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. 

Sexual Assault in the Military

     For the presentation on Gender and War we were asked to read several articles before class. All of them were interesting but one struck me closer to home than the others. It is about the reported cases of Sexual Assault in the military and what it said shocked me. Now I'm not the biggest fan of the military to begin with but honestly I didn't know that things were this bad for the women serving our country. The article stated that the "Veterans Administration health care system reports that 28 percent experienced at least one sexual assault during military service." It really appalls me that with almost one third of women in the military have been sexually assaulted. 
     The thing that bothers me the most however is how little these women are able to do in the situation. Telling someone about the assault could ruin their military career. What a double edged sword that is; her career is ruined because someone else attacked her. That leads me to believe that the number is highly underreported. Imagine going through the psychological effects of a sexual assault knowing that if you tell someone, pressing charges will mean the end of your career. Some people depend on the army for both their income and money for schooling and they shouldn't have to contemplate whether or not to risk it all because some guy thought it acceptable to sexually assault her. 

First Presentation: Human Trafficking

     I have to say that I was very impressed with the first group presentation. It was informative as well as creative and fun. I particularly liked the game that we played at the end, "CandyLand: Human Trafficking Edition." It seemed funny while we were playing but I think the message was very clear. The path of human trafficking can be very much like a game. Your journey is utterly out of your control and you never know what card life will deal you. Some get lucky and are rescued and their struggle is short while others are dealt hands that lead to death. Physical, mental, and emotional abuse, the risk of sexually transmitted infections, and pregnancy are just some of the negative effects that sex trafficked women go through. 

     It amazes me sometimes how major problems and human rights violations go on like this all of the time and how little most people are informed about them. Most Americans think that in our perfect little bubble world nothing like this can happen but as the group pointed out we import many trafficked humans into THIS country. The American public is in many ways sustaining this terrible and profitable crime. In a modern world where slavery has supposedly been abolished people are being bought and sold like animals and forced against their will to do dangerous and degrading work. It is sad to see that not enough is being done to stop this terrible industry from progressing further. Instead this criminal industry grows larger while more people's lives are being lost. 

What not to gender...

     When I was in high school one of my favorite shows to watch was What Not To Wear. I would revel in watching Stacy and Clinton teach women, and the occasional man, what is and is not appropriate in the realm of clothing. The show was nothing more than giving people with no style the tools that they need to become a member of the world of fashion.
    Today I turned on my television and to my surprise What Not To Wear was on. I haven't watched the show in a few years as I rarely have time to watch television anymore (unless you count Hulu.) As I was watching I realized that the show is not only gendered, but it makes a point of forcing people into their prescribed gender boxes. The particular episode that happened to be on today couldn't have been a more perfect example. The woman featured on the show was not traditionally feminine. She enjoyed wearing men's clothing and had a very short haircut. When Stacy and Clinton get ahold of her, they immediately inform her that wearing men's clothing is wrong and she needs to get in touch with her feminine side. And how should she go about this? She should wear skirts and  dresses, bright colors like purple and pink, and she shouldn't wear flat shoes she should wear heels.
     Here's where this rubs me the wrong way. The woman did dress badly I agree with that. And yes she did wear men's clothes but they were ugly men's clothes. Why is it that she had to completely change how feminine she looks in order to be fashionable. It is more than possible for women who are not feminine to be fashionable. It is also possible for women who like men's styles to be fashion forward. For example, Ellen Degeneres is a very fashionable person but she often wears clothing that we categorize as "men's." Does this make her less fashionable? No. In fact many people admire the fact that she doesn't change who she is and what makes her feel comfortable just to fit into the feminine gender box. This is why I do not agree with the gendered nature of what not to wear. They could have suggested fashions that were men's styles but made for women. That is an extremely "in" form of fashion right now. However, they did not go in this direction and instead encouraged the woman to buy heels and skirts and to wear make-up. I understand the purpose of the show What Not to Wear however, changing the way someone expresses their style is very different from telling them that they have to express themselves in a way that is not who they are.
  

Young Girls and Self-Image

     Today in class we watched a movie that was about the media and how it affects the way young girls view themselves and how they are "supposed" to be. One thing that I really liked about the video was that it was primarily made up of interviews done with girls between the ages of 10-14. It was nice to see the differences in awareness of the media and its influences between the girls who were at the lower and higher ends of the age spectrum. The girls who were younger often regurgitated ideas that they acquired from the media but completely oblivious to where they were coming from. On the other hand, the girls who were older tended to be aware that the media was trying to influence them and were more likely to turn away from these ideas.
     What was surprising to me was the way some of the girls viewed sex. One girl actually stated that sex wasn't an issue for her now (when she was ten) but probably would be by the time she turned twelve or thirteen. TWELVE OR THIRTEEN! At twelve or thirteen these girls should be worried about learning how to manage their periods not whether or not they should be having sex.  At the time the movie was made I was nine years old, just one year behind the youngest girls interviewed, and the last thing I was thinking about at age nine was sex. I knew what it was, but it didn't interest me probably because I was NINE. By the time I was thirteen sex was a topic that was discussed at the lunch table but was still thought of as fairly taboo. When we heard about girls "giving it up" at that age we didn't look at them with respect. In fact we probably just called them sluts. They were vying for the attention of the older boys by acting more mature than they really were. Now looking back on it I feel bad for the girls we gossiped about at lunch. They gave into social pressures and became what they thought boys wanted, only to be ridiculed and probably end up feeling even worse about themselves.

Women Across Cultures

     This weeks reading Commonalities and Differences was interesting and also a great reminder that being a woman does not mean the same thing for all people. Some people operate under the assumption that because you are a woman, you are oppressed or affected in the same way as all other women. This may be the case if gender was the central and only aspect in the way we define ourselves but the truth of the matter is that there are numerous elements that compose self-identity. These include, but are not limited to, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and sexuality. It is a different experience to be a wealthy woman versus a poor woman just as it is different to be an Asian American woman versus a Caucasian woman. To discuss gender without factoring in other major components of self-identity leaves out the experiences of many.
     As far as oppression goes some women have to deal with it only in the sphere of gender while others see it in many aspects of their life. It is one thing to have to deal with oppression and discrimination only based on gender but another thing entirely if you also belong to minorities of race, class and socioeconomic status. I feel that it is important to keep this in mind when passing judgement or making generalizations. Just because you have gender in common with another person does not mean that you share the same experiences when it comes to gender.
    

Violence in Television and Video Games

     As I was reading the Goldstein War and Gender chapter I thought to myself, my mother must have read this. There are sections in the chapter dedicated to how exposing children to violence in television and video games leads to more aggressive behavior. My mother, who is opposed to violence in general, would not let us watch television shows she deemed violent such as Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Power Rangers, and Transformers (which was actually stated in the reading as having an attempted murder on average every 30 seconds!) We also did not have any game systems in the house until my brother was twelve and I, sixteen. And because we didn't grow up in a household where violent television and games were allowed, we don't enjoy them; the Wii and Playstation 2 sit in the corner untouched most of the time.
      I can understand now why my mother didn't condone violence in these materials but when I was growing up it seemed unfair. Why? Because most other kids my age were enjoying this violence, to them it was fun. It seems semi-disturbing when you think about it that young children are getting immense entertainment from shooting people in the head and watching them die. And why shouldn't they? The price is only thirty dollars, and completely consequence free. When your character shoots someone they disappear, when you get shot your character simply reloads a few seconds later. You aren't in any real danger. Glamorizing war in this manner can not only increase violent behavior but leaves children without a connection between war and it's negative qualities. It desensitizes them to real conflicts going on in the war. They associate war with what they see on the screen with a controller in their hands instead of a violent conflict that affects the lives of many people.

Love Commandos

     I recently read an article for a religion class that I am taking this semester that dealt with problematic parts of Hindu marriage rituals. Well, it just so happens that my group's topic for our project is marriage rituals in Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam so I thought it would be appropriate to write about it for a blog. Traditionally Hindu marriages are arranged by parents and involve a dowry given from the bride's family to the groom's family. The main reason for these arranged marriages is the Hindu caste system and for that reason many Hindu will not marry lower than their caste. Marriages for love are very discouraged and often times forbidden if the two are from different castes.
     Before a couple can be married their engagement must be approved by the village kap panchayats or caste council. The council can forbid couples from getting married and even place a death warrant on their heads if they disobey the order. When a couple is murdered for marry for love it is often by their own families who would rather see them dead than marry into a lower caste. These "honor killings" are the reason for this article. A love marriage advocacy group has created a 24-hour hotline called the Love Commandos that helps young couples escape and marry in secrecy and safety.
     The part of this article that struck me as particularly gendered was that of all the examples given in the article, all but one were women who fell in love with men below their caste. Also, women often bear the brunt of the physical punishment when they disobey their families. They are sometimes beaten repeatedly as to discourage them from attempting disobey the caste council. One girl in the article's mother attempted to sell her into slavery three times before the Love Commandos helped her escape to safety. I doubt that in India you can be sold into the slave trade as a male unless you are still a child. For young women though, this is a viable option to families who feel that they have dishonored the family in an irreparable manner.

A larger problem...

     There has been a lot of news recently about gay teens committing suicide after the death of Tyler Clementi at Rutger's University a few weeks ago. The Ellen DeGeneres Show (which I am friends with on Facebook) posted a video about the bullying that led to this and several other suicides since. This mention of bullying made me think about why it is occurring which led me to the subject of gender, yet again. So naturally, I decided to blog about it. When we watched the video "Tough Guise" yesterday it mentioned that when boys don't fit into the prescribed gender box, they are called bitch, pussy and other derogatory names for women. Another thing that is frequently challenged is their sexuality. There is a prevalent stereotype in our society that gay men are very feminine. Therefore, if you are not masculine in all respects, you may be considered gay.
     The reason why this is tied to bullying is that as gay teens, these men did not fit into the gender box. This is one of the main reasons why gay students are bullied in high school. We as a society have not yet fully accepted the idea that there can be multiple types of male and female. We expect everyone to fit into their gender box. I think in many ways we even go as far as denying gay men a gender. They're not real men, they're "gay." I fear that as long as these concepts pervade in the modern world and lead to such bullying, we will see no end to teens willing to take their own lives.

Masculinity

     As much as I don't like to admit it, we often get so wrapped up in women's issues that we forget that men are often just as confined in society. I often complain about the stereotypical man, you know the type: strong, tough, independent, breadwinner, void of all emotions save anger. Yeah, not really my cup of tea... What I had failed to think about however, was that maybe men don't want to be the stereotypical male any more than women want to be the stereotypical female.
     I do NOT however believe that girls have it worse than boys or that feminism is the cause of male problems. I follow more along a middle line; as far as the problem of forced "gender boxes" go both men and women have it rough. It seems as if this resurgence of the super testosterone fueled man is a backlash against the women's movement. Men feel threatened by feminism and therefore feel the need to assert their dominance. I may be wrong, but that sure is what it feels like.
     I also agree with the idea that Kimmel presents where schools are better environments for girls than boys. In my high school the top seven people in my class were girls and the top 25 percent of my class was overwhelmingly female. I'm not sure however, whether it's because of the teaching and disciplinary methods or the peer and social culture of the modern high school environment. It's just "not cool" to be smart if you're a guy. With the recent surge in "tough masculinity" that focuses often times on the physical, brawn wins over brains as the ideal for teenage boys. This is not helped by the ever prominent stereotype of the "popular-but-unintelligent" jock that is perpetuated in movies and television.

Girls as boys?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/world/asia/21gender.html?_r=1&ref=families_and_family_life    

     I was sitting outside one day when i stumbled upon a New York Times newspaper. I skimmed it for anything interesting to read and found a very good article about girls being disguised as boys in Afghanistan. There is a great pressure among families in Afghani culture to produce boys because it is beneficial in both economic and social ways. However, sometimes when a family can't, they do the next best thing, turn one of their girls into a boy. I thought, this must be causing a big controversy, these families must have to hide the girls true identity as a secret. What I found upon reading however, was much the opposite. People are very aware that this happens, in fact they have a special term for these girls, bacha posh.
     In a society where women and girls cannot go anywhere alone a bacha posh can escort her sisters to the market. So in a society where women are seen as a weaker sex, dressing them up as boys solves the problem? Does this not prove the fallacy behind the thought process? If men and women are truly and fundamentally different, then putting boy clothes on a girl should not enable her to do all the things that boys do. But in Afghanistan, that is exactly what it does. People know that these girls are impostors, that they are not truly boys yet they let them have freedoms traditionally reserved only for men simply because they look like boys. If looking like the opposite sex is all it takes to attain their status in society, does that not show a fundamental flaw and element of hypocrisy in said society? Does this not show that girls are equally as capable as boys given the proper social structure? Does this not prove that society, not biology or the way "God created us" determines gender differences?

Care Focused Feminism

     This week we were assigned groups to tackle the many chapters from our textbook that were assigned. My group focused on chapter 5 "Care Focused Feminism." I cannot lie I was a bit biased when going into this reading; I do not believe that there are fundamental differences between sexes which is the basis for care focused feminism. I did not agree when the authors discussed concluded that women were more caring and empathetic. Maybe this is because I personally do not have many of the qualities that the authors attribute to women. They claim that men and women view ethics in different ways; men focus on logic and justice, while women focus on empathy and look at whether the actions hurt others. I however, am an extremely logical person but I also worry about the impact of my actions on others. It is safe to assume that many people would consider themselves somewhere in the gray area between logic and empathy.
     This is one area where Gilligan and Noddings' research falls short. They assume that the women are more caring without actually comparing them to men. Had they made this comparison, they might have found that there are people of both sexes that think compassionately. Or perhaps they would have found that most people think in a logical AND empathetic way. Drawing these lines purely based on sex does an injustice to the MANY people in this world who fall somewhere in the gray middle.
     As much as I disagree with many aspects of Care Focused Feminism there were things in the chapter that rang true. For instance, in the conclusion they talked heavily about bringing the ethics of care into the public sphere. This would improve areas such as education, healthcare and the environment. Last semester I took a Politics class that was centered around race and gender. What many political polls have found in the U.S. is that women are much more likely than men to care about and support government spending in areas such as education, healthcare, and protecting the environment. This seems to have some congruity with what Care Focused Feminists are saying. Women are also largely underrepresented in Congress, where laws pertaining to these issues are made. I cannot say for sure but it seems plausible that were there more women in Congress, there would also be more legislation in the areas of education, healthcare and the environment.

"Full Frontal Feminism" Part II

     Can I just reiterate how much I love Jessica Valenti and the way she writes. One of my favorite things about her is that she doesn't just complain about a problem, she gives a solution. In the chapter titled "Pop Culture Gone Wild" Valenti talks about how society pressures women to be the "perfect girl" which doesn't actually exist. I think that here she has a really good point. How can we as a society expect women to be sexy but virginal, accessible but mysterious, and to "act" like lesbians but really like men? And the sad thing is that she is absolutely correct. This, like many other aspects of American society is a dichotomy, one that all women are forced into. If you have sex, you're a slut but if you don't have sex, you're a prude. This double standard is a lose-lose for many if not all of the women who fall under the scrutiny of the public eye.
     Realizing that this double standard exists can seem overwhelming. It's hard to be optimistic when you are dealing with a lose lose situation but Valenti does a good job of finding a solution. It doesn't exactly solve the problem but it gives women an outlet for dealing with it. She says that as long as you are aware of the social stigmas, and do things because YOU want to not because society is pressuring you, then you can overcome this double standard.
    

What's wrong with being a macho girl?

"Whether they are influenced by the trickle-down effects of feminism, which has taught girls to be assertive in all areas of life, or have internalized the images of sexually powerful women in popular culture, American girls are more daring than ever."


"Ever since Sadie Hawkins, teenage girls have chased and flirted with boys. But now they are initiating more intimate contact, sometimes even sex, in a more aggressive manner, according to the anecdotal accounts of many counselors, psychologists, magazine editors and teenagers."


"Girls have been told in every part of their lives to go for it," said Atoosa Rubenstein, editor in chief of CosmoGirl, which is aimed at readers 11 to 17. "Their mothers have told them, Go for student council, go for the team, go for that job, and that has turned from a message directed toward achievement to being something their whole lives are about. So they apply it to pursuing boys as well." Whether that pursuit is sexual or an expression of a crush, Ms. Rubenstein said, "is up to the girl."


                                                           - ALEX KUCZYNSKI She's Got to Be a Macho Girl 


     This article irks me...it really, REALLY irks me. Ninety percent of the text consists of quotations that say what a negative thing sexually aggressive female adolescents are. Why? Why is that necessarily a bad thing? Men have always been seen as sexual aggressors and teenage boys are probably the most warned about group. I can understand how some people would be upset that teenagers are having sex. But the article then gives the statistic that "The percentage of high-school students who remain virgins has climbed steadily over a decade..." So let me get this straight, as teenage girls are becoming more sexually assertive the percentage of high-schoolers having sex is declining. I'm sorry but I'm still missing the part where this is a bad thing. What about a decade ago when men were the prominent sexual aggressors and more teenagers were having sex? 
     I think that if girls want to take control of their sexuality they should have every right to do so as long as they are educated well enough to know what they are doing. If they are having sex because they think it's the only way to be "cool" and that's what the boys want them to do then it is a bad thing. But if they are having sex because it is what they want, and are educated about how to be safe, then the problems become minimal. One of the reasons why this double standard exists could be that society is uncomfortable with the idea of sexually assertive females. Well society, you need to get over it. 

Non-discrimination policies...

     This recent debate that has been going on at Juniata is most definitely a gendered conflict. Specifically it deals with the bathrooms and whether they are separated by gender or by sex. From a broader perspective though it deals with the rights of transgendered students on campus. This conflict is particularly difficult because people are not sure how to deal with it. Transgendered rights is a relatively new movement and not much legal precedence has been formed for people to look to in a situation. Pennsylvania doesn't have laws to protect transgendered individuals who do not work for the state and federal law (as far as I have been informed) does not either.

    This brings into play several things that we have discussed in class especially the idea of gender as a social construct. The question you have to ask then is how much power does this social construct have? If you don't agree with society can you change it? And if you decide to go against society can you have the same rights as everyone else? In my opinion yes, you most definitely can. The non-discrimination policy at Juniata eliminates bias based on "race, sex, age, religion, ancestry, color, marital status, national or ethnic origin, physical or mental disability, sexual orientation, citizenship or veteran status" (according to the policy handbook online) but does not say anything about transgendered students. If this can be changed to include them than this conflict would not even exist. That is why I am a firm believer that the first step to making Juniata a safe place for everyone is to change the non-discrimination policy to include gender as well as sex. It is a widely perceived notion that the two are different, so why include one and not the other?  

Perfection Does Not Exist

"...the mechanisms that afford us privilege are very often invisible to us. What makes us marginal (unempowered, oppressed) are the mechanisms that we understand because those are the ones that are most painful in daily life."
                               -Kimmel and Messner "Men as Gendered Beings"
    
     According to the above statement we are most aware of those things that hold us back in society. The question I would like to ask is why we are defined by things we view as "flaws?" Why does our society revel in making us constantly aware of those things that hold us back? Is it the human mind that makes us think this way? Is this present throughout all cultures or just in America? Is it simply, like Kimmel and Messner claim the pain that makes us always aware? Conversely, why do we not recognize in ourselves the things that make us privileged? 
     This seems to me very similar to body issues that many humans have. Instead of looking at the positives in our bodies, we look at only the negative things. In fact, it may only be one negative thing, and some people will do anything to fix it no matter how expensive or painful the price. In American society perfection is what we strive for. But why can't we instead focus on the things that make us great instead of the things that make us "not perfect."

I hate to be pessimistic but...

    When talking about gendered conflicts I normally become somewhat...what's the word I'm looking for, sad? No not sad necessarily but definitely not optimistic either. The fact that in our society we set up gender as a dichotomy really makes it difficult to solve gendered conflicts. When you put two things at either end of a scale, it is nearly impossible to make them meet in agreement. We are constantly taught throughout our lives that men and women are different whether it is biologically, through interests, or even in social roles. Why is it then that while we can't live without each other (in a purely biologically manner) we can't seem to agree either? 
    Last semester in a class titled "Politics: Race and Gender" I learned that racial schemas in the U.S. are like a zero-sum game. We view a gain on one side as a loss for the other making tensions higher and progress harder. The book we read suggested that gender schemas are unlike race schemas in that they are not zero-sum but I disagree. In many ways gender can be a zero-sum game but the example that first comes to mind is power. Say you are a man in society and are enjoying the power that comes naturally with that. When you find out that women are fighting for "equality" why does this anger you? It is not that women want to be equal because through equality you would lose nothing but gain peers. The only reason why you would think this way is because you think you have something to lose. This makes it a zero-sum game. Why else would men feel threatened by feminism? 

Neutrality is okay in children, but not forever...

     In class the other day we were discussing children and how society forces them into specific gendered roles. During the said discussion several people including Dr. Cook-Huffman gave examples about children who may be of one gender but have qualities or enjoy things that are traditionally perscribed to the other gender. Thinking on these lines I remembered when I was younger and my brother and I used to listen to cassette tapes before we went to bed. On these tapes were two stories that have still stuck with me until today. One was a song that had the lyrics "It's alright to cry, crying gets the sad out of you. It's alright to cry, it might make you feel better." The song was sung by a man and the message that I took from it was that it was in fact okay for men to cry. Another story told of a boy who wanted a doll to play with so he gets a doll and everything is fine and dandy. I as a rule hated dolls but this didn't stop my brother from hearing the song and deciding that he did want one. So that year for Christmas my brother got a doll and we both knew it was okay if he cried. However, as we grew up these things did not last. My brother does not have a doll anymore (actually I'm not sure if he ever liked it in the first place) and my dad makes sure to remind him that it is not alright to shed even a tear on the pitcher's mound. Because when my brother was young, it was okay for him to like dolls and cry now and then. Now that he is older he is expected like everyone else to fit into the nice neat gender box that society has created. What does this teach us? That part of growing up is growing out of gender neutrality, it's simply expected. Right? I don't know. Reality? Yes.

Feminism Baby!!

     Let me just start out by saying that I freaking loved "You're a Hardcore Feminist, I Swear." It is one of the best articles on feminism that I have read in a long time. The prose itself was gritty, real and non-apologetic, three stylistic aspects of writing that are close to my heart. I personally think that if everyone read this article feminism would be less misunderstood and more women (and men for that matter) would consider themselves to be feminists. Jessica Valenti hit the nail on the head when she said that "Feminism is the media's favorite punching bag." The people who hold the most power in society are white males and according to human nature; the more power you hold, the less likely you are to want to give it up. Of course feminism makes men in power uncomfortable, it brings to the table a new level of competition that they've never had to encounter before.
      So how do you put a stop to a movement that threatens the power you have accumulated? Radicalize it. Most people can't or don't want to relate to something that is radical. Why? Because radicalism causes the problems that they highlight in the media and therefore radicals become the recognizable face of these movements. The loudest voices normally do not represent the majority but are always the first to be heard. The majority of people do not have a radical mindset and therefore don't want to be associated with the negative connotation that is now associated with the idea. Let's come full circle here and think back to the wealthy white male power base (WWMPB) that exists in society. Who doesn't like feminism? WWMPB. Who does the media focus on? The loudest voices. Who are the loudest voices in the face of any movement? Radicals. Who controls the media? WWMPB.

What to say, what to say...

      The reading for yesterday's class (Thursday Sept. 2) honestly left me with more questions than answers. Not that I wasn't expecting this, gender has always been something that I've found very confusing to sort through. Is gender completely a social construct? Or does biology play some sort of role? I used to believe that it was completely social, that as we were growing up the world taught us about the gender we're meant to assume. Then I remembered reading an article about a woman who raised her boys in a gender neutral environment. At the end of the article she exclaimed that it didn't seem to matter, her boys still ran towards the trucks and dirt and ignored dresses and dolls. And in the comment section below the article were many other parents who had tried similar parenting styles with the same results. So the question still remains, is there something biological at the root of this social construct? To me the fact that some people feel the need to break the social mold suggests this. If it was solely a social construct and nothing biologically said otherwise, then why do some people feel alienated from the sex they were born into?
      I think that biological or otherwise, the way that we construct gender in American Society is wrong. In my opinion the dichotomy that we currently work under should be replaced with a concept of spectrums. Yes, spectrumS as in two separate but equal parts. One is a spectrum of masculinity and the other, femininity. I personally may place high on the feminine scale and low on the masculine scale but the point is that I DO possess aspects of both. This is the way I like to think of gender and while it doesn't take all of the confusion away, it does help some.