"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.