Presentation: Gender Identity

     I think that this presentation was the most useful out of all so far because it dealt with a subject that most people are still in the dark about. You constantly hear things in the media about rights for the LGBT community but for most of us that means people who are homosexual. Transgendered people, who make up the "T" in the acronym are often times forgotten. I don't want to lay blame for this to people in general. It may not be that people don't care so much as they simply aren't aware of the issues. Because we do not often see transgendered issues in the public media, it is hard to become educated and aware of the subject. For example, I consider myself a very open minded person but I had little to no knowledge of the troubles that transgendered college students experience. When I came to college I met Andie and that is how I learned what I now know. I think that she was extremely brave for coming in and speaking to the class. The best way to get answers for the subject on is to talk to someone who is transgendered.
     I really liked Toria's new model for gender identity. I think it makes more sense than the dichotomous or separate spectrum models. The part that I liked the most about it was that it combined both what you think and what others think about you. I could sit her and say that it doesn't matter what anyone thinks of you but the truth is that it does. I am cisgendered and there are still times where I find myself being influenced by the gender box that people want to prescribe to me. This is because everyone thinks about gender differently. It can mean many different things to many different people. Toria's new model however, takes this into account which I think makes things easier to understand. People in class seemed to be very confused by this new model of gender identity but I thought it was easy to understand and practical for how society works. Overall I thought it was a good presentation and my only disappointment was that there wasn't more time to ask Andie questions.

All my single seven year olds? And the Cultural Presentation

     During the presentation about gender across cultures we watched a video clip of a group of seven year olds dancing at a competition. Th video seemed to shock people; the girls were dancing rather suggestively and in very little clothing. After a moment I realized that their dancing was most definitely sexualized, I would not want my seven year old daughter dancing like that on stage. In fact, I danced for fourteen years and I never remember my childhood dance routines to be nearly so sexualized. However, there was something that I recognized from my dancing years, the skimpy outfits. For nearly every year that I danced I had at least one costume that I felt somewhat self-conscious in. This was usually because of the lack of fabric that I felt it had. The girls in the video were wearing very short shorts with a small black tutu and a lingerie style top. However, I remember one of my first costumes, I was younger than seven, being yellow spandex shorts with a yellow sequined tube top that didn't even reach the bottom of my rib cage. Dancing often involves little or very tight clothing for a reason. Dancing very often is about the movements and lines you make with your body. In order to get the full affect, you have to be able to see the body. Within the "culture" of dance, this lack of clothing is not only accepted, but necessary.
     I thought that the presentation on culture was interesting and informative. The articles were relevant to the presentation and the multiple video clips really helped to illustrate the points that the authors were making. I also really liked the fact that they used relevant examples that we see in popular media today. For example, the article about Latina women referenced Ugly Betty, which recently finished it's last season and was very popular. On top of this they also mentioned the Glee character Santana Lopez and how stereotypical of a role it is. I think it is always good to have a modern and relevant perspective on concepts that are discussed in class.

Oppression and Welfare

     While I was reading the Frye article about oppression I immediately thought back to the Politics: Race and Gender course that I had last semester. Frye describes oppression like a bird cage, there are systematic obstacles that may be very difficult or impossible to overcome but it is hard to recognize them as part of a structure. I like to think about it more like a glass cage such as a fish tank or terrarium. The structure is transparent, it is difficult to detect its presence. Also like the see-through glass of a terrarium, it gives the illusion of freedom but in reality is an invisible obstacle.
     Welfare is a good example of how the government systematically oppresses people. In reality most people in America support social welfare spending but if you were to ask them specifically if they support welfare they would say no. This is because the conservative media has framed welfare as a negative, race/gender charged issue. In class we learned that most people subconsciously think of welfare as going to the "lazy African-American" stereotype even though the vast majority of people on welfare are Caucasian. It is hard to raise children on one person's salary and for that reason a large portion of those who are on welfare are single mothers. Because public opinion of welfare is so poor, much funding for welfare programs has been cut. This leaves less money to be given to the many people who need government support. Most welfare recipients are single mothers so this in turn is a systematic way of keeping them poor. Some people operate under the impression that people on welfare are sitting around living off of the government. In reality, however, the amount of money that is given in welfare programs is so low that one could NEVER live off of it. In fact, it is still near impossible to get by on welfare and a minimum wage job, especially if you have more than one mouth to feed. In this example oppression is placed into the system based on people's irrational and unfounded racist ideals. When you keep the public ignorant of the truth of an issue, it makes it much easier to install systematic oppression.

Chivalry is dead...but is that a bad thing?

1. Frye says that the action of a man opening a door for a woman is part of an oppressive structure. Do you agree? 

    As a feminist I cannot say that I have not given some thought to the question of chivalry being negative for women. But I can honestly say that I have never been offended when a guy opened a door for me. It simply isn't something that crosses my mind when I think about situations where a man is polite towards a woman. 

    When I think about it though it does make sense. When a man opens a door for a woman or pays for her dinner it may look like a sign of respect. However I can see how this could be seen as a power play. These actions put the man in a power of position within their interactions. As if the woman does not or should not have the opportunity to provide for herself. Furthermore this is only behavior that we support in men. If a woman were to take a chivalrous role on a date for instance, the man is encouraged to feel emasculated by such action. In this way society has made it only acceptable for men to be in the position of power in a relationship. I guess I would say this is an action of oppression if I thought it really still existed in the world. What I have experienced though is a decline in this sort of behavior as a whole. This example lies in the realm of courting and dating. But I rarely if ever see people "date" anymore. An age of technology has made us much more likely to electronically communicate with a significant other and see such a person in situations that do not involve chivalrous behavior. 

Mommy Wage Gap

     I was reading the Valenti chapter entitled "Material World" when I stumbled upon something that I had never heard of before. It is common knowledge that women make significantly less in the workforce than men. However, I was not aware that mothers in the workforce make significantly less than non-mothers. "For the first kid a woman has, the wage difference between her salary and a mommy's is 2 to 10 percent. For the second kid, the gap grows to 4 to 16 percent." I guess what was the most shocking to me is the fact that we ignore problems such as this. Why has it been so easy for conservatives to hide these statistics and make sure that this truth isn't heard? Thinking about this in a logical manner adds further confusion as to the rationale behind paying mothers less. It's no secret; children cost money. Actually children cost a lot of money. This is why I cannot wrap my head around why we would pay women less, when they have more people to provide for. Is this because deep down our society still has a problem with women being the breadwinner.
    And if you do have your hands full with kids and can't seem to make ends meet, you should find a man who can support you. This I believe can be attributed to the Christian faith and it's hold on society. We are discouraging instead of helping single mothers. We tell them that it's killing a life to have an abortion but then give them little help when it comes to taking care of that life outside the womb. This strategy also forgets to take into account the fact that many women do not choose to be single mothers. We praise women who rely on their husbands for support because that is the "right" way to do things. But when a woman loses the support of a father's child we demonize them and put many systematic obstacles in their way as if the blame for their struggle is wholly their own.

The Birds and the Bees

     I thought that the presentation on sexual education in schools was both informative and entertaining. I learned new information that up until this point I did not know about sex education in high schools. For example, I knew about the dichotomy between comprehensive and abstinence only education but I did not know that some programs combine the two. I am happy that youtube provided a sex ed video from the fifties. It was amazing to see just how many misconceptions that people had about the menstruation cycle. My favorite part was when the mother told her that she could not swim or do rigorous physical exercise during the first few days of her period. It was particularly funny because now we know that physical activity can be very effective in relieving the symptoms of menstruation.
     This may sound harsh but I can't help but laugh at the ignorance of those who feel that abstinence only education is effective. How do I put this, TEENS ARE GOING TO HAVE SEX. It may not be what people want to hear but the fact of the matter is that  it's the truth. Whether parents, teachers, and churches like it or not, it is the reality we face. So why then, do some choose to ignore the reality and truth that faces them? Here is a little example; what will happen to the teenage couple who knows that abstinence is the only 100% effective way to prevent pregnancy but that condoms and birth control are 99% effective? They may or may not choose to have sex but will be safe about it when they do. Now, what will happen to the teenage couple who is "pledging to wait until marriage" but has no idea how to use a condom and thinks that birth control will send them to hell? They also may or may not have sex except they are afraid of or uneducated about the options available to them and therefore have an increased risk of pregnancy and STIs. YAY Abstinence!...(*cough Bristol Palin cough*) Studies have shown that the same percentage of teens who pledge abstinence have sex before marriage as those who do not. WAKE UP PEOPLE!

"Attachment Parenting"

     I can't help but completely agree with Erica Jong when she writes in her article that attachment parenting is "a prison for mothers, and it represents as much of a backlash against women's freedom as the right-to-life movement." It is incredible to expect every modern woman to drop everything in her life to spend every moment with her child. Yes the relationship between mother and child is important, but demonizing mothers who do not have the resources to do this is terrible. 
     I'm sure that all of us agree that it would be awesome to have all of the money it costs to raise a child just laying around but that isn't the reality for most women. Many single mothers have no choice but to work and parent, and there's nothing wrong with that. Other women may have a career that is important to them and do not want to end it on account of their children. In this instance the father of the child should help with the child rearing as well. We don't praise fathers for being permanently attached to their children so why do we expect it from mothers? This is because child rearing is seen as something that is primarily the woman's responsibility. 
     My mother worked full time growing up and didn't take much time off when she had my brother or I. And guess what? We turned out pretty darn good if you ask me. I don't have a mommy complex where I feel that there is a gaping hole in my life because my mom wasn't a housewife. And even with her full time job my mother took on the majority of the domestic tasks in the house. I can't imagine how she could have done anything more let alone this so called "attachment parenting." It is idolizing something that is only available to the financially well-off and condemning those who cannot or do not wish to take the same path.