This week in lecture...

This week in lecture we talked about the relationship between sexuality, innocence, desire, and monogamy. The professor was clear in her views that there is no natural, biological explanation for monogamy, and that these constraints we place on our sexual habits of reproduction are socially created. I think that an argument could be made for the biological explanation, though.

A species' main purpose, on the most basic level, is to reproduce and procreate. However, in the process of fighting for evolutionary survival, species sometimes modify their habits or anatomy to scoot their species along evolutionarily. Some of these habits include relationships that have formed among individuals that make procreation and reproduction more easy, like monogamy. The anthropological explanation is that having one partner ensures parental responsibility. If monogamy is assured, and individuals are biologically focused on passing down their genes to the next generation, then the biological parents will spend more time and energy in raising their young, in hopes of their survival. There has also been many studies that assert that having two parents around makes for increased resources of time, money, energy, attention, knowledge, etc. for the child, which has a positive impact towards child development and growth.

Societal stability, in my opinion, supports evolutionary survival. As animals, we humans have also created norms to manage stability among our relationships. Whether they have gone too far is debatable. Perhaps these habits that we have formed do not support our lifestyle anymore, and I agree that these norms to some extent have hampered our ability to progress, but that does not take away from the argument that it is biologically and evolutionarily desirable for some amount of societal stability to occur within a species.

Marxism, Feminism, and Family

Marxism and Feminism are two different ideologies that are centered around social equality. However, both have different maneuvers in which they tackle the issue. The feminist approach to equality attempts to incorporate aspects of gender and race into a general idea of an equal level of opportunity for all people to succeed. Whereas Marxism attempts to create a society based on the aspect of an overall socioeconomic equality in which the entire population is at a medium in regards to social standing. Early Marxists, such as Marx and Engels, saw capitalism drawing women into the labor force. They believed that capitalism was "destroying the sexual division of labor." On the other hand, feminism is pro-labor and therefore counters the idea of a sexual labor division. Feminists believe women should have equal job opportunities as men.

A Stanford philosophy article makes an interesting contrast. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-class/ The article makes a different point, stating that "the rise of capitalism, in separating the family household from commodity production, further solidifies this control of men over women in the family when the latter become economic dependents of the former in the male breadwinner-female housewife nuclear family form." This states that although feminist ideals support a productive women labor force, a family relationship discourages a gender-equal labor force simply by the fact that men are often the heads of the household. Men are typically the ones that provide a majority of the family's income while women stay home, tending to the house and children. This social norm has limited the outreach of women to bring equality into the labor force.

Dr. Pepper -- A Sexist Ad

My commentary is about the Dr. Pepper advertisement that can be seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vBMH5DcPts

It consists of a man (from the military, judging from the uniform and the weaponry) and he is running through the jungle, shooting at his enemy, being very "macho" and saving the day with his strength and brawn, good aim, and lack of effort. The ad shows how he's just such a natural at saving the day, as he throws his Dr. Pepper 10 can behind him without looking, and traps the enemies into a net that the can had activated. There are some strong implications when one thinks of the fact that this man is natural at saving the day, and the drink which is his secret to all his abilities is "not for women". What is that supposed to mean? That women can't be strong? Women can't save the day? They don't have good aim? And lastly, they can't drink Dr. Pepper 10?

We all know today that women can be just as much part of the military as men can. Women can save the day too, and they have good aim--but are they strong? Is it possible that women themselves believe they are weak, just because they are portrayed that way? They are made to feel like this is what they are "supposed" to be--could that be what makes them actually stay in that role? In the movie Crash, Ludacris is a black man standing on the street, and Sandra Bullock, a white lady is passing by him on the same street, and as soon as she sees a black man, she turns towards her husband, as if she feels threatened. Ludacris notices this, and he tells his black friend something about how scary it is that everyone is prejudiced and thinks the worst of them just because they are dark-skinned. He says something like "why aren't we scared, when there are people like this? I'll tell you why--because we got guns." And then he takes his gun out and shoots. The point of this is that society is what made him have the attitude of "if this is what people think I am, so then I'll live up to it", and this attitude could be what women are going through also.

Ads like these aren't ethical, and they should be stopped.

Freud: Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality

In Freud's second essay he focused on sexuality in infancy and childhood. He explained how perversion was present even amoung the healthy and a path towards the sexual attitudes and norms began at a young age in ones childhood and not in the before believed puberty. Freud also believed that infants and young children expressed infantie sexual emotions in various ways such as sucking on ones thumb. He also claimed that sibling rivalry and ones retention of their feces was a form of expressing their infantile sexual emotions.

After reading this essay some of his theories made a bit of sense, however I believe children did not hold these sexual desires that he claimed they expressed in unusual ways. I believe most children sucked on their thumbs to relieve the itching of their incoming teeth and not to perform some sort of erotic act of whcih they do not even understand yet. I also believe that a sibling rivalry does not in any way relate to unusual sexual desires in need of expression since most siblings seem to one up each other with no hidden sexual tensions. Freud did attempt to explain his theories, however I believe his reasoning was a bit of a reach to explain his ideas.

The Movie Dodgeball

Last night while watching the movie Dodgeball, I noticed how the actors portrayed very distinct traditional American gender roles.

The men, were portrayed the most "manly" if they had the biggest muscles. Ben Stiller  portrays a character who has enormous muscles and a deep tan. In one part of the movie, the shot focuses on him inflating the section around his groin so that it appears he has a larger penis. He does this in efforts to impress the pretty lawyer. By this act, the character enforces the traditional gender obsession about size. In addition, the main actress in the movie who portrays the lawyer, also does not help the traditional gender roles. When she steps onto the court, and shows her amazing athletic ability, one teammate immediately assumes she is a lesbian. This assumption is from society's traditional viewpoint that pretty, small, "feminine" heterosexual women cannot possibly be competitive in sports with boys.

What are the impact of these messages? In truth, yes, this is a comedy, and a popular American comedy at that. However, the messages still stand as strong. Youth soak up these messages, and believe them to be true. This movie portrays that boys that are not strong, such as the character that dropped the girl in the cheer tryouts, are laughable. And girls are portrayed as striking opposites of femininity if they are athletic. Yet in the real world, this is not the case.

Marx & Feminism

The Marxist view of feminism is one that I have never considered. However, political struggles that focus on inequality as a key issue should study Marx as a commentary on socialism. Marx as related to feminism focuses on on how capitalism can be applied to feminism. In capitalism, the ultimate goal is to increase capital. The difference between labor and the capital needed to pay the labor is surplus value. In the words of one of the authors of our book, surplus value is the difference between the labor provided by the workers and the capital needed to maintain the workers. Using this model, the way to abolish inequality used by capitalists to take advantage of the workers is to eliminate the surplus value by demanding that the workers "be maintained" at a cost equal to the value of their labor. If the capitalists have no surplus value and no capital, then monetarily it does not make sense for them to maintain the worker class in their current position.

Other authors are quick to point out that the subjugation of women cannot be attributed merely to a monetary transaction: there is a strong social component to it also. In order to fully understand the causes of these inequalities, social and historical aspects should be analyzed, in addition to political and economic motivations. Like many animals, perhaps it is in our evolutionary nature to provide structure by organizing a hierarchy. The question then becomes, "Why are women subjected to the place that they are? How does this contribute to social relationships within that society?"

Transsexualism in Thailand

Transsexualism has long been a hotly debated topic here in the United States but somehow it is just a way of life in other places, and there is no other place that has more transgenders than the country of Thailand. Transgenders, also known ladyboys, are well accepted as the "third sex" in Thai society and Thailand has one of the highest rates of transsexualism per head in the world. Ladyboys in Thailand have been found to be employed in government departments, airline offices, commercial offices and retail outlets. An interesting rumor is that there are more ladyboys in the Thai capital than there are bus stops. Another one says that the best looking girls in Thailand are apparently the ladyboys. If a person visits Thailand without knowing some of the facts about transgender, it is very possible that they would not recognize a ladyboy while being in contact with them everyday.


It is also not a surprise that Thailand has its very own best known beauty pageant just for transgenders. Known as the Miss Tiffany's Universe beauty pageant that is held annually at Pattaya, Thailand. Despite being accepted in society, transgender have not had it easy in the country as it sometimes hinder them from having a mainstream occupation. The beauty pageant however has been a major force in promoting the cause and rights of transgenders not only in Thailand but also worldwide. I firmly believe that we are all born differently and making someone who is very different to conform to society's demands are absolutely ridiculous. One should be able to live the way he or she chooses and it is not their fault if they were born different. Who are we to judge otherwise?

Objectifying Men in Movies, slipping through the cracks

With all the buzz about Oscar nominations flooding my ears over the past week, movies have been constantly on my mind. I'm a film production major so I spend a lot of my time watching and analyzing films, and I've noticed something that seems to be slipping through the cracks in relation to the back-lash certain films are receiving for casting female sex-symbols in order to attract larger audiences: We do this with men too. If you are a woman, are you more likely to go see a movie when the hero is Ryan Gosling or Kevin James? My guess is that you would prefer Ryan Gosling. He is a fit, attractive movie star that is guaranteed to pull in more female viewers. Yet this whole concept is hardly ever complained about. However, when a girl like Megan Fox is cast in a movie people immediately brand her as just being used to get more boys to go. Transformers was written off in my book due to everyone's obsession with Megan Fox and not the actual Transformers themselves. So why do people not complain about the Ryan Goslings and instead voice their opinions about the Megan Foxes of Hollywood?

A few days ago I was discussing the Oscar nominations with a fellow female film-production major. She was quite infuriated the Ryan Gosling was not nominated for his performance in Drive. Personally, I didn't think that he had been exceptional in that movie, yet she was dead set on him deserving at least a nomination. She then went on to say: "I can't believe Jonah Hill was nominated over Ryan, it's just a disgrace." Now, Jonah Hill is not the best looking fellow, but he is a pretty good actor. He has only been in mostly comedies up until his role in Moneyball, but he played the part well. Ryan Gosling has not been in many exceptional movies up until Drive either, his most notable being his role in the sappy romance The Notebook. I thought it was interesting how my friend was so upset that the chubby Jonah Hill had beat out the dashing Ryan Gosling for an oscar nom.

Another way to look at the issue is in terms of the James Bond movies. In each movie there is always a super sexy girl, known as a "Bond Girl", who usually is Bond's romantic interest. These women are always sly and extremely attractive. As a girl I usually dismiss these women as useless actresses that are simply there to further entertain the male audience. However, I had never really thought about James Bond himself. Bond is always an extremely suave, attractive man. When Daniel Craig was cast as James Bond in the most recent installments there was a large amount of controversy over him being the first "Blonde" bond and whether or not he was attractive enough for the role. Therefore, James Bond himself is as much a useless, good-looking figure as the bond girls. I think that this idea says a lot about how our society still views men and women in the media today.

-Elle Callahan

Killing Us Softly

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ujySz-_NFQ
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4-1xCf3I7U&feature=related

The videos above are a lecture by a woman who has devoted her career to studying and analyzing gender portrayals in advertising and how they shape our culture essentially. Her expansive research and ad examples illustrate the shocking consistency in which female bodies are objectified, how they are provided with body ideals that are literally impossible to achieve and how that leads to a myriad of negative impacts for the development of women and our society in general.

Please watch and learn.

Furthermore, as I was logging on to do this assignment, the banner ad on Youtube was one for new "Axe Anarchy" one for men and women which included a commercial in which a functioning metropolis is transformed into chaos by a string of several occasions of men and women being drawn to each other and then absent-mindedly dropping what they are doing to approach the other while what they leave causes all kinds of calamity. Anarchy. twisted by the consumerist system to do none other than sell.... deodorant. This was the most striking and perverse example of what Prof. Halberstram mentioned in lecture as the way capitalism twists causes, movements, and revolutionary strides to sell shit.
Ridiculous.

Sexism in Politics and the Media

Now, women have become public servants, doctors, and lawyers, breaking through the gender barrier. However, few women are at the top of their field, and most of those who have climbed the ladder to a position of esteem do not carry the same heft as their male counterparts. For example, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany is the undisputed “Wunder Woman” of her country, leading one of the most affluent nations in the world. Her accomplishments are equivalent to many other male world leaders, but she is still very aware that her gender affects how her colleagues treat her, like when President Bush gave her a shoulder rub at a global conference in 2006. My question is whether Bush would have rubbed her shoulders if she were a man. Male politicians seem to believe their female colleagues can't handle the stressors of being in a role of power, but that simply isn't the case.


In another context, comedian Chelsea Handler has revolutionized late night television by having a successful nightly talk show. Her show remains on cable television, even though she is incredibly popular with the target demographic of women between 18-39, while network television is filled with white male comedians in the same timeslot. It is the common assumption that male comedians are funnier than women, even though movies like "Bridesmaids" make a comparable amount to movies like "The Hangover." Studio heads fear having a women on late night television, as they don't think people will watch or find her funny. Clearly, that is not the case, and it will be interesting to see when a woman can be taken seriously as a comedian (ironic, no?).

The Sexual Objectification of Women in the Media: A Brief Discussion of the Implications

The impact of visual media on attitudes toward women is of particular interest to me. I am currently preparing to conduct research related to these topics. My research is specifically focused on the stereotypical portrayals of women in the media and the subsequent effects it has on women’s gender ideology. Given that this is my field of interest, my blog post might be slightly too long and include too many citations, but oh well.

Objectification Theory

Objectification Theory posits that women and girls are socialized to accept the narrowly defined roles as sexualized objects, and adopt a third-person perspective when viewing their own bodies. Self-objectification is defined as “the process through which girls and women are typically acculturated to internalize an observer’s perspective as a primary view of their physical selves” (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). The effects of this phenomenon are detrimental for women’s well-being. It can lead to body monitoring, body shame, appearance anxiety, depression, and disordered eating. The core of sexual objectification has been defined as the “objectifying gaze”. This gaze is the third person perspective through which women view themselves. One component that sparks this perspective is “…visual media that spotlight bodies and body parts and seamlessly align viewers with an implicit sexualizing gaze” (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997).

Multiple studies have focused on the impact of visual media. It has been found that exposing female participants to magazine advertisements featuring the idealized female figure, and/or words related to physical appearance lead to the following: increases in self-objectification and appearance anxiety, and decreases in mood and body satisfaction (Harper & Tiggemann, 2008; Roberts & Gettman, 2004). The findings of these two studies are not anomalies; many studies have found the same, or similar, outcomes. This is exceptionally problematic in a society such as ours—a society in which we are perpetually bombarded by media portrayals of hyper-sexualized women. The media routinely depicts women that are rendered to be no more than sexual objects present for the male gaze and consumption.

Male Perceptions

In a study by Cikara, Eberhardt, and Fiske (2010), it was found that when exposed to sexualized female images, men with hostile sexist attitudes dehumanized women. These men utilized verbs commonly used for inanimate objects when describing women. Additionally, when these men viewed the women, the areas of their brain associated with viewing objects was activated, rather than the areas connected to recognizing humans. The perceptions of women as “things” strips us of our autonomy and at the most basic level, our status as human beings. This study truly demonstrates that media’s sexually objectifying depicts of women literally renders us as inanimate objects.

It is evident that the media’s portrayal of women is detrimental for all people in the society, not just women’s own well-being. It is frightening then that women are so frequently depicted in such manners. This can be seen in everything from clothing advertisements, magazine covers, and commercials for male projects (such as Axe) and drinks. The media utilizes women as props to grab the attention of the viewers in order to promote and profit off of their products.

NOTE: It must be clarified that the findings in the study by Cikara, et al (2010) are not representative of males as a whole, but rather a single subset. Men in this group received high scores in the Hostile Sexism subscale of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (Glick & Fiske, 2011). This means that these men hold negative stereotypical attitudes toward women, and hostile attitudes toward women who fail to submit to traditional gender roles and behaviors.

Sample statements from the subscale include: “Women get a kick out of teasing men by seeming sexually available and then refusing male advances”; “Most women interpret innocent remarks as being sexist”; “Women are too easily offended”; “Women seek to gain power by getting control over men”.  

Work Cited

Cikara, M., Eberhardt, J. L., & Fiske, S. T. (2010). From agents to objects: Sexist attitudes and neural responses to sexualized targets. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(3), 540 – 551.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(2), 173 – 206.

Harper, B., & Tiggemann, M. (2008). The effect of thin ideal media images on women’s self-objectification, mood, and body image. Sex Roles, 58(9), 649 – 657.

Roberts, T., & Gettman, J. Y. (2004). Mere exposure: Gender differences in the negative effects of priming a state of self-objectification. Sex Roles, 51(1), 17 – 27.

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2011). Ambivalent sexism revisited. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(3), 530 – 535. 

Contemporary Patriarchy

According to an article, “Contemporary Patriarchy in America: Examining the Gender Knot,” patriarchy is a system of dominance and control that has the primary characteristics of being male dominated, male identified, male centered, and obsessed with control. In contemporary society, such patriarchy is not so obvious, especially in America. Yet, the society is male dominated in the sense that the majority in power is occupied by male leaders particularly in the governmental positions. Just as the article explains, the first image comes to your mind when you imagine any professional jobs such as doctors, lawyers, judges, pastors, or CEOs is male. Moreover, the head of the family is considered as father or husband for most of the time. Although many people argue that patriarchy is disappeared in contemporary society, it still exists almost everywhere. However, the article articulates that it is not like males have more qualifications to dominate the society, rather the problem lies in the traditional characteristics of patriarchy.

The idea of maleness as a prerequisite for positions of power leads into the characteristic of patriarchy being a male identified system. In this matter, male is used as a basis of comparison so that anything that is not male is considered abnormal or of a lesser quality. For example, some people regard female professional workers as less qualified or capable of compared to male professionals. Yet, at the same time, I think this argument is a little extreme in some ways as the contemporary society sees the increasing number of females as able, intelligent women. In addition, the author argues that patriarchy is mostly represented with male’s obsession with control. “Men are assumed and expected to be in control at all times, to be unemotional, to present themselves as invulnerable, autonomous, independent, strong, rational, logical, dispassionate, knowledgeable, and always right.” Males, therefore, always want to have authority over females regardless of any situations. Obviously, patriarchy still exists in present societies.

http://voices.yahoo.com/contemporary-patriarchy-america-examining-gender-159188.html

Do Ads That Use Sex To Sell Their Products Degrade Women?

My commentary is based on the article: Do ads that use sex to sell their products degrade women? 

LINK:http://www.helium.com/items/488716-do-ads-that-use-sex-to-sell-their-products-degrade-women 

The person who wrote the article claims that advertisements, which try to sell their products through somewhat degrading and offensive images of women, are not the ones to blame when it comes to the diminishment of women’s roles. The writer says that women make themselves to be treated in a degraded manner, taking action that makes people think low of them.

However, although I understand the author’s point of view, I disagree a lot of what he has said. I lived in Brazil for about 11 years and have seen many advertisements that displayed women half-naked wearing skimpy underwear. Those advertisements were in very public places such as the highways, in front of restaurants, etc. Whenever I saw the advertisements, I felt very embarrassed and honestly did not know where to look at when the advertisements were in front of me. Hence, when the author says, “Lastly, use of a woman's body in advertisements and their impact has gone down considerably. People have realized that the rich, beautiful but scantily clad woman in the ad promoting a cheaper body lotion or a perfume, does not use the product herself”. The writer may have a point as she claims that the impact of the use of a woman’s body in order to sell a product has gone down, but I don’t agree that the advertisements do not affect the degrading status of women. The advertisements constantly remind people (and mostly men) about the women’s body and how they are used in society. Hence, even though people forget about certain images they had about women, once they see the advertisement, people are automatically lead to think about how women are somewhat more vulnerable. Hence, although I agree that to some extent women are degrading themselves through thoughtless actions, I think that the media plays a great role. The media keeps on playing the role of the reminder, in which it constantly uses women and reminds the public that women are very vulnerable and easy to manipulate. 

Marxism and Feminism- Why Unhappy Marriage?

           The metaphor, ‘unhappy marriage’ most appropriately describes the interlocked yet conflicting relationship between Marxism and Feminism. According to Marxism, the feminist struggle is of less importance than the larger, class struggle against capitalism. It assumes that the mode of production in capitalist society naturally places women in subordinate position, in which they are exploited along with the entire working class. Hence it fails to explain why women are discriminated and confined to inferior position in both domestic and public sphere. As Hartmann puts it, “Marxists, like capital itself, are sex-blind” (Hartmann 1997, 100). On the other hand, feminists believe that the cause of gender discrimination grounds in the patriarchal structure where all men dominate women regardless of class, race and ethnicity.  Particularly, the feminists argue that the emergence of ‘family wage’ diminishes women’s labor power and ensures that they are paid low, reinforcing the system that forces women to economically depend on men.

           Evidently, Marxism and feminism hold contrasting stance on the issue of gender discrimination. Yet, the two are united under the idea that for women to be completely emancipated, all classes and forms of oppressions should be abolished.  Perhaps such parallels with the relationship between husband and wife in which, men are responsible for economic provision whereas women in return do domestic services to support the ‘breadwinner’.  While men and women are interdependent, (without women, men cannot have children or create families), the patriarchal society expects women to be submissive merely because men hold ‘larger’ responsibility. Likewise, because the focus of Marxism is to understand ‘class’ struggle and dominance in capitalist society, it indeed encompasses larger portion of the social hierarchy than Feminism. Though the liberation of women is equally important as abolishing class stratification, Marxism is perceived to be ‘dominant’ ideology solely due to its magnitude. Hence the men-women relationship in marriage and Marxism- feminism relationship in society share a paradox; the coexistence of interdependence and inequality, which is cunningly in accord with the metaphor, 'unhappy marriage'.

Sexist Super Bowl Commercials

I had a hard time picking a subject to write about on our blog this week therefore I started reading everyone else's posts and I saw a lot of posts about different sexist commercials and ads. Since I'm a huge sports fan picking sexist and commercial ads was really easy for me. I decided to write this post about the 2011 super bowl game between the Packers and the Steelers. When is comes to the super bowl not only are people super excited about the football game but I find commercials in between the breaks to be a subject of conversation between a lot of people. Each spot for these commercials was sold for about 30 million dollars therefore I'm even always excited to watch the commercials. Because the number of men that watch the super bowl is much greater than women, the commercials tend to be targeted toward men and if not that, then they were gender natural and I don't ever remember a single commercial that I could say it would have been more liked by women.
The commercials we watch during the super bowl are usually car and truck commercials or beer and food commercials but what I don't understand is why they have to use female flesh to grab men's attentions and excite them. trust me I know sex sells but what I don't get is why only the female sex sells.
I have a few examples for you and it's funny because I didn't even need to search online or anything I remembered these commercials myself when watching it with my group of guy friends last year and being the only female there, I was annoyed by what I was watching.
1.First is the Go Daddy commercials which you can watch one here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J83EQ7LubwE&feature=player_embedded  they are non stop and each more sexist than the other. I chose to show you this one because the entire time the spokesperson in her tight leather suit is talking about the new women and all these great characteristics of her, but the camera is focust on her chest and her butt and even though it ends up being super funny it really bothers me how easily they can get away with commercials like this.
2. Second one I chose is a sneakers chocolate commercial here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO_uJVL8KkA&feature=player_embedded now this one is the opposite of the last. Let's kick the whiny unattractive wife with a log of wood and I don't understand why she can't be eating the snickers and feeling better.
3.  And last but not least, every one of my guy friends' favorite, the Kim Kardashian Sketchers commercial here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3L8Cvx7-9c&feature=player_embedded#! this one I'm not even going to bother explaining this one because it's so painfully obvious what they are selling.
There you go. I can write an entire paper if not a book just about sexist super bowl commercials and it is something that a lot more attention should be given to it because the number of female super bowl watchers is increasing every year.

A Black Feminist Statement

Feminism is not a word I use quite often and that is why I took this class to gain more knowledge about the social issues that surround gender and being male and female. However I did not think we would address other important facts such as racism and I never even thought about the impact people's "color" had or has on issues that surround their sex. Out of all the articles we read the past two weeks I decided to write my two paragraph on the Linda Nicholson's The Second Wave, A Reader in Feminist Theory. The chapter "A Black Feminist Statement" grabbed my attention because it was the first time I realized that the second wave of American woman's movement meant different things for women of different colors. When I always heard or read about feminism I always thought about the two categories of male and female and now I realize that it's white male, white female, black male, black female and all the other colors we identify people with. 

The fight for women's right was different for the black female community because they were part of two communities but never fully belonging to any. If you categorized them as female, white females were ranked higher than them in society and if you categorized them as a black person, black males were also ranked higher than them in society.  As the article says black women say "we had to struggle together with black men against racism, while we also struggle with black men about sexism" (Nicholson,65). Therefore for black women before tackling all the problems that came along with being a women at that time, they had to tackle all the problems that surrounded their class and race first.

Reading about these factors made me want to gain more knowledge about it. That is why I started reading more antifeminism articles online and what reason people gave to argue with the freedom black women were trying to gain. The myths I found that were alarming was :

1. Feminism is nothing but man hating.

2. Feminists are nothing but lesbians. 

(these two apply to white females also)

3. The black woman is already liberated.

4. Racism is the primary (or only) oppression black women have to confront.

5. Women's issues are narrow and people of color need to deal with the "larger struggle"

All these factors showed me that yes, fighting for women's right was a hard task for females at the time but it was an even harder task for the black females.  

Barrett vs. Hartmann: Defining and Ascribing Patriarchy

          Michéle Barrett rejects the claim that patriarchy is “a primary psychic dynamic of contemporary gender construction” (125). Rather than defining patriarchy so as to include all forms of male domination, thus sufficing it as a systematic explanatory theory, Barrett argues “for a more precise and specific use of the concept of patriarchy (125). Barrett is content limiting the application of patriarchy to the subordinating dynamic of fathers expressing power over women and younger men (125). This definition does not fully address the inter-dependence of men on each other to maintain positions of control; nor does it entail all the social structures used to dominate women. Heidi Hartmann, however, defines patriarchy as a hierarchical set of social relations with a material base that enables the domination of women through the misogynist solidarity of men (101).

          I disagree with Barrett in support of Hartman’s more inclusive understanding of patriarchy as transcending biological hierarchal organization (103). Hartmann reiterates the material base of patriarchy as the means by which men control women’s labor powers (103). Barrett also maintains that the oppression of women has a material base, although outside the immediate definition of patriarchy (124). Hartman explains the labeling of patriarchy as an appropriate application to the present sex/gender system because it accurately “captures the notion of hierarchy and male dominance which we see as central to the present system” (102). Both Hartmann and Barrett address the symptoms of patriarchy. I contend that Hartmann conveys a more precise and appropriately inclusive explanation that nullifies the need for Barrett’s proposition for a concentrated labeling of the concept of patriarchy.

    

Transgender Flight Attendants

When someone mentions Thailand, people usually find themselves thinking about pristine beaches, great food, and a highly concentrated number of transgender men.  I recently came across an article that depicts a step forward in Thailand's culture towards social equality.  "Ladyboys", as transgender people are called in Thailand,  have had incredibly difficult times finding jobs outside of careers that specifically use their physique as a quota, such entertainers.  And until recently, that has been their main source in Thailand's job market as they are not accepted in other professions.  PC Air's founder, Peter Chan, has seen and confronted this problem as a "question of human rights" and believes "[the ladyboys] work as dancers or entertainers or in shops, because society doesn't accept them in other jobs."  Chan has thus changed his company's long-standing policy which discriminates against transgender flight attendants and hopes that this will send a profound message throughout the world about human rights.
Since transgender men are quite common in Thailand, the news of changing policy for PC Air seems to have been positively received by the general public.  The journey towards social equality is a long and treacherous but progress is slowly being made worldwide.  The small changes throughout the world have a much greater effect than before since in today's global society we have the internet which can telegraph ideas and cultures directly to our homes.  The standard for gender equality is far from perfect but with the few people like the founder of PC Air, Peter Chan, I think people will slowly start to realize the potential in the individual and not just the negative label imprinted by society.

"The Ultimate Man Cave"

    As I completed my daily Yahoo! scroll-throughs, I came across an article/video on Yahoo! News about a product called Pillow Talk in which a ring records a person's heartbeat that is transmitted and played aloud from a pillow located somewhere else- usually with a significant other. While contemplating on just how odd this device was, I noticed that the next streaming video was titled "The Ultimate Man Cave," in which news anchor Bill Weir from ABC News crazed over the newest technologies fit for the ideal male sanctuary. And just as the title suggests, everything about this video screamed sexist and gender-specific.
 
   The "ultimate man cave" consisted of $8,000 massage chairs, organic LED televisions, giant speakers, refrigerators with designated beer-chillers, touchpad headphones, and flying toys. But why do these luxury items categorize as strictly for males? Perhaps because a man that works long hours desperately deserves the time to recuperate in his "man cave" watching the Packers win on his 0.6-inch thick LED television as he reclines in his overly priced massage chair drinking his chilled beer from the fridge with the newest blast chiller feature.

   The modern woman is more likely to hold a substantial job outside of the stereotypical secretary, teacher, receptionist position than ever before. However, a woman's job doesn't end when she checks out of the office; it continues when she gets home and is obligated to cook, clean, and care for the kids. Why? Because that is what is expected of her; her sex defines her gender positions. Gender stereotypes are everywhere, and for one, pressed upon us by the many attempts of marketers trying to sell their products to a specific crowd, a gender-specific crowd. Through marketers' attempts to sell their products, they must target their audience, and through this, further define gender roles, subconsciously training them to adhere to certain interests and reject others. They don't give their buyers, or anyone exposed to their products (meaning everyone), a choice.

Sexism in Business

Gender discrimination is more prevelant today than it has been in the last several years. With the economy hitting a new low, it is ever important that women and men be treated equally. According to major news channels, the United States is short on six million jobs, as compared to 2007. In this turbulent economy, women and men deserve to fight the same battle; not one filled with questions regarding maternity leave, and family issues. However, most women, whether they go into academics, medicine, technology, communication, or business, are faced with the same questions; none of which concern the position they are applying for. Having discussed the commercials, and other areas of society where women are not treated nearly as equally to men as they should be, I came across this article:

http://www.inc.com/vivek-wadhwa/face-of-success-silicon-valleys-woman-problem.html

Most people think that women and men are competing on salary and working hours, however, as an entrepreneur, I have discoved and witness much more. Having read this article, it dawned on me that asking for funding for a start-up is like any other job interview, one that's composed of inappropriate questions to women. As this article states, Venture Capitalists are not only concerned with "whether a nanny will be hired," but also what would happen if, "the husband got a job in a different country?" They are not assessed on their qualification, their business model, or their passion.

It's interesting that we discussed the reasons why men did not want women to work, when discussing the essays in the Second Wave, however, in today's society it is the opposite. Employers do not want women to commit to working if they plan on having a family. This is true in Medicine, Business, and most industries, it begs the question: what exactly do men want?

In Defense of Feminism

My new growing understanding of feminism has led me to reflect upon how people have twisted the movement and attached various stigmas and stereotypes. My background experience with the term in colloquial usage occurred most frequently when people would make some flippant comment about how "women belong in the kitchen" (or something else unbelievably bigoted along those lines) and I would rebuke them and then faced the term "crazy feminist" being thrown back into my face. I have noticed that people have mentally pigeon-holed the movement to some extent and might even connote it with bra-burning-man-haters, which certainly went out of style along with the mullets and bell bottoms that were also the rage at the time. Another misconception that I have come across is that people think that "feminism" has become synonymous with "female supremacism" which is clearly not the case and never was part of the agenda, yet people claim to be turned off to feminism because that is how they perceive it.

Even when people asked me if I was a feminist I couldn't help but instinctively feel like I needed to present a rationalized justification if I decided to answer yes to that question, which struck me as sad and disturbing because I didn't feel like I should have to passively or apologetically stand up for a movement I supported. I have now learned in further depth that feminism is a multifaceted movement that at the core is promoting EQUALITY for all women, everywhere and in every aspect of life because there is currently oppression across the spectrum of existence and at various levels in societies around the world.
If I had to distill the most prominent lessons I have learned thus far they would be as follows:
1. Feminism and the struggle for equality cannot be approached by only one aspect or examined in one context because it extends into all facets of life.
2. There is nothing at all "obvious" "natural" or "inevitable" about GENDER because it is a product of whatever social/political/cultural system that you are examining the concept within...more on that next week....

Capitalism and Advertisements

I found it interesting how in a Capitalist society women can be seen as irrational and emotional. Women are also seen as dependents since they depend on men for the family wage. A great example of the degradation of women due to capitalism is advertisements. In most cleaning advertisements a women is seen smiling and ready to clean up the mess that has been left for her. These kinds of advertisements mock women since they exhibit them as the workers who have to deal with these problems and display how it is their job and their duty to clean the house.

One cleaning advertisement that especially mocks women and the empowerment of women is one that exhibits Rosie the Riveter in the advertisement and then stating in large bold letters, "GET THE POWER," and in small letters, "The Power to Clean Anything." Rosie the Riveter was one of the greatest symbols of the empowerment of women and had represented that a women was just as capable at doing a man's job when the men were at war. She stood in a time when women began to realize that they were strong capable beings and could do more than just keep the house tidy and raise the children.  However, this advertisement exhibited her as nothing more than a maid who, while using Clorox products, could clean anything. It dwindles her image all the way down from a  symbol of empowerment, respect, strength, and beauty to nothing more than a cleaner. This advertisement also mocks women by exhibiting that they will, "GET THE POWER," it presents a sense of empowerment for women. However, it cleverly exhibits in the smaller letters below that the only power they will be holding is the power to clean their household. This displays a lack of respect for women in this day and age and simply continues to exploit the belief that a woman's role is the caretaker of the household and that her job is to purchase the most powerful cleaning products to make sure her house is presentable.

Same Sex Parents

In regards to gender roles in society, I would like to share an experience from my childhood. When I was about 8 years old a new family moved to our block. I remember playing outside in the front yard one day when I first saw them pull into their new house. Two women and a young girl stepped out of the car. Now, my parents are both Christian and therefore they take a stance against homosexuality in today's society. They had raised me to believe the same. When I first found out that the two women were actually the little girl's parents I was both surprised and confused. However, being neighbors I got to know the girl and came to learn that she was quite normal. It was clear to me that her parent's decisions had not affected her normality or the way she had grown up.

As I have grown older, and constructed my own views and beliefs I have formed the opinion that same sex parents are just as capable of raising normal children as are traditional, "mom and pop" parents. My experiences reminded me of an article I once read pertaining to same-sex parents. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-01-21-parentgender21_ST_N.htm
In the article, USC sociologists Stacey and Timothy Biblarz found that same-sex parents have raised children to have normal levels of self-esteem, school performance, and social adjustment. The article goes on to say that the children of same-sex parents are virtually indistinguishable from traditional parents. Perhaps the hype about same-sex parents being incapable of raising normal children is simply propaganda used to discredit homosexuality.

-Jon Bisignano

The Vagina Monologues

Uncensored, honest, and raw. These three words describe Eve Ensler's play The Vagina Monologues. Structurally, The Vagina Monologues consist of a compilation of interviews from 200 women, ranging from 6 years old to 72 years old. In a post in the AAUW blog titled "The Value in The Vagina Monologues," the author states that the power of this play derives from the fact that these stories are from real women's concerns about "their vaginas, their relationships, their attitudes, violence, homelessness, birth, sexual assault, femininity, disaster, life and everything in between." These interviews serve as a source of empowerment for women. It serves as a forum for women and men to embrace and acknowledge the beauty in female sexuality. 
From current personal experience working on this play, I understand how this production aligns with our work in Social Issues in Gender and Sexuality. Throughout history, women traditionally have been expected to deal with these issues in silence. In fact, it is still debatable whether speaking publicly about these supposed "private matters" is socially acceptable at all. By speaking so freely about topics related to vaginas, this play is ground-breaking in the fact that it exemplifies it is perfectly natural and wonderful for one to love their body, and their sexuality. It is especially important for men to see this play as well. Exposure to this play will help eradicate traditionally stereotypes of a fragile damsel in distress. These characters highlight strong and confident women, who have an important message to spread, and nobody will stop them. 

Gender as a Choice

In lecture we discussed the stereotypes of what is known as a "girl" and a "boy" in relation to children. Today if you give birth to a girl you are given pink blankets, dolls, and purple bows, while if your child is a boy you receive blue onesies, squishy balls, and tonka trucks. This leaves little room for the child to determine what things they like to wear or play with because half of their world has been designated fit for the opposite gender. This discussion reminded me of an article I had read a few years ago. A couple who were fed up with these gender restrictions decided not to announce the sex of their newborn baby, and instead let the child choose if it was a boy or a girl. There was much controversy over this regarding how this would affect the child's development. I saw it as an interesting idea. I personally would not chose to do so with my child, but it seemed like a very good idea. It was such a fresh perspective on child rearing and I had always wondered how it turned out.

While scrolling through Yahoo.com a few days ago I stumbled upon a similar article. While I'm not completely sure if it is the same couple, their story is extremely similar. Their child, Sasha, just turned five and is entering kindergarden, so they finally announced that he was a boy since they were forced to do so in order for him to enter school. Up until now Sasha has been able to play with any kinds of toys he liked and dress however he saw fit. I'm interested to see how their style of raising him will be affected by the gender identities that school may force upon him. Will he be bullied? Will he feel alienated? I hope that this way of raising children catches on, since so much of the today's images of what is "male" and "female" starts at such a young age. Perhaps if everyone raised their children this way we would start to make even more changes.

-Elle Callahan

Inequality and the Feminist Identity

The female experience is one that a male cannot understand. The black experience is one that a white person cannot understand. The lower-class experience is one that an upper-class person cannot understand. The combination of all three is something that only black women can understand. As the authors discuss, separating race, class, gender, and sexual orientation in an unequal and oppressive society such as ours is impossible. Due to the intertwined nature of oppression, no single group can be free from domination unless all groups are free. If women we somehow granted equal personhood, black women would still be trapped in the vortex of racism. If both racism and sexism were eradicated, people in the LGBT community would still experience oppression.

If we can recognize the inherently interconnected web of oppression, then why does racism/ sexism/ heterosexism still exist within the different minority groups? How can anyone stand up and claim to be fighting for equality when they marginalize a different minority? It is necessary to come together, regardless of differences, to fight against oppression for all. Yet, we still witness minority groups hating other minority groups. The solution seems painfully obvious yet it is somehow impossible in our society.

Another issue brought up in the reading was that of the difficulty to simply “announce in certain contexts that we are black feminists” (67). The challenge of pronouncing oneself as a feminist is still a blatant issue. It is devastatingly obvious how few teenaged and young adult women are willing to identify as feminists. Several semesters ago, I took SWMS 301: Intro to Feminist Theory. On the first day of class, the professor asked everyone in the class to raise their hands if they consider themselves to be feminists. In a roughly thirty-person class, only two people raised their hands. It was shocking to me that in a room of bright and educated students, only a boy and I identified as feminists. It’s not that the other students hate women, loathe equal rights, and endorse patriarchal domination; they just simply did not view themselves as feminists. This was shocking and sad to me. How is it that in today’s world “feminist” is still such a dirty word? It is just striking to me that I am the only one of my friends who embrace and embody the term feminist. The fight for equality is far from over, yet how do we fight for our rights if the majority of us shy away from the feminist label? We have so far to go.

Gender Identity

I would like to bring up a very interesting story that some people have shared with me which is very relevant to our gender studies class. We have been discussing in our sections about how certain races are supposedly better at certain things that are attributed to their biological and genetic differences, and I feel that the role gender plays in determining our personality and sexual orientation should be explored further.  Bobby Montoya  is a young boy who has been attracted to wearing dresses, playing with Barbie dolls and doing up his hair ever since a young age. His parents believed that he was just going through a phase of adolescence. However, Bobby's interest in supposedly "feminine" stuff has continued and he is straightforward about his gender identity. It came to the point where eve his parents have tried signing him up for the Girl Scouts. 

Bobby was however rejected from joining the Girl Scouts with the organization with the reasons being that he had "boy parts". Bobby was obviously left feeling dejected and does not understand the reasoning behind it.  Bobby's parents have also revealed that he has been constantly bullied and teased in school just because of the way he dresses. This brings up the very important question of how our society has been dealing with gender non conforming children and labeling them as "queer" or "weird". The definitions of sex and gender cannot be interchangeably used. We have to understand and accept the fact that there are people in this world who are born into a certain sex and have since moved on into the opposite gender. Sex is the biological and physiological difference while gender is nothing more than a socially constructed role that society deem is appropriate. The main problem of our society is not the people who act different, but the culture of not accepting people who do not fit into society's ridiculous conforming beliefs. 

Response to "Born This Way" Manifesto

Lady GaGa's manifesto preaching tolerance and self-acceptance is, I would argue, the greatest GLBT anthem of the last decade. We discussed in class the ramifications of saying the phrase "born this way" in terms of physical appearance, but I see the song as a gospel of accepting one's mental state. For example, many students argued that the song "Born This Way" embraced the GLB communities while leaving trans people in the dark. However, GaGa intended the term "born this way" to be about one's perception of who they are rather than a phrase preaching for self-acceptance of one's biology. If we accept the fact that GaGa's anthem is for mental self-acceptance, rather than physical, then she includes all elements of the acronym GLBT. Even still, I believe the song "Born This Way" can be seen as an anthem not just for the GLBT community but for anyone who has ever felt insecure about themselves, which is why she includes numerous communities (gay, straight, white, black, Lebanese, chola, etc.) in her lyrics.

As for the opening sequence of her music video, GaGa preaches for a world of tolerant and nonjudgmental people. She transports the audience into a futuristic setting in order to minimize the frustration many religious people may have with her lyrics. She makes herself a divine being and warns that evil will still be among the community which she created. In this sense, there is a choice between good and evil, opposed to simply being born that way. However, I see the choice as Mother Monster's, rather than the choice of her people, because she admits that she must use evil to combat evil. After all, universal tolerance is nearly impossible.