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.