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.