Media Project: Hanna Longwell

Media Project: TransWorld Motocross

The media today is jam-packed with subliminal images that suggest certain values and concepts to the unsuspecting population. In “Transworld Motocross”, a magazine that revolves around motorcycles and everything to do with them, there are constant images of women in bikinis that aren’t big enough to cover up a five-year-old displayed alongside the products that the magazine is trying to sell. For my media project, I am going to analyze how women’s bodies are portrayed as equal to objects, and what effects this may have on the readers’ views of women in society.

The cover of this month’s best-selling MX Magazine in the world consists of a scantily clad, tan blonde woman with large breasts and a tiny stomach posing next to a bike. Why not have a covered up, conservative, and empowering woman, who doesn’t suggest that the only way to be attractive for men is to turn yourself into an object with no self-respect?

There is a tight linkage between gender performance and gender roles in society. This magazine enforces the perspective that there are only males and females, and goes against the continuum of discrete categories, where there is more than just these two genders. “Transworld Motocross ” assumes that men are interested in the products they are selling, and use women as a means to advance their profit by luring men in to their products.

On pages 32-33 of the magazine, there is this advertisement for Unit Riders, titled The Age of Panic:

Unit Riders is an Australian brand that sells printed T’s, jeans, and tech board shorts. This edgy image depicts a girl standing in front of a row of carcasses in a bikini, wearing a mask over her mouth and nose. It illustrates oppression, which is the immobilization of human beings due to their identity. She is expected to be silent about her oppression, and not speak out. This image also portrays the girl as an object, just like the dead animals that she is surrounded with. It could also be interpreted as her claiming her sexuality and gaining power by using her sexual appeal. Susan Douglas would probably view this girl as an “active sexual agent” (Douglas 156) who is taking control of her sexuality. She would fit the mold of a sexpert because she is white, young, slim, busty, and beautiful. Douglas would also interpret this image as a representation of the phenomenon that the “media started saying that it’s through sex and sexual display that women really have the power to get what they want” (Douglas 156). The busty blond posing on the cover and the brunette with the mask are both in a way empowering themselves by putting their sexuality out there before anyone else is able to criticize them for it. Douglas would see this as a form of a sexual performance, as she discusses in “Sex R Us”, and also would have a problem with the fact that women are becoming sexual objects in order to gain power.

It is pretty apparent through the way that women are represented in this magazine as opposed to the way that men are (Beauty and the Best Article, 58) that there is a prominent representation of the two sex systems. The Beauty in this article is Erin Normoyle (Ms. Motocross), while the Best is Ryan Villopoto. They are “pitting the brainpower of their current poster model against that of a top rider or racer.” This concept is interesting because the magazine is adding another dimension to the poster girl, yet is also insulting because the questions they ask consist of: “What is a Brazilian?” or “Name four energy drinks.” When Erin Normoyle is asked “What is the bottom number in a fraction called”, she replies “(laughs) You can’t ask me medical questions. I am terrible with that stuff.” This ridiculously embarrassing answer furthers the concept that “The Beauty” is just that; an object. By acting in a manner that suggests that she is just a dumb blonde, she is perpetuating the concept of enlightened sexism, which is the illusion that there are lots of powerful women in the world and that we are post-feminism/sexism. The model is comfortable assuming the stereotypical role of a female from a sexist view, possibly because she doesn’t believe in sexism and is able to assume a powerful sexual identity without thinking this discrimination will still exist. Even though this would be ideal, Douglas suggests that the sexist views that we joke about and take on because we assume that they are outdated still seep into our minds and play a role in how we view ourselves and other women. Next time you pick up a magazine, consider the implications that the subliminal messages the media is forcing upon you will have on your concepts of the world and your relations of other people. Ask yourself what there is to gain from the objectification of women, and if you want to partake in this popular practice.

Works Cited

Douglas, Susan J. Enlightened Sexism. New York: Times Books, 2010. Print.

Female Portrayal in the "Get Low" video by Lil Jon

Video link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYH7_GzP4Tg

The Hip Hop/Rap genre is one that causes much controversy especially in the African American community due to its explicit lyrics and objectification of women. Many say that Hip-Hop is dead because the lyrics no longer send a message nor have that artistic element like they used to, for example Biggie Smalls and Tupac would talk about their real life experiences in which people could connect to because some could relate to the experiences. Also there was a sense of symbolic slam poetry through the lyrics of rappers like these who are considered the founders of the hip hop/rap genre and putting this genre on the popular charts in the media. We also have the example of Run DMC who broke music barriers through their music by expanding beyond the rap genre such as in their song Rock Box where they blend both rap and rock. Unfortunately the artistic element of rap is continuously fading as sexual lyrics that degrade women are praised and made more popular in society. Hip Hop has completely changed from what it used to be and can now be considered sexist since most of the songs are geared towards objectifying and degrading women. I do not think I have ever heard a song in any genre that talks about men, the way that most rap songs do towards women. One of the most popular songs that I bet almost everyone knows the lyrics to regardless of race which was a major hit in 2003 was the “Get Low” song by Lil Jon and the East Side Boyz featuring the Ying Yang Twins. This song is probably a classic of my generation and it is astonishing to see how even in 2010 men as well as women know all the words and jam to this song that has the most gross, explicit lyrics. In the Hip Hop culture, women of color are over-sexualized, thus how does this translate to the way African American women are viewed today?
I knew the main chorus to the “Get Low” song, but I didn’t know the rest of the words and had not seen the video until I looked it up for this project and began to analyze both the video and the full lyrics of the song. The video starts off with a scene of the artists taking over a strip club, and right after jumps back in time to when they went to the barber shop in preparation for a fun night at the club. It is interesting to see within the first 17 seconds of the video how the camera zooms into the black power fist figure at the barbershop which is an important figure in the Black Pride Movement which was an extension of the Civil Rights Movement and expresses black solidarity and strength. This black fist symbol came about through this black pride movement that occurred in the 50‘s and 60‘s which emphasized the birth of black political and cultural institutions (http://law.jrank.org/pages/4776/Black-Power-Movement.html). It is interesting to see the importance of this symbol as it was zoomed into in the very beginning of the video, but the imagery in this video completely contradicts the symbolism of this fist figure and in a way retrogrades the advancements that the black community has made towards promoting a positive image and increasing their status/respect in society. This is mainly due to it’s portrayal of women.
I must admit that before I even watched the video I was expecting to see girls that were half naked because the song is completely geared with sexual language. This video was interesting to analyze because it allowed for many stereotypes of women to come into play and Enlightened Sexism comes to full view. Enlightened Sexism gives the illusion that women can be powerful while owning their own sexuality. The image of the business woman dancing on the striper pole is a perfect example of this type of enlightened sexism because the business women is seen as both sexy as an image of power through her professional status. Women were given credit to be as strong as they wanted “as long as they were poreless, stacked, and size 2” (Douglas, 99) which further imposed the patriarchal standards on women to look beautiful in order to obtain recognition in this male dominated society and make her voice known. So as we can see in the video that this business woman is well-groomed and probably one of the thinnest girls in the film which emphasizes how being physically fit is important to be taken seriously in the professional realm. Also another issue that black professional women face is that not only do they have to be fit, attractive, and intelligent, but they also must act white which is called code-switching (Douglas, 128-129). Black women’s natural hair is not considered professional, so they have to put chemicals in their hair to straighten it and change the way they speak to that of the dominant white culture.
Another powerful female figure that came out in the video were the women dressed up as cops who came in to protect the dancers by spraying the men with water guns as the East Side Boyz sang the lyrics “Damn Skeet Skeet (2x)” which I interpreted as these woman having the same power as men because they were able to perform a similar action as men known as “skeeting.” I looked up the term “skeet” in the urban dictionary and it got this definition: “ a phrase commonly used when a person (male) is about to unload jism onto his partner.” Therefore, as women cops are usually masculinized because of their uniform and also because the profession is typically seen as a male profession, these women cops were spraying down the men with water guns as a symbol of dominance just as men “skeet” on women as a sexual act of dominance. There was also a third strong female figure in the video which were the two female boxers competing in a shallow pool of water. Instead of looking feminine, these women looked highly masculine. Going back to the chapter “Warrior Women in Thongs” in the Enlightened Sexism book, we see how these masculinized figures are meant to challenge patriarchy and be seen as female role models of strength, but in the end they fall prey to the fires of patriarchy because obviously the prettier and thinner boxer was able to knock down the less attractive and huskier female boxer. This goes to accentuate how the strength factor is acknowledged, but regardless the factor of beauty comes into play because as I said before women have more value in the patriarchal realm when they are both beautiful and strong in character. The rest of the women were the sporty locker room girls, random girls at the club, and the barber shop girls who made the video a bit more sexual with their dance style by shaking their boots throughout most of the video. Yet it is important to notice that they were all pretty much clothed and did not wear anything too “slutty,” except for their provocative booty bouncing dance moves which put a huge emphasis on their butts which women of color are known for having large ones.
When watching the “Get Low” video, I found it odd that there were so many female masculinized figures portrayed such as the business woman, the cops and the boxers. I had never seen this video until I looked it up for class and at first I was expecting see half-naked women dancing in their bikinis due to the ultra-sexual lyrics, but that was not the case at all. Instead the sexual images were more subtle and portrayed enlightened sexism very well because as seen by these female figures mentioned, all the women were powerful (whether it be professionally or physically) and were able to own their sexuality as well without having to show much skin.

Rachel Godbout Midterm Culture Project - PCD

I Don’t Need a Man (But Drooling Over Me Works, Too): PCD and Illusions of Feminine Power

The Pussycat Dolls, or PCD or the Dolls as they are known to fans, can be considered somewhat of a staple in every teenager girl and young woman’s music playlist. Their songs range from sensual to dance-worthy to naughty to seemingly powerful; their lyrics talk about how men objectify women, how they want to break out of a bad or stale relationship, how they want to feel attractive, and how being in love can be the hardest or best feeling in the world. Since they sing about issues that feature in the lives of many young women today and they are successful singers and dancers, many girls look to their songs as anthems of female confidence. Many of their songs play to what Susan Douglas calls “girl power” – a spiced up, modern version of feminism in which they proclaim that they embody and try to spread the message that women do have control over their own bodies and minds in modern society (Douglas 1-2).
As Douglas would assert, they are not purporting what real feminism is like or is supposed to be fighting for. The Pussycat Dolls veer off into enlightened sexism, which “insists that women have made plenty of progress because of feminism – indeed, full equality has allegedly been achieved – so now it’s okay, even amusing, to resurrect sexist stereotypes of girls and women (Douglas 9).” In line with enlightened sexism, the Pussycat Dolls only offer an illusion of power to all the women that listen to their music and watch their videos (Douglas 9-11). One of their videos in particular, entitled “I Don’t Need a Man” with lyrics that just ooze feminine social and sexual independence, clearly demonstrates that the PCD do not espouse feminism, but rather enlightened sexism. The dichotomy of messages that their lyrics and their video send cleverly reveal the enlightened sexism they purport despite their claim to the contrary; also their conformity to the “traditional feminine realm,” a group of actions, interests, and roles that women are not supposed to deviate from, exposes their hypocrisy. The girls’ group name, their bodies and clothes, choreography, and actions in this music video support the illusion of feminine power that Douglas argues is present in modern times.
Although their name is not specific to this video, the Pussycat Dolls’ name brings up many different connotations, which already undermines their claim to be supporting women’s equality and freedom. First, the word “pussy,” while used as a synonym for cat, also is used to denote a woman’s vagina (Urban Dictionary); since “pussy” has become a derogatory slang for female genitalia, it has been used to demean women into sexual objects that are only good for the sexual pleasure men derive from having sex with this “pussy (Urban Dictionary).” Secondly “dolls” bring up two particular frightening sexist ideas of perfection and silence. Dolls are considered to be perfect, something that society tells women that they need to be even though it is impossible to achieve this ideal (Douglas 215); by making women believe that they need to be like dolls, women will feel even more pressure to fit into society’s narrow definition of what women should be (Douglas 215-217). Also, dolls are silent because they obviously have no life force; since they cannot speak or act or do anything on their own, they are completely at the mercy of their owner. Comparing women to dolls not only objectifies them, but also gives the impression that women should be like dolls – silent and controlled by their owners, namely men. These two words already sabotage their message through these subtle implications that women should be viewed in terms of sexual, silent objects.
In this music video, the Dolls draw frequent attention to their thin, toned, seemingly “beautiful” bodies, which do not show any variety or acceptance of other body types or shapes. All of these girls are tall and thin, which complies with society’s standard of beauty which is “the body of a lanky twelve-year-old boy with Pamela Anderson’s breasts attached (Douglas 217).” While they are dancing, one can see that all of their stomachs are flat, their legs are slim yet muscular, their arms are strong yet not too big, their breasts are relatively ample, their hair is vibrantly colored and perfectly tousled, their skin is healthy and their faces are free of acne, and their buttocks are toned. Every one of them fit what society calls beauty, leaving no room for women who do not have these characteristics which is the majority of the female population. Since many women do not have these bodies, society says that they are automatically lower in status than the Dolls and in desperate need of improvement; their self-esteem inevitably takes a hit when they realize that they will never look like the Dolls and they will be never been validated as significant since society demands this list of body requirements (Douglas 215, 221, 228). Because of their status as “beautiful” women, they are popular, rich, and famous, which makes women believe that they have to look like this in order to be well-liked by women and men (Douglas 228). The Pussycat Dolls sets an impossibly high precedent for what women should look like and further cement society’s unfeasible standard of beauty by reaping benefits from being “beautiful.”
The Dolls’ clothes in this music video further show off their beautiful bodies to entice men while singing that they don’t need them, which supports Douglas’ claim that society makes women believe that the real path to power to make oneself a sex object so that all men are reduced to their sniveling slaves (Douglas 156-157). All of the Dolls are wearing revealing clothing – short skirts, midriff shirts, and skin-tight dresses that sometimes reveal their bras – presumably to tease male viewers. Usually wearing such revealing clothes indicates that these Dolls are looking for female admiration and male adoration of their bodies, actively turning themselves into sexy objects whose only value is how “hot” they are (Douglas 156-159, 228). They are establishing a correlation that wearing little clothing and becoming a sex object is key to getting male attention and idolization, which might inspire female viewers to follow suit since society dictates that male acknowledgement is the main validation for women (Douglas 156-158). However, they do not get respect from either men or women for dressing this provocatively because women and men will only associate their value with their body, not their intelligence or personality. Making men into their slaves does not negate the fact that they were willing to show that much skin to do so in either men or women’s eyes, so wearing these clothes actually demeans rather than empowers them.
The Dolls’ choreography is sexually suggestive, which also plays into patriarchy’s emphasis on women’s bodies and women’s sexual worth, continuing their active sexual objectification to obtain power. The Dolls constantly bring attention to their womanly body parts to increase their sexual appeal and zero viewers’ attention on their sexual attractiveness since women are trained to believe that “it’s through sex and sexual display that women really have the power to get what they want. And because the true path to power comes from being an object of desire, girls and women should now actively choose – even celebrate and embrace – being sex objects (Douglas 156).” Nicole, the lead singer, outlines, squeezes, and thrusts up her breasts multiple times in her close-up shots. The other Dolls shimmy, shake and pop out their breasts and butts, thrust and sway their hips, kick and sensually rub their legs together, and flip their hair around – all dance moves that indicate that they know full well how attractive they are and they will exploit it to get their way. Instead of dancing in ways that shows they respect themselves and their bodies, they use their dancing as a way to obtain Douglas’ illusion of power over men by voluntarily becoming male-desired sex objects to entice them.
Finally the Pussycat Dolls engage in traditionally feminine actions with a sensual twist, indicating that they buy into the belief that these actions are and should be what women are primarily concerned with (Douglas 10). In turn, investing in these actions to make themselves appealing to men will ultimately help them attain the important goal of finding a man, whether or not they need one (Douglas 10). Ashley is seen painting her nails, an action almost exclusively associated with females; Carmit and Jessica are blow-drying their hair, something that men hardly ever do; Kimberly is shaving her legs, which is a task only women have to do because men like women with smooth legs. Melody is trying on different clothes, presumably picking out the ones that fit her best, and everyone in society knows that women constantly change clothes which make them late for dates and the like; Melody is also putting on lipstick to make herself look prettier, a common daily regimen all women follow. All of them are sitting in chairs with hairdryers attached, furthering this emphasis on beauty and all the products used to create beauty. “[G]irls and women need to be reminded that they are still fundamentally female, and so must be emphatically feminine (Douglas 10),” meaning that they need and should do all of these actions to assure their femininity is emphasized. By having them do traditionally female primping actions which are associated with looking pretty for men instead of more empowering, gender-bending actions like fixing cars or attending business meetings, their video stresses that doing whatever it takes to ensnare men’s attention is more important than showcasing one’s individual talents which may be in traditionally masculine areas.
The vast split between the Pussycat Dolls girl-power-fueled lyrics of “I Don’t Need a Man” and the enlightened sexist messages of their video supports Douglas’s claim that women only have an illusion of freedom and power. Because women are still judged and objectified based on what society deems beautiful and womanly – namely how attractive their bodies are to men – the Dolls who promote this “sexified” feminism are feeding into this enlightened sexism in their videos no matter how girl-powered their lyrics are. All of the different aspects of themselves and their video such as their clothes (or lack thereof), dancing, and bodies supports society’s standard of thin, tall, flawless beauty, patriarchy’s expectations for women to be drone-like sex objects, and female power through reducing men to lust-crazed animals. The contrast between their stated and indirect messages show that they are not advocating for true feminine power, but have fallen into Douglas’ enlightened sexism through their acceptance of patriarchal grading of female worth and beauty as well as patriarchy’s assignment of proper feminine roles.

Works Cited

Douglas, Susan J. Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message that Feminism’s Work Is Done. New York: Times Books, 2010.
“Pussy.” Urban Dictionary. 29 Oct 2010.

Response to Rachel's Post

The United States can be hypocritical and hardly practice what they preach which is clearly seen through the exploitation of the sneaker companies such as Reebok and Nike on women specifically. These companies celebrate the image of of the “globalized girl-athlete in their advertisements” (68) and promote “the notion of women-as-citizen into those countries where their companies produce products” (68) while at the same exercising the complete opposite when using the oppression of women in other countries to their advantage by continuing to exploit cheap labor. It was interesting how Cynthia Enloe interconnected the industry tactics with the beliefs of culture that helped to enforce the company’s success. Nike and Reebok thrived upon the belief that most Asian women had in regards to “being a good daughter” and dowry practices which made them less likely to revolt. Fortunately many of the women especially in South Korea were able to take themselves seriously as citizens and fight for better working conditions and wages. Although in response to this movement of female empowerment and being able to achieve better wages, led many of the sneaker companies to move their factories else where to other underdeveloped countries in Asia. Women in South Korea were making strides toward an industrialized nation in which their concerns were also taken into account, but as a result many lost their jobs do to their unionizing against the sneaker companies. Still women in most of these countries are the underdog and continue to make up most of the poverty population in countries like China in which the wages for women to men are highly disproportionate. When looking at the chart of page 54, I was completely shocked to see how women were only getting paid $.10-.14 an hour in China at these sneaker factories. Most of us view the moralistic factor of this exploitation, but when it comes to affecting us personally many of us will try our best to avoid knowing the facts on how most of the products that we buy are made because we enjoy the low prices. The United States continues to be a selfish society and most likely very little will be done to change these sneaker companies’ tactics which is disappointing.

Follow-Up: Rachel's Post 10/26/10

In Chapters 3 and 4 of The Curious Feminist, Cynthia Enloe brings attention to the industrial maneuvering of large companies for their own benefit at the expense of foreign women. Enloe addresses the fact that "commercial rivalry [is] replacing military posturing" (Enloe 43) as a result of Reebok's opening in Moscow, and that Asian women are forced to make sneakers in order to deal with change in culture in an environment where "Troops sexually assault women workers, stripping, fondling, and raping them 'as a control mechanism for suppressing women's engagement in the labor movement,'" according to Jeong-Lim Nam of Hyosung Women's University in Taegu. I found this present situation to be infuriating. No human being should be forced to work in dangerous conditions where they have to deal with daily humiliations and little reward for this constant torture. Just because they are willing to work hard for their family because of Confucian values, and want to fullfill their patriotic duty does not mean that they taken advantage of by their government and large corporations. I liked how Cynthia Enloe implied that this conflict is about recognizing the value of both human beings and women. Recently, I have been on the Nike website trying to design a customized shoe in my spare time to ask for for Christmas. Enloe's points are definitely going to make me think again before I that new pair of Nikes.

Cynthia Enloe - Main Post for 10/25/10

In "The Globetrotting Sneaker," Enloe discusses the inequalities women face in the shoe industry, especially overseas. She argues that even though shoe factories are reporting increasing profits, they are still finding ways to reduce costs of labor which means that many of their workers - usually women living in third-world countries - are still kept in poverty. To support her claim that women workers are sacrificed for big corporations' desires to make money, she delves into this world. She first asserts that trade agreements like NAFTA and WTO really aren't all that great because they allow companies to skirt around giving their workers promises of fair, healthy working conditions with right to assembly and free speech (45). Since these trade agreements vastly broadens these companies' markets, they will try to create a divide between working women in developed and developing countries (45). She uses South Korea as an example of shoe industry exploitation of women - South Korea's military government alliance with America, the heavy sway of Confucianism in determining proper gender attitudes, and the rise of male South Korean entrepreneurs were all tools of these companies to decentralize responsibilities to these new foreign entrepreneurs and unions. However, once these female workers had had enough of low pay and dangerous conditions, their protests were brutally put down through governmental police sexual assault because South Korea's "emergence as an industrialized 'tiger' had depended on women accepting their feminized role in growing industries like sneaker manufacture (47)." Thankfully, these disgusting tactics did not silence them since feminist organizations like the KWWA gave these women places to organize and talk about the major issues, which led to women unions, pay increases, and finally helping topple the military regime in 1987 (47-48). Once these women became empowered, these shoe companies hopped from authoritarian-governed country to authoritarian-governed country because they knew they could get cheap labor from women because these countries "shared the belief that if women can be kept hard at work, low-paid, and unorganized they can serve as a magnet for foreign investors (49)." Sadly, women have to balance potential job loss with standing up for themselves because they have to provide for their family and certain industries can afford to move elsewhere; however, recently more women have been standing up, making it increasingly more difficult for companies to cut corners on working conditions and pay. Then she focuses on the hypocrisy of these companies in that they proclaim to work for the good of the people and world, but really they are just concerned with higher profits and thus indirectly support harsh, censorial governments since these governments prevent independent labor organization like in Indonesia. Truly "'free trade as it is actually being practiced today is hardly free for any workers - in the United States or abroad - who have to accept the American corporate-fostered Indonesian, Chinese, or Korean workplace model as the price of keeping their jobs (53-54)." To keep "free trade" from disappearing, companies pit women against each other by moving to other countries where labor costs are lower, which create the illusion that other women are stealing their jobs and lower women's ability to organize, trust each other, and force companies and male bosses to address their concerns.

In "Daughters and Generals in the Politics of the Globalized Sneaker," Enloe maintains that one needs to have a feminist curiosity when asking questions about globalization and politics because both of them deal with power dynamics. She begins with an example - the connection between these shoe companies competing for contracts with American universities with the globalization of this shoe company competition. The history of how sneakers became globalized is a long one which jumps from place to place, as the shoe companies did; women are central effectors and "affected-ees" of this globalization because as long as the sneaker industry depends on cheap labor often by females for its profits, it also is dependent "upon local constructions of femininity (60)." Everyone who would gain from female cheap labor - corporations, male bosses, governments - tried to influence these women's constructions so as to make their labor inexpensive, aka "cheapened labor." In South Korea in the 1970s, the government lured women to work in the cities to become industrialization patriots and tried to rework the definition of "respectable" and "marriageable" women to allow this migration to occur (60-61). By re-envisioning what it meant to be a good daughter - meaning a daughter that worked in the name of patriotism - the government eventually made parents allow their daughters to leave their watchful eyes while reinforcing or even heightening their filial duty to provide for their parents and secure a good dowry for marriage; because these South Korean women saw themselves first as daughter and potential wife over worker, companies were and still are able to exploit women identifying themselves this way. Therefore, women were hesitant to rise up against injustices because she could lose her job, thereby ruining her reputation as a good daughter, disappointing her parents, losing a source of income for her dowry, and losing her opportunity to rise up the class hierarchy. (Since men who would adequately support and help women rise up looked for decent dowries in potential wives, losing that money severely lowered her chances of getting a suitable husband.) Governments and companies knew how factory women thought and what their priorities and stresses were, so they were able to take advantage of them because these "good daughter, suitable wife"-oriented women would not rock the corporate factory boat with strikes and the like. One such example of this tactic was the set up of dating services in these factories to keep women focused on marriage, not citizenship as well as to increase turnover to keep costs low. However, once women began focusing on their citizenship in the 1980s, the factories in South Korea shut down and the government encouraged women to be good patriots and return to the former ideal of womanhood. Because most of these factories were located in militarized states like South and Korea and Indonesia, "our understanding of women's participation in industrializing processes, so central to globalization, should generate more questions about the process of militarization (66)." Generals were everywhere as political allies to facilitate business and decision makers on factory committees - "[c]ombining women-as-daughters sewing the sneakers with generals-as-board-members opening the right doors proved to be a winning strategy for certain sneaker companies in Indonesia in the 1980s and 1990s (67)." Indonesia and South Korea followed the same patriarchal pattern of using daughterly patriotism to cheapen female labor! Enloe concludes by saying that shoe companies do not want patriarchy to be challenged because then their strategy of exploiting the "good daughter, good wife" view and pressures of Asian women would no longer work and they could no longer cheapen their labor.

Follow-Up: Responding to Aridelle's Post 10/21/10

I found "Body Projects" by Joan Brumberg to be the most interesting article because I could relate to it. All throughout highschool, I had witnessed females struggle with their bodies and their own images of themselves in order to avoid criticism from other students and attract attention from boys. In order to fit the modern day image of the attractive female body (Big breasts, tiny stomach), most of my friends would work out daily and barely eat, one of whom did 200 crunches every day. Below is a picture of one of the girls at my school, who went to the gym every day, tanned regularly, and refused to eat more than half of a normal sized meal at lunch:

As Brumberg discusses in her article, the ideal female body expectations have drastically changed over the years. According to this website: (http://www.thesite.org/healthandwellbeing/wellbeing/bodyimageandselfesteem/bodyimagetimeline)

, the ideal body image "During the Victorian era...was plump, fleshy, and full-figured." It blows my mind how drastically expectations for female body images have changed due to social norms and stigmas. If someone does not fit these norms, they are constantly criticized for the way they look, and it is very hard for most people to look past the "flaws" that our society has characterized as unattractive. Many women, especially teenagers, struggle to attain perfect and unrealistic bodies, and let the obsession of doing so consume them. I think that the expectations that society has set for females are unattainable and extremely critical, and are having a negative impact on the everyday lives of women.

Response to Aridelle's Post 10/21/10

Valdes's piece about her time as a fitness instructor really struck me. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see why she couldn't be a fitness instructor and a feminist - two things that she vehemently felt she could not reconcile and what ultimately drove her to leave that industry despite all the money she was making. I don't think her claim that fitness and gyms are "our newest patriarchal religion, based in principle as much on ritualized pain and suffering as any of the Judeo-Christians ones that came before it (31)" is always valid; I think that fitness and gyms become this "patriarchal religion" based on the attitude women have towards these things, so if women have the right attitude and approach to gyms and fitness, then they do not feed into the patriarchal model at least in this aspect of society. But what is the right attitude? They go to the gym because they want to, not because they feel fat or are trying to attract men. They go work out because they like it, not because they are trying to lose those five extra pounds to fit into that cute dress or to wear that bikini they got at the mall to impress the handsome lifeguard at their beach or pool. I believe that women who go to the gym for the right reasons are actually defying patriarchy - they are doing what they want to do. They are not doing it for men or for other women, not trying to impress others, fuel anorexia or alleviate low self-esteem, or fit in because they feel like "that's what they should do." For example, look at professional women runners and marathoners and Ironman competitors - do they train all the time just so they can be skinny to get a boyfriend? No, they work and sweat and do it all again because they love their sport, they want to be the best, they want to break records, and they want to show that women can compete on the same level as men. And what about me? I was a cross-country runner and track runner all throughout high school. I didn't run to get a boyfriend. I didn't run became I felt I needed to lose weight. I ran because I loved it; I continued running despite my plague of injuries throughout my career, which were quite numerous and chronic (strained hip flexor and degenerative foot tendon - both of which sent me to physical therapy for half-a-year in my freshman and sophomore years, respectively - along with chronic arch pain associated with flat arches and extreme pronation, shin splints, and ankle pain). Was I playing to patriarchy because I loved running and wouldn't stop even if I was crying in pain by the end (which was the case a lot of the time)? I don't think so. I didn't run for men. I didn't run for society. I didn't run because I felt I should or I had to. I didn't run to lose weight because I felt ugly, fat, or gross. I didn't even run for my teammates, even though I loved them dearly. I ran for me and me alone. And I'm still a feminist.

Body Image, Advertisment, and Female Professional Success

“Body Projects” explains the different trends that women focused on in the 1900’s leading up to today. The first trend change occurred in the 1920’s when women became focused on having a slim, flat, and boyish shape. The next trend occurred in the 1950’s with the obsession and craze of having big breasts while still maintain a thin figure. In the 1970’s and 1980’s, weight became a major concern in which the “cult of fitness and exercise took hold” (120). In the 1990’s there was a shift in the focus of the lower body such as thigh and buttocks in which slimming of the lower body became a concern. Women tried to get rid of their “thunder thighs” and cellulite. Then one of the most recent trends that occurred was the decorating of the body with piercings which became popular in the 90’s as well. “At the end of the 20th century, fear of fat, anxiety about body parts, and expectations of perfection in the dressing room have all coalesced to make ‘I hate my body’ into a powerful mantra that uniforms the social and spiritual life of too many American girls” (130). One of the many important concerns that the author pointed out was the difference based on class and the diet mentality. It seems as the middle and lower class women were less concerned with issues of losing weight compared to middle upper or upper class women. This is probably due to the fact that healthy food is usually more expensive, thus less accessible for those lower class women who have more important things that they can spend that extra money on such as bills and taxes.
“Sex, Lies, and Advertising” by Gloria Steinem is about this magazine called Ms. that was targeted towards women and eventually the company tried to make strides toward making the magazine less gender focused to increase sells, thus attracting male consumers by increasing the number of ads in their magazine targeted towards men such as car ads. This magazine tried to expand to include many different groups such as people of color and homosexuals. But it was also by trying to expand their audience that they lost a lot of money because an Eastern airline canceled thousands of subscriptions to Ms. because they were offended by ads for lesbian poetry journals in the magazine. In 1987, the magazine ended up getting sold to some Australian feminists who made some drastic changes by limiting ads, but their outspoken articles in the magazine lent for some serious judgment in Australia as well thus no producing enough ad revenue. The company was then sold again to a man which is probably why the Ms. magazine changed completely. This magazine no longer was blunt, but became more conservative in their topics by teaching women how to please their men and how they were to become better ladies such as an article published on “how to write politely.” This magazine now was based on telling people what they wanted to hear, thus increasing the number of male authors.
“Ruminations of a Feminist Fitness Instructor” by Alisa L. Valdes is about a young woman who gets encouraged by her mom to become a fitness instructor instead of the cheerleader that she always wanted to become once she lost weight. The author talks about how she ended up getting a job as an aerobics instructor to pay her way through college and ended up working for some of the best known Gyms. She was even getting asked by sneaker companies such as Reebok to help them design their next shoe and she had her own office at 23, but she was not satisfied with her job because she wanted to be a feminist writer. Unfortunately after graduating she resorted back to being an instructor because she saw that being a writer was not bringing in much money especially since she first had to start in internships. She then continued doing aerobics, but found a way to liberate women through aerobics by empowering them and letting them thrive without inhibitions in a space which was only for them to feel comfortable. Unfortunately many of her students did not think like her and continued to be patronized/ socially constricted by the patriarchal norms because still their goal for doing aerobics was to be “skinny” and “beautiful” (31). Unfulfilled, Valdes decided to take a risk and go to graduate school although she ended up 40,000 in debt and was able to achieve her goal of becoming a successful feminist writer while also utilizing her previous fitness experience to empower women.

Response to Hannah"s Post

I think I probably function opposite to the ways that most young women do today. When reading “Lean and Mean” by Douglas, I remembered my high school days when I was a size zero yet felt the pressures of becoming thicker. Growing up in a predominantly Latino community, I saw how curvier girls were preferred by guys. I remember going to parties with my friends feeling like the ugly duckling because I did not have those curves that made them look cute in their dresses and caught all the men’s attention. Now that I am a senior in College, my body has changed to a size 5 but I still find myself wanting to gain more weight to get more hips and a bigger butt. I would say that white girls obsess over having bigger boobs, while most women of color obsess over getting bigger butts and we both coincide in wanting the slim waist. It is interesting to notice some of these cultural dynamics and what is held up as beauty by different race/cultures.
Some of the most beautiful women that we see in the media today are not that size zero figure that most girls want for example: Kim Kardashian ranges from a size 6-8, Scarlett Johansson is a size 6, and Beyonce Knowles is a size 8 (by the way these are all dress sizes given by answers.yahoo.com). This goes to show that not even these women praised by the media fit the barbie supermodel sizes, so why should girls today feel pressured to? As my mom always tells me when I am complaining about my weight, “Give thanks to God for being healthy and having all your limbs. There are more important things to worry about other than the way you look.” This is true, but unfortunately the media makes women take interest and worry more about superficial aspects by making women more self conscious of their appearance. What we see on TV translates into society. I wonder what societies mentality would be like if we didn’t have all those shows about plastic surgery makeovers, next top model, and those superficial diva’s that are given publicity such as Paris Hilton.

Response to Hanna's Post: 10/19/10

These readings for today really were eye-opening in that they both took something I feel all women are used to - pressure to be thin and menstrual issues, respectively - and actually came out and said that these expectations and claims made by society are ridiculous. I really identified with the Douglas reading because I feel the societal pressure to be thin all the time even if it is not a conscious awareness; I'm quite a petite girl at 5'2" and about 115 lbs, most of which is muscle because I was an avid runner and dancer in high school. My mom always asks me if I'm watching my weight and my eating habits, which upsets me because I know I'm maintaining a healthy weight and I try to eat healthfully as much as I can. I feel that by her asking all the time, she is afraid that she is going to end up with a fat - and thus undesirable - daughter, that she wouldn't be as proud of me if I was overweight. I feel as though I have already proved to her that I am capable of watching my weight and eating since I have never been obese or overweight (according to my doctor). So why she does have to continually check up on me? Is she that afraid of having a fat daughter? Would she be ashamed of me if I went up a size or maybe two? I'm usually a size 3 or 5 in jeans, but when I have to get a 7 in particular brands, she just gives me this look that says "Uh oh, that is a size bigger than what you usually get." Then she'll ask me if I've gained weight. It is so frustrating because I actually feel relatively confident in my size and my looks after going through major self-esteem issues in high school to the point that I needed therapy; I bounced back from that dark time in my life to become a woman who is constantly working on accepting herself and making peace with her looks and personality. For example, I have never dieted or even considered cosmetic surgery and never plan to. I feel that dieting when you're already at a healthy weight has no point - why expend all that energy and time and frustration to lose another three pounds? Plus I like food way too much to deny myself when I know I don't have to. I also detest fakeness in anything - people, science, advertising, politics, etc. - so I find unnecessary cosmetic surgery to be shallow. I want people to see the real me, which did not come with silicon boobs, a completely straight nose, and no cellulite whatsoever. Since I know what is like to be on both sides - confident and extremely self-conscious - I intimately understand what Douglas was talking about.

"Hormonal Hurricanes" & "Lean and Mean" 10/19/10

The first article titled: "Hormonal Hurricanes: Menstruation, Menopause, and Female Behavior" begins by highlighting many important topics that scientists and nonscientists have discovered such as the "existence of hormones, the function of menstruation, the regulation of ovulation, and the physiology of menopause" (Fausto-Sterling 90). The author of this article then proceeds to refer to the fact that people involved in politics question the competency of female workers, and question whether females should receive less pay or be restricted in the work world because they menstruate or experience menopause, whether they are more likely to commit suicide because of this, and whether they are exempt from legal sanctions due to these same reasons. Fausto-Sterling also examines a strange phenomenon that occurred in the late 1800's where scientists stated that "women and men should receive different types of education" (Fausto-Sterling 92) because they believed that the stress of high education would deprive women's reproductive systems of the necessary "flow of power" and cause serious damages to their reproductive system. These scientists even found statistics that said that women who pursued a course of education designated for more resilient young men would be less likely to bear children. It is clear today that there is no correlation between level of education and the healthiness of women's reproductive systems. The research done by scientists who opposed women pursuing higher-education lifestyles described in this article seems very skeptical and corrupt. For example, one researcher concluded that women were less intelligent than men because they cannot "consume so much food as men" (Fausto-Sterling 92). The rest of this article evaluates the reliability of such claims, and discusses the validity of such diseases as PMS. It also considers how these biological aspects affect women in society in addition to how women are treated by men because of their natural biology.

Chapter 8 of Enlightened Sexism is titled "Lean and Mean". In this article, Susan Douglas discusses "the odd constellation of thinness tyranny" (Douglas 214) along with the expectation that women should have 38D size boobs and fit into a size 0. She also talks about how the "mean girl" enforces this assumption that this is the way to be attracted to the opposite sex and how they torment girls who don't fit this description. Young girls feel the need to attain this image through unhealthy methods such as anorexia/bulimia or plastic surgery, such as breast augmentation, lip injections, or liposuctions. This craze to embody this ideal supermodel is spreading to even younger generations, and causing women to have a lack of respect for their own bodies. One main point that Douglas examines is how this struggle relates to the workplace, and how these "perfect bodies" are associated with the possession of power. I found this chapter to be very interesting because it was so relevant to my life. I see examples of this every day through the media, the way my friends act, and how I have been programmed to think about my own body.

Response to Rachel's Post

I disagree with Ettelbrick’s stance against marriage for homosexuals as being a setback for the liberation movement because she felt that it would make the gay community conform and take away that which makes them unique. Her anti-gay marriage stance is much, she is forgetting the symbolism and values behind marriage that promote a mutual commitment and love bond that comes along with other financial benefits which is always a plus. Homosexual marriage can create a common ground to achieve the respect, acceptance and support of society. I agree with Rachel in that the gay community can continue to spread awareness as well as spread the benefits of marriage.
I support same-sex couples adopting because there are many children that are growing without a family then why not allow two individuals who are willing to provide love and shelter raise a child. Two is always better than one, especially coming from a society of a high rate of single mothers. The only issue that I have with these same sex couple adoptions is that I believe there should be an influence of both genders. It is important in order for the child to fully develop. For example, if a gay couple adopts a boy, there should be at least a prominent female figure in their life such as a grandmother or aunt as a positive role model. If the child is just raised by men, then the child runs the risk of having trouble communicating or interacting with the opposite sex. This is still a new concept in society, thus there will be continuous arguments and issues surrounding these types of adoptions as well as same-sex marriages.

Follow-Up: Responding to Rachel's Post 10/14/10

I found these articles to be very relevant to what is going on on campus recently. This week is National Coming Out Week, and in my everyday activities, I have been confronted with signs, a list where you can put down your name in support of gays, lesbians, transexuals, etc. and a solitary door in Reid Athletic Center that you can sign and walk through. It is very encouraging for me to see these advertisements that it's ok for students to come out, and that most people will be accepted for doing so. I know that it's very tough for many people to fit in at college, and this movement will hopefully supply a support net to those who have extra challenges in being accepted because of their sexuality.

In doing the readings for week 7, I was very surprised with what I learned about how gays are treated and integrated into the community. In "Since When is Marriage a Path to Liberation", Ettelbrick states how we live in a patriarchy that emphasizes men's dominance over women, and how marriage defines some relationships as more valuable than others. She tells us that "Marriage provides the ultimate form of acceptance for personal intimate relationships in our society, and gives those who marry an insider status of the most powerful kind" (Ettelbrick 306). She also makes the point though that justice would not be gained if same-sex marriage was legalized because there would still be power imbalances between those who are married, whether they are gay or straight, and that law looks to the insiders as the norm. I found it fairly ironic that Ettelbrick was so against the view that it is necessary that gays have the right to conform to marriage because it is the norm, while she speaks about gays and lesbians using the term "we", as if they all share the same view. Just as the justice system should not be able to speak for a group as a whole, I believe that Ettelbrick shouldn't classify gays and lesbians into one group that thinks the same, or use the term "lesbian world", suggesting that lesbians think alike and desire the same things.

I personally believe that same-sex marriage should be allowed, because I don't believe that society should exclude people just because they are different from the "norm". If some same-sex couples desire to be married, I think that they should be allowed to and that it is their right as a citizen. I found it very ridiculous that in the "Same-Sex Marriage FAQs article", couples in a civil union "do not receive any of the more than 1,000 federal benefits and protections of marriage" (Human Rights Campaign 2). It's time that our country stops being exclusive, and accepts people for whom they are in order to give them equal chances in life.

Same Sex Marriage Articles - Main Post for 10/14/10

In the fact-sheet about same-sex couples and marriage, two lists are laid out - a list of reasons why same-sex couples are fighting for their right to get married as well as a list of marital benefits that same-sex couples are denied. The sheet lists three main reasons that same-sex couples are fighting so hard for this right. First, same-sex couples want to "honor their relationship in the greatest way our society has to offer," meaning that they want to publicly commit themselves to each other for life no matter what they may face. Marriage is the most sacred way to bind themselves together and proclaim their love to the rest of the world; no other union holds the same connotation, clout, or recognition that marriage has, which means same-sex couples' relationships are not taken as seriously or seen as equals with married heterosexual couples' relationships because they cannot have this label. Second, due to the benefits that marriage brings to a couple, same-sex couples want to marry to protect any children they may have; if they are legally married, all of the included benefits can be used to provide for or help their children especially during times of hardship. Finally, same-sex couples want to marry based on our national belief that all people are equal and should have equal rights - the fact that same-sex couples are denied benefits that other couples have violates this principle that our country was built on. Until same-sex couples receive the right to marry and all these benefits, saying that we stand for equality is hypocritical. Since the law defines "marriage" as a union between a man and woman, these benefits are relegated to only heterosexual couples by default; same-sex couples cannot have these benefits because they do not fit the definition or requirements to be considered "married" according to the law. Because they cannot have this title on their relationship, they are denied the rights and benefits that married couples enjoy - among these are the rights to visit their spouse in the hospital, receive Social Security survivor benefits, have spousal health insurance, inherit property without estate taxes, inherit 401(k) funds without paying taxes, have unpaid leave to care for a sick spouse, petition for spouses to immigrate to America, live together in nursing homes, keep their houses despite having to pay high medical and nursing home costs, and be entitled to a dead spouse's pension. In addition, same-sex couples who have gotten civil unions in states that do permit them cannot be guaranteed that their civil union and all the benefits they are entitled to will be recognized in other states or at the national level. Because of the extreme gap between civil unions' and marriages' benefits and social recognition, civil unions are not enough - "they are separate and unequal" from marriage. Therefore, same-sex marriage that gives same-sex couples all the rights that heterosexual married couples have is the only acceptable solution to this problem.

Ettelbrick takes an anti-marriage stance because she believes that marriage is an assimilation tool that will mainstream gay and lesbian couples into the majority. She says that "[m]arriage provides the ultimate form of acceptance for personal intimate relationships in our society, and gives those who marry an insider status of the most powerful kind (305-306)." Because gay marriage does not fit into the patriarchal society in which we participate and live, gay and lesbian couples are "outsiders" or "have-nots" because they cannot marry; if they can marry, they will be transformed into "insiders" or "haves" and then everything will be just fine. However, she asserts that obtaining the right to marry will not liberate homosexuals, but "constrain us, make us more invisible, force our assimilation into the mainstream, and undermine the goals of gay liberation (306)" and "will not transform our society...into one that respects and encourages choice of relationships and family diversity (306)." Marriage will force gays and lesbians to conform to the mainstream which will make them lose their unique perspective, ideas, and thoughts. She does not claim that same-sex couples should not have a right to marry, but she does think that the way we think about justice for gay and lesbian couples is too narrow because we do not incorporate other inequalities and discrimination that they face such as sexism for lesbians and racism for blacks. Using a dual perspective of rights and justice, "justice for gay men and lesbians will be achieved only when we are accepted and supported in this society despite our differences from the dominant culture and the choices we make regarding our relationships (306)." In other words, the very concept of equality requires sameness because if everyone is not the same, equality cannot be possible. Therefore, in order to petition to this definition of equality, gay couples will have to petition themselves as being the same as straight couples - which is obviously not true. Also, gay men and lesbians' sexuality will be split into "acceptable" sex within marriage and "stigmatized" sex outside of marriage, much like heterosexual sex is delineated. All of the differences and acceptance of different sexual and social relationships in the homosexual community will be lost. Finally, she touches on the gay community's need for acceptance by society, which is a driving force behind the push for gay marriage; this "acceptance" is not universal and not everyone will have access the benefits that marriage provides - for example, a white gay couple with good jobs that is already close to being in the mainstream culture will enormously benefit from being able to marry, but a black lesbian couple with bad jobs will not due to sexism, racism, and few health benefits from these bad jobs. This acceptance is defined by the state, which only recognizes marriage and family as legitimate relationships deserving of respect; we need to make the state and society see that other relationships deserve the same respect and protection as marriage as well as spread the benefits lumped onto married couples across the community and the relationship spectrum. Because marriage is a product of this patriarchal society, it will not change it; what will is the acceptance and respect for all kinds of relationships and diversity among the gay community and beyond.

In Naples, she first discusses the political environment that surrounds gay marriage and how it does not reflect society at large. Politicians passed several laws defining marriage as a union between a man and woman in order to "protect" traditional marriage because gay marriage, in the words of George Bush, would undermine "the welfare of the children and the stability of society (679)." After this introduction, she argues that Ettelbrick's stance - that marriage will inevitably lead gays to assimilate and then participate in a patriarchal society where these marital benefits will only be available to some of the homosexual community - is the wrong approach and is not indicative of the homosexual community's views. She cites an example of 30% of attendees at Black Gay Pride ranked marriage/domestic partnership as one of the main issues facing their community (680). She debunks the "protection of children" claim against gay marriage by simply stating that gays and lesbians have kids and will continue to have kids despite all this hullabaloo. Plus "[q]ueer parenting can destabilize gender essentialism and other taken-for-granted assumptions about gender, sexuality, and family well as pose challenges to regimes of normalization that shape contemporary institutions (680)." She then uses her own experience as a soon-to-be comother with her pregnant partner to compare with heterosexual couples' experiences - she has to deal with obstacles like finding a hospital or midwife that will deliver the babies, asserting her role as mother with her children and society, and legally adopting her own kids that heterosexual couples don't have to deal with. She broadens her view to marriage and civil unions, saying that same-sex marriages are not recognized in many states and civil unions can complicate adoptions - these discrepancies will provide further hurdles that same-sex couples will have to clear both for their own relationship to get recognized and to have kids. All of these examples as well as her own experiences as a lesbian in a committed relationship further her argument that "[t]he salience of the heteronormative family form is evident everywhere we turn (682)." A family with a father and a mother is the norm that society accepts - anything else, just like with intersex people, is abnormal and not accepted. Therefore, to promote the idea that family can be defined in other ways besides a mother and father, Naples asserts that we need to take the energy and coverage that same-sex marriage and queer parenting debates generate, use it to tear down the narrow definitions and beliefs society has of and about family and rearing children, and challenge heterosexual privilege.

Follow-Up: Responding to Aridelle's Post 10/7/10

Although the readings all were interesting, the article that stuck a chord with me the most was "The Body Politic" by Chernik because I have had personal experience with eating disorders and low self-esteem issues; when I was reading it, I got rather upset because it brought out a lot of memories I'd rather not relive. One of my good friends in high school became anorexic sophomore year - all the tell-tale signs like her exercising compulsively and refusing to eat junk food because she would get fat were glaring at us because she did a really bad job hiding it. I remember when she would only have a bottle of water for lunch while steadfastly claiming she had already eaten or would later even though she wasn't fooling any of us; maybe she was trying desperately to fool herself, I can't know for sure. My feelings of helplessness and frustration became overwhelming when nothing we, her parents, her therapists, or her teachers did got her to eat. She is still extremely anorexic to this day. I was angry at her because I thought she was being selfish and didn't care about how she was making all of her loved ones worry about her. Then I had my own bout with stress-induced anorexia for about two months because I had a lot of stress in my life - applying for college, my grandma's death the day after Christmas, my playing therapist for my screwed-up friends (who had everything from abusive parents to depression and schizophrenia to thoughts of suicide - I always kept my phone near me in case I got a suicide call because almost all of my friends were suicidal), and the emotional toll of being so in love with a man that was using me and emotionally abusing me (he was like a drug to me and I was the crazed addict). I stopped eating for two months; just the sight and smell of food would make me vomit. I couldn't keep anything down and I would go through school with nothing in my stomach. It was the lowest point in my life and when I read Chernik describe how she felt as an anorexic, I almost started crying because it was exactly how I had felt - lost, retreated inside myself, isolated, sad, desperate, shriveled mentally and physically, and full of self-loathing. I hated myself, hated how I was feeling, hated how I wasn't good enough for the man I loved so much. I never want to go back to that dark place and every now and then I wonder if I have the capacity to retreat back into that pathetic, lonely, self-hating creature I was senior year.

When Chernik talked about how society tells women that they need to be this size and that height to be beautiful or that they need all these qualities for men to love them, I knew exactly what she meant. The man I loved didn't love me back because I was not as society told me I should be - tall (I'm 5'2"), skinny (I have curves), beautiful hair (my dad called me "rat's nest" when I was little because my hair was so unmanageable), perfect skin (I had acne, which only got worse with the stress), etc etc etc. I became so obsessed with earning his love that I tried to conform to his standard of beauty, which was inevitably set by society. In failing to achieve this standard (not that anyone can fulfill it since no one is perfect), I began to hate myself, my self-esteem plummeted, and my stress worsened. I couldn't focus on anything else but what was wrong with me, just like Chernik described; I could not focus on schoolwork, running, my dreams, because I was incapacitated by my self-hate and self-pity; I would then stress more about my grades slipping and the like, which continued my downward spiral until I hit rock-bottom. The narrow, impossible standard for beauty and the expectation of perfection caused my world to crumble senior year because I thought I had to meet them for the privilege of being loved by a man. Thankfully my self-esteem is much higher now and I am happier with myself (but I am still a work in progress) because I have focused on loving myself and have seen that I don't need the earn the privilege of love because I have a right to be loved and cherished like any other human being. I hope Chernik's view of a society where women love themselves and are focused on their goals instead of their weight or dieting or earning male love comes true soon before other girls go through the pain my friend and I went through.

Follow-Up: Responding to Aridelle's Post 10/7/10

One of the concepts that struck me the most in these readings was in "Complex Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence" by Adrienne Rich. In this article, Rich described that some people believe that women are "innately sexually oriented towards men" (Rich 312), and that lesbians are acting out of their bitterness toward men. This notion that women like each other in spite of something never occurred to me; I always thought it was natural for some women to be attracted towards other women. In addition to being surprised that people think like this, I also found myself questioning previous references in the media that it is the norm for sex between men and women to be considered common, even more established in society than sensuality is between two women.

In the joking song, "Show Me Your Genitals" (Link below), it becomes apparent what some feminists stereotype men as. Jon Lajoie, the rapper of this song, raps to the tone of an extreme sexist male. Although this video is incredibly offensive, I also find it hilarious because it is one of those jokes that women feel comfortable laughing along with, even if some of the messages may seep into our subconscious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqXi8WmQ_WM

Feminism and Sexuality

“Compulsory Heterosexuality and lesbian Existence” by Adrienne Rich brings to the forefront of how lesbian feminism is ignored by heterosexual feminists who continue to carry patriarchal ideals of oppression towards women. Then she lays out the 8 characteristics of which women are oppressed by men, but many of these characteristics are not condemned by society as much as a lesbian lifestyle is. If anything she states how lesbians probably resemble the feminist ideals the best because they are completely refusing any male influence or oppression in their lives by taking up female lovers. She says how the “lesbian existence” is potentially liberating for women thus she stresses and introduces lesbian feminism and how our society remains close-minded through the patriarchal mentality that stresses a compulsive heterosexuality.

The article “Toward a Global History of Same-Sex Sexuality” by Rupp brings up the issue that same-sex sexual acts have been occurring since the ancient days of for example Rome. In ancient Athens, adult male citizens were allowed to penetrate social inferiors including women, boys, foreigners, and slaves. But such men were not labeled as bisexual thus there comes the question if sex was even relevant in those ancient days. There are other examples of male same-sex acts occurring in other parts of the world such as Japan, New Guinea, and other cultures as well. Then comes the question of whether these acts are considered homosexual or not. They were simply rituals that were part of the culture but there was never any taboo about it. If anything these rituals were something positive which for example for the Japanese in the 17^th century and the people of New Guinea, theses same-sex sexual acts between older men on boys symbolized their conversion into manhood. These acts were not of “sexuality” but instead symbolized acts of power, domination, submission, etc. There is also the flip side to this in which men and women experienced pleasure and emotion for individuals of the same-sex, thuse when engaging in sexual acts with them they would become confused as to the feelings they were getting since some experienced a mixture of love and lust. This may be due that everything in society, especially today must fit in a category in order to be socially accepted and understood. The category of homosexuality had not been defined in those days, thus the acts may have not been considered sexual because sexuality was generally between a male and female as generally defined in society in those days. It has not been until recently there has been a sparked awareness towards homosexuality and even delving deeper on issues of transgenders, transsexuals, lesbians, intersexuals, etc.

“You’re Not the Type” by Laurel Gilbert is about a young woman who becomes pregnant at the age of sixteen and falls in love with her best friend Kris who is a women , but was never able to express her love for her. The major issue in this article is about how young pregnant women are automatically stigmatized and doomed to failure by society. It is sad to see the cases of pregnant women who never go on to become professionals or fulfill their goals and dreams because they do not have the support necessary to succeed. In many cases all they can depend on is themselves and it is remarkable that this author has been able to transcend the statistics by going to college, getting her PhD and becoming a professional writer. She was faced with a double whammy because not only was she a single young mother, but she is also a lesbian/bisexual women which are both chastised by society. Through her story, hopefully she can be the voice that will push other single mothers to break the statistics and move forward with their lives instead of drowning in the self pity and failure that society has thrown on them.

“The Body Politic” by Abra Fortune Chernik is about a young woman who deals with an eating disorder. She is pressured by society to be thin, thus she indulges in a harmful eating disorder. She continues to practice this harmful behavior because she gets constant praise for the result which is a thin figure. She ends up going to the hospital where she learns to embrace her body and take control of her life which had been consumed previously by the illusion of control that she had dominated by depriving herself of food. The author says how she was “held up by her culture as the physical ideal because she was starving, self-obsessed and powerless, a women called beautiful because she threatens no one except herself” on page 108. Thus we can see how this patriarchal society not only affects women socially and politically but also physically and mentally.

News Flash-- "Fuck List"

News Flash

http://jezebel.com/5652114/college-girls-power-point-fuck-list-goes-viral-gallery?skyline=true&s=i

In early October, a controversial power point was leaked and spread around the internet, drawing a great amount of attention to the gender role women are expected to play in society and what is considered appropriate and what is considered taboo in relation to the pre-conceived notion that the discussion of women’s sexual lives should be private. The Duke University’s Senior’s Honors Thesis was titled: “An education beyond the classroom: excelling in the realm of horizontal academics.” In this four-year project, the student researched and documented her sexual encounters with 13 “subjects”, then proceeded to evaluate and assign raw scores to each subject. These raw scores were based on physical attractiveness, size, talent, creativity, aggressiveness, entertainment, athletic ability, and a bonus section.

One main topic to take note on from this senior’s project is the portrayal of women as sexperts, and the negative reaction that the community has to this concept. As Susan Douglas illustrates in a chapter 6 of Enlightened Sexism titled “Sex ‘R’ Us”, some women want to be active sexual agents. The persona of the sexpert arises from this type of woman, who “appreciates the ultimate requirement to please [the guy] (even at her own expense or discomfort if necessary), to reassure him about his performance, and to constantly monitor and refine her ability to look sexy and to do what he wants and needs” (Douglas 157). In the Duke student’s analysis of Subject 6, she directly quotes their dirty talk: “Mmm tell me about how much you like big, black cocks/But I’ve never even hooked up with a black man! / Oh well, just pretend like you have/Umm ok… I like big, black… cocks? / God, that’s sooo fucking sexy.” This interaction makes it clear that the student conducting the research is uncomfortable or weirded out with the way that Subject 6 is talking to her, but plays along with this strange talk anyways in order to please him and to give him what she thinks he wants. This type of action would classify the student as a hybrid of empowerment and objectification, which according to Douglas makes her perfect for the age of enlightened sexism. This type of girl’s objectification isn’t imposed on her from outside society, but instead comes from within and makes her a more confident individual according to Douglas. By exploiting her own sexuality, this student is beating those around her to the judgment that comes along with acting in a scandalous manner. One reader commenting on this article refrains from judging the student, stating, “So… I noticed that she gave two people 12 out of 10’s including Subject 9. And while I personally think 12 partners over this period of time is a bit high (it’s enough to put you into a high risk category for STDs) what people do privately in the bedroom isn’t any of my business.”

Another idea that we see in Douglas’ writing that is also present in this article is the thought that “Some young women [want] sexual equity with men: that’s a claim for equal power” (Douglas 156). This Duke senior reduces the men she sleeps with to very specific, judgmental descriptions that are only deducted from their appearances and by having a handful of encounters with them. The fact that she assigns each subject a raw score partially based on size of their penises is degrading to men because this is not part of who they are as people. By exploiting the men that this Duke senior slept with for her own benefit and by treating them as objects, she is acting as men stereotypically do towards women, which is accepted in society. In a way though, this student was also exploiting herself as a sexual object. She utilized both hers and her partners’ sexuality to promote her academic position. Depending on one’s point of view, this strategy can either be seen as powerful or weak. Some may see the senior’s actions as powerful because she is resisting the objectification of women by men and throwing men’s own sexist practices right back at them. On the other hand, some feminists may view her behavior as weak because it is surrendering her powerful, influential stance and succumbing to the pressures of society to sexualize her. Whether we like it or not, our society has formed a specific mold that women must fit in today if they want to be accepted and praised for their sexuality.

The exploitation of males in this Senior Honor’s Thesis can be related to the story of Sarah Bartmann, illuminated upon in Patricia Hill Collin’s article titled “Why Black Sexual Politics?” In a London exhibit, Bartmann,“a Khoi woman from what is now South Africa… is displayed caged, rocking back and forth to emphasize her supposedly wild and dangerous nature. She wears a tight-fitting dress whose brown color matches her skin tones. When ordered to do so, she leaves her cage and parades before the audience who seems fascinated with what they see as her most intriguing feature: her buttocks” (Collins 26). This obvious exploitation of Bartmann’s body is similar to the exploitation of the men in the Duke senior’s thesis. There are pictures of each “subject” with their shirts off and their faces blurred. The fact that they are classified by such ridiculous standards as attractiveness (consists of height, body build (muscle mass and definition), jaw-line, quality/texture/cut of hair/facial structure, penile structures, and eyes/eyebrows) dehumanizes them, just as Bartmann was dehumanized by being forced to parade her large buttocks in front of a crowd and later by being dissected and having her brain, labia, and buttocks displayed in public for decades without her consent. In response to the article on the Duke student’s Senior Honors Thesis, “another_damn_name” makes a very good point in addressing the fact that “There are a lot of candid and intelligent ways that both men and women can discuss their sexuality while at the same time having respect for the humanity of their partners. This "Fuck List" though shows an absolute disregard for the woman's sexual partners. Men are reduced to sizes and numerical scores. Yes, she does address her partner's personalities, but not in a humanizing way. Rather, their personalities are just another part of the entertainment aspect for her.”

The message that the senior in this articled is sending about sex is extremely concerning, given the fact that she refers to her encounters with such descriptions as these: “After the most violent, aggressive, steamy research I have ever conducted, we separate, leaving behind a vehicle with windows fogged with passion”, and in recounting her experience of Subject 9 “Completely taking control, throwing me around like I weighed nothing, dominating me, grabbing my hair, switching positions rapidly”. This type of sexual behavior shows disrespect towards women, and although this type of sex may be pleasurable for her, she is sending the wrong message in saying that enjoyable sex is almost always violent, aggressive sex. Rebecca Walker, the author of “Lusting for Freedom”, would not agree with this depiction. In her chapter in the book Listen Up, Walker talks about how she believes sex is a place where a woman is able to learn on her own how the world relates to her. If girls start to think that her relation to the world is through violence and being treated as an object to be thrown around, then this could lead to many other issues in different areas of their lives. In addition to her narrative of sex through violent methods, she also describes sex under the influence of alcohol. Almost all of this student’s sexual encounters are while she is drunk or in one instance, one shot away from being blackout drunk. This aspect of her research suggests that she was not completely in control of every individual situation. Just like Rebecca Walker was incredibly lucky that her reckless sexual behavior did not lead to rape or disease, so is this Duke student.

In general, I found this article to be fascinating because it correlated so well to the issues that we are studying in class, and also related to situations that I experience and see in my everyday life. According to Webster’s dictionary, feminism is the doctrine avoiding social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. Irin Carmon states that, “Here’s another reminder that women can be as flip, aggressive, or acquisitive about sex as men can. And there’s nothing wrong with that.” The senior described in this article definitely acted in a social way that was equal to the way that some men treat women, but specific feminists, especially those of the first and second wave, would disapprove of the way she goes about asserting her equality.

Bibliography

Carmon, Irin. "College Girl's PowerPoint "Fuck List" Goes Viral." Jezebel: Celebrity, Sex, Fashion for Women. Without Airbrushing. 30 Sept. 2010. Web. 06 Oct. 2010. .

Douglas, Susan J. "Sex "R" Us." Enlightened Sexism: the Seductive Message That Feminism's Work Is Done. New York: Times, 2010. 154-87. Print.

Walker, Rebecca. "Lusting for Freedom." Listen Up: Voices from the next Feminist Generation. By Barbara Findlen. Seattle, WA: Seal, 2001. 19-24. Pri

Follow-Up: Responding to Hanna's Post 10/5/10

The readings for today were quite shocking in that I can intently personally relate to them and yet be completely out of the loop of what they were talking about. In "Sex 'R' Us," when Douglas said that "the true path to power comes from being an object of desire, girls and women should now actively choose - even celebrate and embrace - being sex objects (156)" and "by submitting, you're in the driver's seat (157)!," I thought that she articulated exactly how I feel sometimes. I had thought about and felt this phenomenon in my own life and had wondered if it was just me; it felt good to know that this twisted sense of sexual power was something that all women are feeling, not only me. Even though it seems paradoxical, it can definitely be sold as the "real deal" to women, to the point that I even bought into it at times. It appeals to our sneakier, defensive side as well as our desire to have some semblance of sexual power, real or imagined - we think that if we submit and let men think they have all the power, then they will be completely under our thumb and not even know about it! Then if they ever do something stupid or hurt us, then WHAMBAM we whip out this power they were completely clueless about, totally shock them into speechlessness, and make them beg for forgiveness because, in reality, all men are crotch-driven slaves to women. Feeling like all we have to do is show a little leg or cleavage to render men powerless, drooling, and literally tripping over their feet to talk to us is incredibly satisfying; having this situation actually happen is a huge ego boost that rapidly becomes addicting, so if acting like a sex object makes these situations happen again, women (especially since the low self-esteem epidemic is everywhere) will do it. I remember one incident at a party where I was dressed rather scantily and all these men were coming up to talk to me; even though I know they "don't care what my middle name is" like Ke$ha so aptly puts it ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3taEuL4EHAg ), it still felt good that men thought I was attractive. This feeling is like sexual chess or a suspenseful TV show - men think they are about to checkmate women, but then women pull out their trump card and stun them or the good guys (women) finally catch the bad guys who think they've gotten away (men). This image - of men sniveling for us because they are so addicted to the sexual pleasure we provide - makes for a nice little ego-padding fantasy.

In "Lusting For Freedom," I had the opposite reaction. I am waiting to have sex because I don't feel emotionally ready for it. I've only had one boyfriend (which was only for four months) and I can't do the whole Colgate hook-up culture attitude towards sex - I get too attached, so I know I wouldn't be able to keep it casual. Plus I was emotionally abused by a man in high school and didn't really realize it until I cut off contact with him, so I am still recovering from that; he was the only one I loved enough to consider giving him my virginity, so realizing how he used me was a huge blow to my comfort around men and willingness to open up to them. Therefore, women who have a lot of sexual experience are completely alien to me. So when I read the part at when she lost her virginity at age 11, I was scandalized instead of trying to understand - what a lovely example of programming. While I was reading the rest of the article about her sexual exploits, I kept wondering why did I unconsciously label her a whore back then? Who am I to judge her? Who told me that if a woman has a lot of sex, she is automatically dirty, easy, a whore, a slut, and a myriad of other derogatory things? I eventually became proud of her for taking control of her sexual destiny and exploring an intimate part of herself. Hopefully that I am more conscious about my programming, I can start to root it out (and follow her example of using my sexuality to self-know instead of exploit).

Post for 10/5/10-- Hanna Longwell

Patricia Hill Collins begins her article by examining in reverse chronological order the treatment of and reaction to female entertainers by the media and society. She first mentions the hype surrounding J-lo (Puerto Rican) and her "large bottom" in 2001, then moves on to discuss Destiney's Child (African American) and their sexually independent marketing strategy in 2000. Next on Collin's list is Josephine Barker (African American), an American who moved to Paris to entertain with a rump-shaking banana dance, then Sarah Bartmann, also known as the "Hottentot Venus". Bartmann was "displayed caged, rocking back and forth to emphasize her supposedly wild and dangerous nature" (Collins 26). She was forced to parade her large buttocks in front of an audience, being poked and prodded by curious bystanders. After Bartmann's death, her body was claimed by George Cuvier to dissect it in the interests of science. This specific incident served as a blueprint for degrading and humiliating a black woman on a worldwide scale. Because of actions like these being supported and perpetuated, "African descent has been associated with an almost animalistic, wild sexuality" (Collins 27) and heightened racial difference. Collins then goes on to talk about the "hypersexuality of black women, and the similar iconic view of the black man. In contrast to black women, black men were viewed as dangerous and in need of control. The entrance of these somewhat tabboo stereotypes occured when these images were brought into private viewing areas through television, video, DVD, and the Internet. Not only are black people objectified in society, but they are disadvantaged in the global economy. Although in the US people may vote, not everyone is at a fair advantage due to the fact that "corporations and other propertied entities wield tremendous influence in deciding the outcome of elections because they fund campaigns" (Collins 34). Collins continues to illustrate the main differences that black people must deal with in their daily lives, and the way that they are treated by those around them and in the media.

In "Sex 'R' Us", Douglas mainly confronts the idea of how girls and women have been sexualized. This chapter begins with addressing the provocative Calvin Klein ads in the 1960's, where the commercials apparently "looked like 'runaway kids' coaxed from bus stations by exploitative adults" (Douglas 154). She examines the mainstreaming of pornography and how it affects females, and looks at the concept of the "sexpert". A sexpert is typically "white, young, heterosexual, slim, busty, beautiful, and a middle- or middle-upper-class female" (Douglas 156), and are active sexual agents who have the power to get what they want through sex and sexual display. The 90's began an era of corporations profiting from the sale of sex, influencing many young girls and how they thought they should act. The murder of Jon Benet Ramseyin started a media frenzy for the sole reason that she was a hypersexualized toddler. In general Douglas speaks of how the sexualization of women is different from the sexualization of men, and how this might influence the female social status. She also examines the question of whether enlightened sexism is truly beneficial for women.

Rebecca Walker's chapter on "Lusting for Freedom" is an example of third-wave feminism.

Walker uses her own experiences with sex to emphasize that sex can be more than what is typically understood. She explores the notion that sex can lead to self-actualization, and that it is a place where a woman is able to learn on her own how the world relates to her. Walker believes that in society today, there is a need to build a bridge between sex and sexuality. She believes that, "The way we experience, speak about, and envision sex and sexuality can either kill us or help us to know and protect ourselves better" (Walker 19).

In Sonia Shah's chapter on "Tight Jeans and Chania Chorris", she investigates how western culture and sexuality, along with feminism, are interchangable and can be viewed in different contexts. Shah struggled as a feminist in her family with her hypersexualized sister, and experience inner turmoil until she realized that not all feminist situations are the same, and that many don't recognize cultural duality. She comes to the conclusion that white feminist ideas could not be grafted onto her indian family's ideas of how to lead life.

Rachel Godbout News Flash: Fatally Slamming The Birdcage Shut

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2009/10/30/muslim-arizona-man-arrested-allegedly-running-westernized-daughter/

http://www.marieclaire.com/world-reports/news/latest/honor-killings-in-america

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2349892
/noor_almaleki_murdered_by_her_father.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhoDK2xfXsw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhT0u2X1Qdg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwbEc_NSoHI&feature=related


Although gender separation seems to be a global, broad phenomenon, it is actually intricately linked with local, regional, and national cultures. One’s culture colors the lens with which one views the world, so it is impossible to separate one’s views about sex, gender, and the separations between the “male sphere” and the “female sphere” from one’s culture. If a woman wants to pose half-naked for Playboy magazine in America, hardly anyone is scandalized or shocked; American culture views female sexuality as something alluring and lucrative that should be exploited and American media – which is a direct expression of cultural shifts – is daily bombarded by sexual jokes, images, storylines, and news as Douglas has asserted numerous times (Douglas 3-11, 24-25, 54-60). Americans are somewhat inured to sexual topics because it is so prevalent in American culture. On the other hand, in Middle Eastern cultures, a woman posing naked for a magazine would cause outrage and her execution or punishment would be called for. These cultures are still extremely polarized to value men far above women, thereby allowing women to be suppressed, controlled, and punished due to their assigned and perceived inferior status.
The perpetuation of the Middle Eastern cultural view by families living in those countries as well as in the United States that men are superior to women still continues. For example, Fausto-Sterling relates how some Saudi parents of children with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, or CAH, refused to raise their masculine-looking children as girls or to have them undergo feminizing surgery despite their children’s ability to get pregnant (Fausto-Sterling 58-59). These parents’ refusal to raise their children who looked male, but really had viable female reproductive systems, as daughters instead of sons proves how culture influences how people view gender. These parents were programmed by the society they lived in that men are worth more than women since men have much more freedom, so they also were programmed to want sons over daughters. A son can take care of his parents, go to school, get a job, and bring money into the house; a daughter would only be a drain on income because she could not go to school or hold a job and when she gets married, her parents have to pay a dowry. Having a daughter means worrying about and strictly guarding her virginity until her marriage because if she does have sex beforehand, her only value as a potential wife is gone and shame is brought upon the family. The doctors hit the nail on the head when they commented that this refusal “‘was resisted on social grounds…This was essentially an expression of local community attitudes with…the preference for male offspring’ (Fausto-Sterling 58-59).”
One way that Middle Eastern culture controls women’s actions are the severe punishments women must face if they do anything considered inappropriate, out of line, or “shameful” such as having premarital sex (whether it is consensual or not) or being disobedient to their husbands and fathers. Because these punishments of torture, death, and beatings would not be stopped but rather encouraged by these women’s communities and own families, many women act as they are expected to so as to avoid these punishments; these consequences seriously limit women’s freedom, thoughts, actions, and communication by using fear as a weapon. The fact that these punishments are meted out often and usually in public constantly remind women that they hold no power, which reduces their ability and determination to challenge the system. Every aspect of their bodies and lives are controlled by this patriarchal society which will not hesitate to stigmatize, criticize, and even kill them if they dared to break free or speak out. One of these punishments – honor killings, or the systematic killings of women who have overstepped their boundaries in order to preserve their families’ honor – is a major rung in the female birdcage that traps and prevents Middle Eastern women from speaking out and changing their society’s attitudes about femininity and women’s rights. Honor killings suppress women in two main ways in that they take away women’s right to make their own decisions through fear and set up bars to keep women from speaking out against injustice.
One such honor killing that silences all Middle Eastern women both overseas and in America is the murder of 20-year-old Noor Almaleki, who was killed by her father for being “too Westernized (Fox; Marie Claire).” She was a fun-loving woman who was just like any other young adult – she went to the mall, hung out with friends, played sports, had a boyfriend, and went to school (Marie Claire). However, her cheerful and carefree outward demeanor hid her strict, oppressive family life – she “lived a life of subservience, often left to care for her six younger siblings (Marie Claire).” Unfortunately, her American life eventually led to her violent, senseless death at the hands of her own father.
Her controlling, overbearing father Faleh Almaleki did not approve of his daughter’s lifestyle; he did not want her talking to any men, wearing Americanized clothing, or going on the internet because he believed that she should follow what her Middle Eastern culture prescribed for her – obey the men in her life “or risk a beating (Marie Claire)” and ultimately be a good wife and mother in an arranged marriage. Noor defied her father’s wishes, which he perceived as her bringing shame upon him and his family (Marie Claire); to preserve his and his family’s honor, Faleh first rammed his Jeep Grand Cherokee into his daughter and her boyfriend’s mother when they were walking in a parking lot to have a lunch date, throwing them into the air (Marie Claire). He ran over his daughter to finish the job, fracturing her face and backbone (Marie Claire). He fled the scene and was later apprehended (Fox). Noor died of her injuries a week later while her boyfriend’s mother survived with serious injuries (Associated Content).
Honor killings are a particularly violent way that men oppress women, to force them to act the way men have deemed appropriate, natural, or normal – a male-determined sphere of “appropriate” female action that women did not agree to follow and had no voice in creating, but one that they must adhere to at all times. When women act in a way that is contradictory to this “normal path,” men use this transgression as cause for reprimand or punishment in order to keep women in the sphere men has assigned to them. They prove that Stanton and Mott were right when they asserted that “[t]he history of mankind is the a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her (Seneca Falls Declaration).” Faleh Almaleki had established “an absolute tyranny” over his daughter Noor, going as far as beating her when she did not obey his orders because she was not acting in the way culture deemed appropriate for her sex (Marie Claire).
He forced her to act in ways that she did not want to, to loyally and completely follow the customs of a culture that she did not feel connected to, and to unquestionably submit to these rules which she personally had no say in making; in other words, he “compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice (Seneca Falls Declaration).” Her father was going to pick the man she had to marry instead of her being able to marry whom she wanted – Faleh and her eventual husband would have also “made her, if married, in the eyes of the law, civilly dead (Seneca Falls Declaration)” because she would have no right to speak her own mind and contradict her husband if she wanted to. If she married, she would have had to obey her husband without question – “she [would have been] compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master – the [cultural] law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement (Seneca Falls Declaration).” Noor had no way to escape this stifling, misogynistic culture except by speaking out, of trying to hold on to her American identity.
Her death is a striking example of hitting the walls of the very real birdcage that Marilyn Frye claims entraps women into a limited set of acceptable behavior (Frye). Because Noor grew up in a culture that openly values men more than women, her birdcage was even tighter and smaller than the birdcages felt by “liberated” American women; she couldn’t marry whom she wanted, she couldn’t have internet freedom, she couldn’t wear certain clothing like other women in other cultures can. When she tried to dodge these bars and escape her cage, she was immediately dispatched; her death was symbolic of the birdcage because she had hit the walls of it, she could go no farther, and when she tried to go farther, she paid the ultimate price for her transgression – her own life.
She was a bird, like all other women are birds, that was “surrounded by a network of systemically related barriers, not one of which would be the least hindrance to its flight, but which, by their relations to each other, are as confining as the solid walls of a dungeon (Frye).” The rules she had to follow by themselves are individually navigable. If she couldn’t wear the clothing she wanted, she could work around it. If she couldn’t go on the internet, she could find other ways of getting information. All the cultural rules combined together, however, bound her into a very narrow set of things she could do. When she dared to do otherwise, she was killed for it. Honor killings are one of the major backbones of Middle Eastern women’s birdcages because they could really happen to them. Honor killings stop women from even trying to venture out of their cages; they stop women from even thinking about daring or challenging their culture. When women cannot afford to dare, they will continue to be suppressed – like Middle Eastern women have been suppressed up until today.
Honor killings’ sheer number of violations of the rights all women are entitled to cannot be countered because of the fear they instill in women, which forces women to choose between survival and death. Until Middle Eastern women feel safe to speak out against these horrible forms of oppression, this cruel form of patriarchy will continue to terrorize and silence women everywhere.