socially constructed. Humans are complicated individuals thus it is difficult to target which may have more of an effect, but I believe that it is a combination of both the biological as well as the “experience” aspect that the author talks about that helps to form an individual’s identity. Homosexuality is an issue that has been around since the time of the ancient Greeks, thus it is not something new that has been recently created; it has just been suppressed due to social constrictions put on concepts of sex and gender (especially due to science).

In the Article “That Sexe which Prevaileth” society tells people that they have to choose a sex because of the social and cultural constrictions created through generations. I have heard of parents choosing the sex for their child when they are born with both male and female genital parts, but why not lave the child as is. Many intersex individuals grow with these struggles of inferiority because they feel the need to conform to one gender. They have not been able to embrace their sexuality nor their sexual appearance because they have been shunned by society for so long. Intersex individuals have existed since the beginning of time, but this issue has not been targeted as it has been today because “scientific methods classified them out of existence.” This is something that science has influenced in ostracizing this issue for so long, but now science is actually helping to increase awareness of inter-sexuals by the demand of various groups that are pushing for change such as feminists and the inter-sexual community.

In the article one bad hair day too many, the author states how she gave up her femininity as her first action as a feminist. She called herself androgenous because she wanted to destroy the distinctions between male and female. She makes people feel uncomfortable because he doesn’t act like a women. What does this say about society? Everyone is expected to “act” their gender; there room for differences. Those that do go against the norms are harshly judged. This author was a little extreme in wanting complete equality and no gender recognition. This is impossible because there are biological differences that make us men and women so unique for ex. women were made to reproduce versus men who can’t create life, and many more obvious reasons, thus there are bound to be differences in the treatment of men and women. Although I do agree with her complaint of how women are valued in society by acting feminine and their physical appearance. She says how “women’s attractiveness to men is the primary measure of her worth” thus further increasing the superficiality of today’s society. I can see why the author is trying to change hat, but her actions and opinions seem to be drastic.

Follow-Up: Responding to Hanna's Post 9/23/2010

When I was reading Lorde, I really liked how she asserted how the tools of a system cannot dismantle or even correctly examine that system because of its inherent bias - it seems like such a simple, logical, even obvious conclusion, but one that we don't know about (or try to ignore). That statement called up a lot of questions for me from my own perspective and from our other readings. If the master's tools cannot dissemble the master's house, how can you determine what are and what aren't the master's tools? Since women are products of "the system," since Johnson claimed that men and women participate in the system of patriarchy however unwillingly or unconsciously, how can women dismantle the master's house? Are most women the master's tools themselves? Can we really start changing society through our choices right now? I personally don't think we can as we are now because we do participate in the system, we take the paths of least resistance - there just aren't enough women willing to make a splash, to take the path of resistance, to start changing the system since we can affect it through our choices. (Getting the ball rolling is always the hardest part of anything.) However, the system of patriarchy restrains this thinking, promotes that women follow the paths of least resistance - so women aren't moved to act, aren't moved to take a different path because the system tells them it's too hard, it's not worth it, or don't even worry about it. But then the system will never change because no woman acts differently to make it change. So now the question becomes how do we make others aware of their participation in this system and incite them to change it? What about those people - men and women - who want patriarchy to stay in place? What do we do about them?  

Also, I really identified with all the problems that Miles dealt with during her time on The Rag. When I was reading through, I just kept thinking: Mmmmhmmm, I know what that is like, Oh I remember a time when that problem arose, or Why am I not surprised? It was a bit disheartening to read because it not only meant the demise of a magazine that had good intentions, but it also even reinforced very negative stereotypes about women - they hold grudges, are judgmental and catty, fight amongst themselves, brew resentment and anger because they are not inclusive. When I was reading that article, it seemed like those girls were just reinforcing that a) feminism will never work no matter how much fervor and passion you have because you will be beset by all these tensions, b) that women will be infighting too much to even mount a unified front, and c) that feminists are bitchy and exclusive just like those popular girls in high school you always wanted to be friends with. It seemed like it was saying that being united simply as women wasn't enough though we all want it to be enough. If we can't unite as women, what can we unite under? What bonds are strong enough to hold us, our movement together?

Lorde, McIntosh, & Miles 9/23/10

In the first reading, Lorde illuminates the diverse populations that can unify to stand for a particular view. As a Black lesbian feminist, Lorde shows that the titles only go so far. A feminist group meeting must value the input of all the individuals who share their same view. In presenting opinions on certain topics such as material relationships between women, one feminist failed to acknowledge mutuality between women. On the second page of this article, Lorde states that "Difference must be not merely tolerated, but seen as a fund of necessary polarities between which our creativity can spark like a dialectic." This interdependency gives individuals courage to enact different strengths. Lorde asserts that the "failure of academic feminists to recognize difference as a crucial strength is a failure to reach beyond the first patriarchal lesson." She believes that we must embrace difference in order to overcome racist patriarchal thought.

In "White Privelege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack", McIntosh elaborates on unacknowledged male privilege as a phenomenon. One interesting point that she made was that "whites are carefully taught not to recognize white privilege, as males are taught not to recognize male privilege." To McIntosh, white privilege is an invisible package of unearned assets that whites can utilize to get ahead in everyday life. I found it very interesting that as a white woman, McIntosh is able to flip her point of view and investigate another's perceptions of certain situations. This seems very important in the study of feminism, because conflict is much easier to understand when you can view it from both sides.

"On the Rag" by Tiya Miles describes the formation of The Rag: A Feminist Journal of Politics and Culture on the Harvard-Radliffe campus. Miles addresses the disproportionate amount of responsibility and power in this group. Conflict arose in meetings due to opposing views of how feminists should be viewed and how black women should be depicted. The subtitle of this magazine was called into question in order to signal to black women that the collective was an welcoming space. Other problems with class and race arose too. It is fascinating that a group composed of such strong-minded women dissolved in two years because of conflict, as the goal was to unite against a common cause. In trying to fight oppression of women, individuals in the group oppressed and denied the input of others.

Response to Rache's Post

What I found most interesting about Marilyn Frye's article on oppression was the fact that it affects all different types of women. When I think of females being oppressed, my mind immediately jumps to feminists taking action for women as a whole. I didn't realize that this suffocating situation is forced upon all different types of women no matter their class, race, or political and social views. Until now, I have never had a problem with men opening doors for me. Frye's article helped to point out that men's door-opening is symbolic of women being incapable. Although this notion bothers me a little bit, I still view it as a custom, and think it is acceptable, just as men paying for dinner is. If a man did not want to pay for dinner, I wouldn't take it personally or get offended, I would be happy to pay for my half. In retrospect, I see how men are just as oppressed as women. They have to fit this specific mold in society just as women do. Although this is unfair, it is the reality of things, and I don't believe changing it would be worth the trouble of changing the customs and traditions of our society.

In Johnson's article on patriarchy, the main concept that resonated with me was that of participation. I don't view myself as an active feminist, but because I am a women and am part of modern society, I still participate in the problems and progressions that women are faced with today. Even though I am not playing an active role in the women's movement, I can still participate by doing small things like standing up for women as a whole if someone makes a sexist joke or treats women badly. It is very important to me that I don't assume a completely passive role in a situation that affects me daily, even in an environment such as Colgate where we are thought to be intellectually and socially evolved.

Oppression and Systemic Patriarchy - Main Post for 9/21/2010

In Marilyn Frye's article about oppression, she makes a compelling argument about how the position of women is oppressive on both sides using a birdcage. She asserts that that oppression is from the word press, which connotes "something caught between or among forces and barriers which are so related to each other that jointly they restrain, restrict or prevent the thing's motion or mobility." She claims that women are in such a double bind position in multiple aspects of life and identity such as work and economic stresses, family and marriage, sexual orientation, culture, country of origin and residence, politics, dress, but especially in sexual experience since "neither sexual activity nor sexual inactivity is all right." If a woman has had a lot of sexual experience, society labels her as a whore who does not deserve respect and who needs to stop having sexual encounters; if a woman has little sexual experience, society calls her a cold, uptight prude that needs to stop being so straitlaced, meaning that she should have some sexual encounters very soon. Since these barriers are intricately woven into virtually all aspects of life and identity, Frye declares that these barriers are unavoidable - if you run from one of them, you will inevitably encounter another one. These barriers are each one wire that forms a cage that successfully keeps women from being free, but you can only see this cage if you look at the big picture. By focusing on only one barrier, people do not see how women are caged in because all the other barriers are ignored, making it seem as if they don't exist; if they stepped back and looked at all the barriers simultaneously, people will then see how women are indeed oppressed on all sides.

In Johnson's article about patriarchy, she defines patriarchy as a system that is more than the sum of its individuals to help us understand ways in which to overthrow it. She first addresses how individuals skirt around confronting "the system" because it is just easier to blame it for everything, but not take it into account when thinking about how to rework it; she also asserts that the age-old idea that systems equals the individuals in it is false because the system is more than just the individuals. To first understand where these social systems come from, she lays out a process where systems and individuals define each other: people develop their own personal identity from how they interact and relate to other people (i.e., society) and thus make their choices based on the path of least resistance (meaning what choice would cause the least backlash), but these choices then reinforce the system of values in place. Since people can affect their choices, they also can affect the system, which Johnson touts as humans' greatest potential to enact change - by choosing paths of more resistance (for example, standing up against someone who made a racist or sexist joke instead of ignoring it) as their choices, the paths of least resistance change (sexist jokes shift from being the norm to being strange and unaccepted) and thus the systems will change.

ES 4-5

What strikes me the most after reading chapters 4-5 is the impossible balancing act that women are forced to perform their whole lives. Before this class, I have almost been blind to all of the minute efforts that I make in order to fit in or be thought of in a certain way by my peers. In chapter 4, Douglas states that "Martians (a.k.a men) value power, competency, efficiency, and achievement [and are] concerned with outdoor activities [and less concerned with] people and feelings", while "Venusians (a.k.a women) value "love, communication, beauty and relationships [and] to share their personal feelings is much more important than achieving goals and success". I believe that all of these things describe me, but I would prefer to identify with the "Venusians" because I would like to appear more feminine. While reading these chapters, I realized that the reason I didn't get made fun of for being a lacrosse goalie in high school was because I was also a cheerleader. On page 103, Douglas says that "women could be legal equally but they had better be visually feminine." I can relate to this because while fighting against the objectification of women internally, I have always put on an appearance of femininity and of what I am expected to look and act like as a lady.

Follow-Up: Responding to Aridelle's Post 9/16/2010

When I read how Douglas argued that even though women's voices are being heard in TV and books now, their voices only talk about what stereotypical women talk about - boys, shopping, love, their problems with their bodies and looks and skills - I immediately recognized this phenomenon in one of my favorite books. I loved The Princess Diaries series, but after I read Douglas, I was wondering whether or not this nostalgic book for me was feminist, antifeminist, or both, like Ally McBeal was. For example, the first page of the first book starts with Mia ranting about how her mom is ruining her life but not telling her mom about how she feels, which makes her sound whiny and incapable of confronting her problems; in fact, her best friend Lilly comments:

"If you're that upset about it, just tell your mom,"
Lilly says. "Tell her you don't want her going out with
him. I don't understand you, Mia. You're always going
around, lying about how you feel. Why don't you just
assert yourself for a change? Your feelings have worth, you
know."

Then, she goes on to thinking dreamily about Josh Richter, a popular senior she has a crush on, who turns out to be a completely horrible guy. Then, her To-Do List includes "Stop thinking so much about Josh Richter, Be more assertive, and Measure chest." Mia's diary, which is her own thoughts about the world and her life, is just like the female voice-over introduced in Clueless that Douglas talks about; Mia is speaking directly to her diary (and thus the reader) about how she feels without any censors - she is writing about how she herself feels and it is directly transmitted to us instead of us getting a picture of her through how other characters see her. Instead of seeing a girl who is proud of her ideas and herself, we see that she is obsessed with getting male attention and fixing her physical and personality flaws - which are the issues that society had stereotypically asserted were most important to women before this window into the female mind emerged. I think that Mia Thermopolis is very similar to Ally McBeal - women who are one moment are strong and confident and incompetent and insecure the next. She is a princess that can enact great change with her political power but also struggles with "the demands of femininity" - looking pretty enough to gain boys' attention. I recognized myself in these women - I try to be strong and I am ambitious in the professional sphere (I hold a job on campus, babysit, work as a camp counselor, tutor, and edit for a company), but I do love shopping and feeling pretty and I do worry if guys find me attractive. So where do I fit in on the feminist spectrum?

Chapters 4 and 5 in ES

After reading chapters 4 and 5 in the Enlightened Sexism book by Susan Douglas, one can see the differences in the portrayal of white and black women in the media through various characters in TV shows and movies; and the extent to which they portray feminism. There is a predominant image of the professional white women in most of the examples given by the author and how they have a difficulty combining brains and beauty while balancing a love life life as well. For example in the Ally McBeal series she gave off this image as a strong outspoken woman through her scenes in the courtroom as a lawyer, but her personal life was a mess shown through her insecurities. She had a conflicting image between empowerment and self-abnegation which is why some embraced it and others hated it (p. 108). Her personal life was dominated by sexual desires and insecurities. There was an example given where Ally fought with a judge for her right to wear a miniskirt in the courtroom which was a slap in the face for most professional women who actually fight for something that would empower women. An author of an article called “It’s All about Me” hated Ally’s character. She felt that through these type of representations of women, that enlightened sexism had taken over feminism (p. 113). Women today are taking control of their sexuality, but at the same time they are losing sight of the main goal which is to increase respect for women and not be viewed as this sexual image which they have resorted to for self-empowerment. Douglas goes on to give other examples of white women such as Elle from legally blond who through her hyper-femininity was seen as a joke by men. And on the other hand there was Sandra Bullock’s character in Ms. congeniality to show how women who acted like men were not taken seriously either, thus she had to increase her femininity and look “pretty” in order to become a leading figure and make her voice heard by both genders. Here we encounter the double standard once more on how women have an extra challenge on having to combine and balance all the qualities such as looks, smarts, and a successful personal life (having a boyfriend/husband and such).

In Chapter 5 we see the way that the African-American women are portrayed in most TV shows as the loud outspoken woman who is able to call men out on their “bullshit.” While African- American women bring up the feminist movement through images like these, they are also jeered at by men as well. In characters like Big momma and Madea, their “power is way scary, ridiculous, and played for laughs- by men..... She’s (seen as) a baffoon, a joke, and a warning about black women-especially older women-having power” (p. 152-153). This is one way in which men downplay and underestimate the strength of women like these by poking fun at them and even making matters worse by having male actors play these roles. On the other hand there are positive representations of women in the African American community who are known for their strong feminist acts such as Oprah and Queen Latifah who fight for the empowerment of all women and strive to erase this image of the over-sexualized black woman that we see in rap videos such as in the Nelly video in which a credit card was swiped through a woman’s butt. Both of these women are successful role models who have been able to boost their professional careers through their feminist beliefs and actions to raise up all women.

In these two chapters we see the difference between race. As the author says, some white women hardly have these outspoken roles that African American have in which they say it like it is, except for characters like Roseanne and Murphy Brown. It is interesting to see the way the differences that white and black women in the media struggle to achieve self-respect for men and empowerment for women through the evasion of a direct feminist lens. Although black women are seen as more bold in bringing up the feminist banner in the media through their roles in movies and shows, we still see the complications in real life that they have in being able to surpass color, class, and professional (glass ceiling) barriers.No matter what race, women continue to be downplayed in the media and in real life regardless of their status and professional image.

Follow Up: Responding to Hanna's Post 9/14/2010

As much fun as I had reading Douglas's book since she is both sarcastically funny and very intelligent in making her arguments, a lot of what she brought up resonated heavily with me personally. First off, the parts about Tailhook and Anita Hill especially made my blood boil because I know women - my friends - who have been raped or sexually assaulted; they are not delusional or at fault or just making it up. It has had an extremely strong impact on their lives - it has led them to depression, low self-esteem, fear, and bad relationships with men - and it kills me to think that men could (and still can) dismiss something so horrible or blame it on the female victims when it is a crime that is mostly committed by men. Sexual violence is not an issue that can just be swept under the rug because God forbid it messes up people's delusion of a perfect, butterflies-and-flowers world. The fact that men are willing to ignore it further escalates the problem because they are refusing to change the environment that makes sexual violence so easy.

The other phenomenon that Douglas talked about that captured my attention was how the media loved to portray hot girls that took down five big burly guys with sick karate moves, but also how this female power became a threat that had to be tamed by counterbalancing these strong women with dumb, big-breasted bimbos that only thought about boys and shopping. I've always admired those girls that just kicked butt in brains and brawn, both on TV (big fan of Hermione Granger with her magical skills, Detective Benson on SVU, Ziva and Abby on NCIS, and Penelope Garcia on Criminal Minds) and in books (too many for me to recall here). I look up to these women as role models to remind me: look what you can do, you are just as strong as these women, and you can do whatever you want. However, when I look at my own life, being strong like these women hasn't scored me any points in the dating world. I am intelligent and am not afraid to show it and speak up whether in class or not, but I do believe that being an independent women who can think for herself has hindered my love life. Guys always say that they want a woman who is intelligent, but a small part of me wonders if they wouldn't like a hot, dumb girl that they could manipulate easily much better - they would never have to worry about a stupid girl challenging their ideas because she is too busy catching up on Jersey Shore. In my experience in high school, people disliked me for being smart and voicing my opinions; that has continued somewhat here. I remember freshman year my then-boyfriend told me that some people (men and women) thought I was a snob and know-it-all for speaking up in class so much. I've had to toe the line between stereotypical girl and manly freak my entire life (I've leaned more towards the manly freak side), both admiring these strong women I saw in the media as well as wishing I could be beautiful and rich and have date after date after date like the stereotypical shopping-obsessed girls on The Hills or Gossip Girl. I wonder if I dumbed myself down, spoke up less, wore makeup everyday, if guys would pay more attention to me instead of always passing me by for the prettier girl.

In chapters 1-3 of Enlightened Sexism, Susan Douglas begins by describing the events of the early 1990's. In this time period, there was a rise of "girl power" and a "time of considerable feminist ferment among women and girls". In addition, women began to feel defensive and angry in response to the dismissal of Anita Hill's accusations by an all-white all-men Judiciary Committee, who said that she was delusional in saying that an Oklahoma law professor acted sexually inappropriate towards her. There was also a huge response to the Tailhook Scandal, where the Naby covered up the fact that "naval aviators formed a gauntlet on the third floor of the Hilton and trapped women in it, pawing and molesting them, stripping off their clothes". In 1992, Douglas describes that women emerged as a political force, known as "The Year of the Woman" by the press. Political changes gave women more social power, along with the change brought by the election of Bill Clinton as President. Social issues such as sexual harrassment, date rape, and domestic violence began to get more attention throughout the nation. The emergence and popularity of 90210 showed that teenagers were important and that their problems were serious. This helped it to serve as the "early building blocks of enlightened sexism" and propelled this movement through new TV shows focused on teenagers, chick flicks and chick lit, boy bands, and teen magazines.

In Chapter two, Douglas writes of displays of female aggression in the early 1990's. Different and surprising images of women emerged in the media, such as Janet Reno, a "six-foot-one-inch Florida crime fighter who... supposedly wrestled alligators in her spare time" and the Virginia woman who cut off her husband's penis with a 12-inch filet knife while he was sleeping. These images, along with other controversial events in the media regarding women and their actions, made the public question what feminism was truly turning into, and what type of power women were trying to seize. The wild actions of certain females and the commanding and "bad-ass" appearance that they were starting to claim in movies was somehow viewed as a threat to male dominance. Female sexuality and female power started to contradict one another, and women became afraid that if feminism was taken too far that it would turn them into monsters or "ridiculous, unlovable freaks". Women were forced to toe a very fine line between a consumerist, stereotypical girl, and a psycho, manly freak.

In "Warrior Women in Thongs", Douglas illustrates the combination of badass chick with beautiful supermodel. She uses examples such as "Xena: Warrior Princess", "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", and "Charlie's Angels" to show the popular image that many girls tried to work towards as a result of these shows' popularity and influence on the perception of feminism in the media. These shows turned the tables on female victimization, targeting the men who preyed on women and children. These warriors were champions, who were both transgressive and conformist. A sense of equality was perpetuated through these shows, portraying how women ad girls could be as strong as men. All in all, these three chapters of enlightened sexism shows the transgression of female attitudes and expectations of how they should act and conform to society and how it has passed through the generations and across the nation.

Follow Up: Responding to Aridelle's Post

The article that impacted me the most from these readings was the one written by Sojourner Truth. In "Ain't I A Woman", she uses a very approachable tone that I can relate to. She is relaxed with her audience, and realistic in her way of communicating. This text spoke to me a lot more than "The Declaration of Sentiments" because her powerful yet friendly voice was so easy to understand and support. I gathered that Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott were trying to imitate the Declaration of Independence in a formal and intelligent sounding tone, but I thought this way of addressing women's issues might make it hard for lower class women to identify with. Truth illustrates a main concept that exists in all of the readings when she says, "Look at me!" This exclamation portrays the invisibility that women have felt over a long period of time, and shows how even if women do the same amount of work, in most cases they don't get the same amount of recognition. I find it interesting that at Colgate, there is no fee of admission for women's sports, while there is usually a fee to be a spectator at men's sports. Even though women work just as hard to improve their game and reach a highly competitive level, they do not get the same recognition that men do for their efforts.

Follow Up: Responding to Aridelle's Post

Although all the articles we read were very interesting and definitely made me angry that women were so disenfranchised so recently, the Seneca Falls Declaration, which concisely stated all of men's crimes against women, hit home just today in my history class. Coincidentally (or again maybe not), there was a passage in a handout from my War and Violence in East Asia class that had to do with women's role in the early Han Dynasty (and in the rest of the dynasties thereafter). For background, women in China were definitely second-class citizens to men - they were seen as a burden because their parents would have to marry their daughters off by providing an expensive dowry, emperors had hundreds or even thousands of concubines in their royal harems, and many royal women were forced into political marriages to form alliances between the Chinese and other peoples. The passage from Lessons for Women, written by a renowned female adviser Ban Zhao, is a perfect example of the male-female power relations Mott and Stanton were campaigning against: "In ancient times, people put a baby girl on the ground on the third day after her birth...to lay the baby on the ground signifies that she is inferior and weak, and that she should humble herself before others...to be modest, yielding, and respectful; to put others first, and herself last; not to mention it when she does a good deed; not to deny it when she commits a wrong; to bear disgrace and humiliation; and always to have a feeling of fear - there may be said to be the ways she humbles herself before others...[W]eakness is women's good quality. Thus in self-cultivation, nothing equals respect for others; in avoiding confrontation with strength, nothing equals compliance. Therefore it is said that the way of respect and compliance is woman's great li [proper rule of conduct]." Zhao, even though she was well-educated, upheld men's convictions to exclude women from the realm of politics, prohibit them from getting jobs, and paint them as inferior, immoral beings that need constant guidance. In some classic girl-on-girl crime, Zhao also "created a false public sentiment by giving to the world a different code of moral for men and women (Mott and Stanton)" by delineating what women should be like - humble, aware of their inferiority, capable of accepting their inferiority gracefully, quiet, moral, obedient to and respectful of men, and able to accept criticism. Men have always decided what are "good" qualities and "bad" qualities in women, thereby establishing control over them - and these qualities were corroborated by the few women who had some power, namely empresses, artists, and historians. Since men, especially back in ancient China, wanted power to stay between them (and not be influenced by their wives, mistresses, and their families), they drummed a message of objectification and obedience into Chinese women to keep them down. I was struck by the similarity between Ban Zhao's message (who lived in from 45-116 AD) and the message Stanton and Mott were fighting in 1848 - not much had changed at all.

Race and Female Perspective

The article by DuBois talks about two major waves of feminism. The first major major wave occurred during the abolitionist movement in which women fought with the same passion as men to set the slaves free, but instead they were put to do the backstage work such as collecting signatures for the petition. Women were reprimanded if they stepped outside of the “women sphere” by trying to become outspoken leaders in the movement. This mold changed when two ex-slave holders, the Grimke Sisters, stepped up to the plate and became a strong force in speaking out in the movement as they were supported by some male abolitionists as well. The Grimke sisters brought in a hint of feminism at this point by breaking the norms in society for the woman’s role. Then came the second wave of feminism through an official movement that was directed towards the actual questioning and fight for change of the role of women which was put into action shortly after the Grimke sister in 1840. There were two major abolitionists figures named Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton who were delegates in the movement, but were shunned by the continuance of male superiority when asked to leave the official delegate conference room in London. Women continued to be receive much negative results even after they put all their effort and focused on their patriotic duty to their country and yet they were not rewarded kindly. Instead they were excluded by the 14th Amendment which said that all male citizens were created equally, thus women were not even considered citizens and did not even have the right to vote. After this women took matters into their own hands and no longer trusted the men to help them in gaining their rights, because the country continued to be led by male egotism. Stanton and Mott were the first women who made their voices heard and wrote the Declaration of Sentiments which stated all the wrongdoings that men have done against women since the beginning of time. The main goal of this declaration was to send the message that all human beings should be treated equally and with the same respect, thus women have the right to be citizens as well.

Soujourner Truth gives another perspective on the obstacles that African-American women were suffering at the time. Truth writes about he differences of how white women were respected by men and how African American women were invisible and hardly acknowledged by society. At least women in the north were making strides to prove their existence (citizenship) in the country, but it was nearly impossible for black women to be heard and fight for their rights as well. It is unbelievable to see how far this country has come in breaking down walls and barriers for women. We now have a beautiful African American women as our first lady which defies all norms and stereotypes of all the previous first lady’s and women in power.

Aridelle's Response to Rachel's Main Post 9/7/2010

Feminism has opened the doors for women to become intellectually empowered by encouraging them to raise their voices and expand their career options. This movement has also helped women to become sexually empowered and take control of their sexuality and desires although running the risk of being negatively viewed by society due to the double standard that continue to prevail in today. Yet now I find that saying the words vagina or sex are no longer taboo. Women are more open about talking about their sexual experiences and intimacy as seen in magazines like Cosmo. My roommate and I were reading a Cosmo magazine a couple days ago, yet we found the patriarchal thought ingrained in society in many of the articles we were reading. For example most of the articles were about how to please your man and what to do to turn him on. After thinking about this, I wondered if men also have a magazine that informs them on how to please their female partner. I have yet to see a magazine that informs men how to please, instead it is all about the male pleasure because they have magazines in which women are half naked and just further stimulates their sexuality. Thus, the feminist movement cannot die off because there is so much more that is left to fight for.

Follow Up: Responding to Rachel's Post

These three articles provided some compelling arguments for various feminist views that are both contemporary and outdated. In "The Future That Never Happened", Ariel Levy's discussion of the concept of marriage, the progressional goals of Brownmiller, the schism formed between women's liberation and sexual revolution, and the different views on pornography showed me that there were alternate perspectives that still had reasonable arguments in modern society than what I have been taught and am used to. This article differed from "The Re-emergence of the Woman Question" because the second mentioned reading was very factual, as opposed to Levy's, which was both factual and personal because she divulged her own thoughts and experiences.

I thought it was interesting that in 1976, "feminists viewed marriage as an arrangement that usually corralled women back toward the subservient lives their mothers had lived," as marriage is a choice made by women for the most part, not something that they are forced into. One thing that I really noticed in these readings was that women were trying to break free of the typical stereotypes that they have grown up with or are expected to grow into. In Levy's article, she mentions Mother Courage, a place where women can bond together and work through what they believe are negative influences in society. I think one major factor that is pushing this collaboration is the sexist attitude that is instilled in us from birth. Here is a link to a book that we read in psychology last year that i thought depicts the sexist views present in America:

Children's Book- http://michiedo.blogspot.com/2008/12/im-glad-im-boy-im-glad-im-girl.html

I've seen examples of these sexist teachings actually being acted upon at Colgate. In the children's book, one page reads "Boys fix things. Girls need them fixed." I have noticed that whenever my roommate and I need help setting something up in our room, we ask the lacrosse boys upstairs to help us. For example, we couldn't figure out how to turn the TV on, so we had the boys come down to help us connect it. Instead of using determination to figure out what is needed to be done on our own, we lay back on the sexist framework that society has provided for us and perpetuate the notion that women are helpless.

Even in my first week, I have seen more acts of judging people based merely on sex. In Frank Dining Hall, there is a back room with a TV that is always playing ESPN. This area is referred to as the "man cave". This terminology makes me cautious to sit in there, as I feel that it is just an area for guys and that I might not be welcome.

Another example of how sex and the female demeanor is depicted in our society is represented in the TV series "The Girls Next Door". I thought that the clip below would be relevant to our readings because of Levy's constant references to Hugh Hefner, and how he was viewed as "the hero" of the sexual revolution and as the preserver of the double standard between men and women. In this specific clip, Kendra is having a baby shower with the other Playboy Bunnies and their friends. The girls in this specific episode were acting very unintelligent, especially in the comments they made. After chugging baby bottles for a baby shower game, the twins said, "I don't know how babies do that. Like you have to suck hard," followed by ditzy laughing. Some would view this behavior as demeaning to women and backwards in the movements that we are trying to make in order to progress our gender in society. This behavior could either be viewed as liberating for women, or conforming to this predetermined way of acting.

Girls Next Door- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOLH79cwLBs

Double Standards - Main Post for 9/7/2010

Levy makes two main arguments in her article about the furthering diverging of the feminist movement and sexual liberation - that the feminist movement is stereotyped as antisexual and thus outdated and that the progressive sexual liberation that started in the 1960s and 1970s has turned against women and feminism. She says that the two movements used to be united since women were calling for both sexual freedom and openness and political, social, and economic equality. Since the 1950s put a remarkably strong taboo on discussing sex and especially sexual pleasure for women, feminism initially incorporated sexual freedom because it was the break-out movement for women in all aspects - there was no inherent conflict between sex and recognition of women's intelligence. For example, she talks about how Anne Koedt declared that sex needs to be redefined to include women's wants and desires and how questionnaires revealed that the thought that "missionary position intercourse constituted universally satisfying sex (55)" was a myth. As this revelation (which I feel surprised only the men in society) was "a major blow to the male ego, not to mention the male penis (55)," feminism and sexual liberation had struck down stereotypes in the bedroom - that all men knew how to please their partner, that all women were pleased by their partner, and that men knew more about and thus were the authority on sexual matters.

However, this partnership that allowed women to become more open and vocal about their sexuality and sexual desires deteriorated when men jumped on the sexual liberation bandwagon. Once men started becoming more open about their sexuality and it was no longer unacceptable for them to "appreciate" women (though I'm sure that men clandestinely appreciated women beforehand), sexual liberation became all about men and women were demoted back into objects to be leered at and coveted. Once men were allowed to let their sexuality to run wild and not have to worry about being judged for it, they did not want their women to be free-thinking, "mysterious," or "difficult (58)" because those types of women refused to let themselves to be objectified and submit themselves to their partners both sexually and socially. Feminists were fighting "to be seen as real people, not sudsy bunnies. They wanted to show the world that women were 'difficult' and 'sophisticated,' not to mention formidable (58)." Intelligent women no longer fit into sexual liberation's agenda because sexual liberation was claimed by men who did not their authority to be challenged, who wanted their female partners to be faithful ornaments - something that intelligent, difficult women were not about to comply with. If a man sleep around, he is "the man," but if a woman does the same, she is filthy, dirty, ruined, a slut, and a whore - the ubiquitous double standard that all women and men know - came about from men claiming this sexual liberation movement. They wanted to be able to express their stereotypical voracious sexual appetites, but wanted to prevent women from doing the same thing; they wanted to control, but not be controlled in return. Therefore, men besmirched women's sexual freedom and intelligence as something that is bad in society because it is bad for them; if women are knowledgeable about their sexuality and can make independent decisions for themselves, that is a scary combination. Therefore, female intelligence and sexual liberation are at odds with each other, which explains why the feminist movement is now labeled antisexual. Feminism calls for the equality of women, including intellectual equality. Feminism also calls for women to stand up for themselves, to make their own decisions, to speak out on all fronts, including sexuality. Since sexual liberation is now a privilege only for men (although some would make the argument that women are more sexually liberated, they pay for it with the price of their reputation whereas men increase theirs by having more sexual exploits), feminism is calling out for the union of both female independence and sexuality, a combination that the now male-dominated sexual liberation movement is determined to prevent. To prevent this union from happening, they label feminism as antisexual because men decreed that women cannot both be intelligent and outspoken as well as sexual.    

Follow Up: Responding to Hanna's Post

What I found so striking about these two readings was how relevant they were to my life and how I didn't really realize it; I would been reading a particular passage and suddenly think how that passage describes my behavior or thought process exactly. When Rich was talking about the sciences being sexist, I suddenly remembered scientific readings I had to do that only used the word "man" to refer to humanity - when I read them, I noticed how the authors had chosen to use the word "man," but I had always dismissed it saying that it was just how they wrote back then. It never really hit me that these authors, whether intentionally or not, had cut out one half of the human population because they didn't think women were important enough to warrant using terms person, people, human, or humanity. Coincidentally (or maybe not), the article I have to read by Friday for my War and Violence in East Asia class begins "[t]his book is about violence. Not the deviant, frightening violence or the newspapers but those modes of inflicting harm or taking life which men accept, approve, and even prescribe ("Sanctioned Violence in Early China," Lewis 1)." I know for a fact that women warriors existed in early China - Mulan and Mu Guiying come to mind (http://www.stutzfamily.com/mrstutz/china/mulan.html   and   http://www.womenofchina.cn/Profiles/Women_in_History/12996.jsp). Did the author think they weren't important? Did he think the story of Mulan, which is well-known throughout the world, didn't even deserve inclusion? As a molecular biology major and Asian studies minor, I've come to see how sexism is still there in both my disciplines even though I was always told I could be anything I wanted if I worked hard enough and that women were breaking though in the sciences and I could too.

Claiming an Education & Fantasies of Power 9/2/10

In "Claiming an Education", Adrienne Rich addresses her main arguments through a persuasive, forceful tone. She is most concerned with unequal treatment of women in comparison to men in academics and daily life, the lack of courage that women possess in relation to being different, the dearth of responsibility that women take for themselves, and the mutual seriousness that people do not share in regards to women and what they believe in and represent. On the first page of this passage, Rich says "The first thing I want to say to you who are students, is that you cannot afford to think of being here to receive an education: you will do much better to think of being here to claim one." She believes that women must be proactive with a loud voice and that they can't wait for opportunities to come to them. I completely agree with this point of view because nobody should live their life afraid to speak up. I also think it's interesting that women are excluded in the academic environment. I didn't think this was a very prominent situation on most college campuses, but I have come to see that in just my four classes, three out of four professors are men. Rich refers to career access in her reading, which is a topic that we discussed in class. It is not fair to judge someone's abilities based or influenced by their gender or race.

In contrast to Rich's piece on how women should be treated and on how they should manage their lives, Susan Douglas investigates the influence that the media has on women and their development and outlook on the world. Douglas argues that the viewer and the observer of these women who represent certain lifestyles that may seem crude or incorrect actually holds more power. They are the ones who are able to gather information from this experience and do with it what they want. Last class, we discussed how perception is very important when discussing feminism. The way one interprets the world will determine their actions and reactions towards society around them.