Cosmo Quiz

I failed a quiz today. I scored a zero on a Cosmo quiz about whether or not I’m “Good-Girl Hot” or “Bad-Girl Hot.” Apparently I’m a girl who’s…not. I have to say I’m pretty happy about that. At least it means I recognize what’s ridiculous about proposed gendered behaviors, especially when it comes to attracting the correct (opposite) sex. I didn’t fit into the molds cast for girls in the quiz (tease, slut, prude), I don’t have a celebrity role model, and I definitely don’t bronze before I go out. But I’m not perfect either; I still worry about the way I’m perceived sometimes (but not to the point where I would ever want to emulate Kim Kardashian). Perhaps the best thing to do is to a make a point to hold yourself accountable to standards that you feel are appropriate reflections of your personality, values, goals, etc….and avoid all Cosmo quizzes.

Always stay in love.
Be humbled through submission,
Make sure to ask permission.
Always stay in love.

Always stay in love.
For the healthcare and the tax reliefs,
The babies and religious beliefs,
Always stay in love.

Always stay in love.
Forget what real passion means;
Make sure your dirty laundry’s clean,
Always stay in love.

Always stay in love.
Focus on a single goal,
Embodying the status quo,
Always stay in love.

Always stay in love.
But don’t forget that in between
The kisses and the magazines:
Shouts should ring,
Tears should sting,
Questions fling—
Accountability is everything.
Through hard work and screwing plans
Of goals imposed by greedy hands,
A love could last a lifetime...
but if it doesn’t, then that’s fine.
Just don’t think that you should
Always stay in love.

Frye’s Fundamentals of Oppression

Frye defines oppression by using three main conditions: 1) experiencing the double bind phenomenon, 2) experiencing a feeling of being “caged in,” 3) experiences of inconvenience, unpleasantness, pain, or frustration do not qualify as oppression unless they are enforced by an outside structure. I think it’s important to recognize that the word oppression is used frequently to describe unfortunate scenarios that may or may not be deserved. I thin k I am guilty of labeling superficial scenarios as “oppressive”—I think this was one of my favorite things I used to tell my parents, that they were oppressing me by not letting me stay out past midnight or borrow the car for the weekend, or some other frivolous thing. It’s critical to understand that oppression is immobilizing and restrictive and out of your control. It’s something I’d like to take out of my vocabulary unless used in the right way, the same way I don’t use the words like gay or retarded to describe scenarios that are “stupid.”

Armpits

After reading Valenti’s impassioned chapter about why I’m definitely a hard core feminist even if I’m hesitant to admit it, I decided I wasn’t going to shave my armpits anymore. Not because I think thought this was the “feminist” thing to do (okay, maybe a little bit); I just wanted to do it. I wanted to feel what it’s like to say fuck you, I’m hairy, and it feels totally awesome. I don’t care what the hell you think. I should do this kind of stuff all the time, after all, I have the ability to do it without getting penalized, which is a privilege I should not forget. There are places in the world where women have to cover up their bodies or suffer the consequences. Why, if I have the ability not to, do I continue to shave my legs and armpits? Will this offend other people? Will I make them uncomfortable? Will I make myself uncomfortable?

So, in taking full advantage of the ability to express myself completely (by being really lazy and not shaving) I didn’t shave for about a month. Yeah, it was beyond fuzzy, and maybe it was even a little scary, but I loved it. I enjoyed knowing that no harm comes to those who do not shave. And to tell you the truth, I was really amused by the horrified looks I got from people who would catch a glimpse.

Then Madrigal came around, and my shocked and appalled girlfriends practically forced me to shave my armpits. (They wouldn’t get too close to me though). I guess that looks like I’m a failure and a sucker for peer pressure. Well, this is partially true. But there are two things I’d like to say about that: 1) I haven’t forgotten one of the first things we learned in class, which is that we exist on a continuum of “masculine” and “feminine” actions/feelings; Madrigal just so happened to be an appropriate time to squeeze into a nice dress and attempt to put on make-up…and shave my armpits (which I guess are “feminine things”), and 2) even though it seems like I was leaning toward one end of the spectrum that night, I ended up somewhere in the middle, because I wore my big brown L.L. Bean boots to the dance in protest of all the other girls who felt obligated to wear heels in below freezing weather. Like Virginia said, “It is fatal to be a man or woman pure and simple: one must be a woman manly, or a man womanly.”

Where are the American Herbivores?

I think our carnivorous population needs to make room for some herbivory. In Japan, there is a new generation of boys that embraces what we as Americans would not consider masculine: going out for desserts, spending more time with family and friends, leading a non-competitive life. I think a lot of men would feel relieved now that they wouldn’t have to be concrete, stoic, apathetic, violent, and extremely fit. I also think that if men were given an opportunity to break out of their shells, that it would be more acceptable for women to take on roles that were previously seen as uncharacteristic. What sparked this Japanese phenomenon to occur now, and how did it become so popular? It is assumed that because masculinity was defined as being a working man, Japanese fathers were not as present in their children’s lives, thus lots of younger Japanese men have rejected the roles that their fathers fulfilled. These herbivores, as they are nick-named, have embraced a life centered around family, passivity, and acceptance. An estimated 60% of young Japanese men (ages 20-30) identify themselves as herbivores. This huge portion of the population has had a significant effect on the economy of Japan. Because herbivores are not keen on consumerism, sales have noticeably decreased; herbivores are also seemingly asexual, and thus, birth rates have dropped recently too. I think it would be interesting to see how the United States would fair if such a generation emerged.

Response to Times’ Article about Job Loss (and Gender Roles)

This article (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/us/12families.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=behavior%20effects%20on%20children%20the%20economy&st=cse) describes the aftermath of the economic crisis for a family of four living in Texas. The husband lost his job over a year ago, and the stress of his unemployment has trickled down to his kids. It is evident in their behavior: one daughter has become more anxious and pulls out her hair, the other has started throwing frequent tantrums. His wife only works part time—something she had to do after her husband lost his job, which has put a lot of stress on the whole family. It has been indicated that parental job loss is harmful to children’s school performance and self-esteem. One developmental psychologist, Dr. Kalil, suggests that these adverse effects were more prevalent in children whose fathers had been laid off, rather than mothers. She attributes this phenomenon to the “importance of working to the male self-image,” or the fact that women who experience unemployment are more likely to spend time with their children. One woman expressed her happiness in having to become a homemaker after getting laid off, even though the family suffered financially: “This morning, we baked cookies together. I have time to help them with homework. I’m attending church. The house is managed by me. Just a lot more homemaker-type stuff, which I think is more nurturing to them.”

I can’t help but cringe a little bit when I read this because, even though I appreciate the joy of spending time with children, it’s just upsetting to read that it’s not so bad when a woman is unemployed because now she can fulfill her real role, aka housewife. But, god forbid, if a man doesn’t have a job, he has no identity, ruins the family dynamic, and causes his 9 year old to start pulling out her hair. Of course, these two examples are extremes, but they were reported in The New York Times! I feel like this article does a really good job of reinforcing the stereotype that men are not nurturing and need to be the bread-winners, while women have to stay at home and bake cookies for the kiddies.

Peggy's My Girl

“White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, assurances, tools, maps, guides, codebooks, passports, visas, clothes, compass, emergency gear, and blank checks.”

This is one of the many gems in Peggy McIntosh’s article about white privilege and male privilege. In it, she describes her own realization that she has an unearned advantage in life because of her race. She relates this privilege to that which is experienced by men, which she has been frustrated with for many years. In an effort to start the process of recognizing and reforming her white privilege, she composed a list of special conditions she experiences which were unearned, but were taught to be experienced because of her birth, her citizenship, and because she was a “conscientious law-abiding ‘normal’ person of goodwill.”

I’d like to make my own list as well (maybe not as extensive):
1) I grew up in a safe neighborhood
2) I am assumed to be smart
3) I can listen to any type of music without being judged
4) I could probably talk my way out of a ticket
5) In general, I blend in with the crowd
6) I was encouraged to accept diversity rather than understand other cultures
7) I can apply for just about any job or internship without obstacle
8) Transportation is rarely ever an issue
9) Access to the foods I like and need is rarely an issue
10) My skin doesn’t speak for me

White Privilege and Pregnancy

After reading McIntosh’s article, I did some off-topic research for my research paper about folate consumption, DNA methylation, and other things not relevant to this class…I found out that The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES II), conducted in 1994, revealed that more black (26%) than white (18%) women had very low folate intakes of about 100 µg/d (which is about 300 µg short of meeting the recommended daily allowance (RDA) if you aren’t pregnant, and about 500 µg shy of meeting of the RDA for pregnancy). The lower average folate intake for minority women was 175-185 µg/d. Potentially, (I think) one of the reasons for this disparity amongst the races is the choice in foods the FDA decided to fortify, which was basically all cereal grains, but mostly breakfast cereal. The NHANES II found that the major food sources of folate in US diets are orange juice (9.7%), white breads (8.61%), dried beans (7.08%), green salads (6.58%), and cold cereals that are not superfortfied (4.96%) for the general population (which, within itself is upsetting…OJ, really?). But when you look at preferences of foods based on ethnicity, you find that the consumption of folic acid–fortified cereals ranked 9th as a source of dietary folate among whites, but ranked 49th among black women. Hmmm....It would make sense for the women who are consuming an insufficient amount of folate to take a folic acid containing supplement (especially because you get more bang for your buck from folic acid rather than folate, as far as how quickly and efficiently its metabolized). Unfortunately, only about a quarter of women (26% whites and 15.5% blacks) regularly take vitamins or mineral supplements. It’s pretty frustrating to pick up on what I would perceive as neglect from our government to take all sorts of food preferences into consideration (not just what the white people like to eat), to make sure that the entire population of women of child-bearing age would have access to foods that would provide them with enough folate to avoid pregnancy troubles such as spontaneous abortions, or neural tube defects.

Thanks Peggy

It is because of you and your bold, but not necessarily accusatory writing, that causes me to stop and take a moment to reflect on my own life and upbringing, and how that has influenced the way I think and act today. I particularly enjoyed this noteworthy declaration:

“Whites are taught to think of their lives as morally neutral, normative, and average, and also ideal, so that when we work to benefit others, this is seen as work that will allow “them” to be more like “us.” I think many of us know how obnoxious this attitude can be in men.”

I won’t write about every scenario in which I was relayed these subtleties by multiple teachers; I can certainly attest to this phenomenon. It is interesting to note though, the evolution of my education and awareness of my privilege. In elementary school I hardly remember learning about history, I just remember learning about the geography of the US and Maryland. I went to a diverse school and played with kids from all sorts of backgrounds, and never thought once about the fact that I went home to a nuclear, stable family, while some of my friends were greeted by a broken family with fewer funds. In middle school I was one of the only white kids in my grade, so I denounced my privileged background and tried to fit in with my other friends; I didn’t really think about why our lifestyles were different, I was just concerned about making and maintain friends. In high school, when I was finally introduced and cognizant of the blaring differences between my background and my friends’ backgrounds, I didn’t really know what I could do, and so I ignored feelings of guilt and confusion. Now I am in college and I have fewer superficial distractions, and I am working on figuring out what to do next.

Why Posting a Disclaimer is a Waste of Ink

After seeing the Dolce and Gabbana ad, and then watching the insider’s scoop on enhancing photographs in advertisements (which was sponsored by that Dove campaign for real womenwhich is a load of bull, by the way) we talked about whether it would be a good idea to include a disclaimer at the bottom of an advertisement in which the subject had been digitally enhanced. The only way this could possibly work is if the disclaimer read something along the lines of “This is a fake, just like the boobs and nose and ass you think you should have, quit looking at it” but maybe a little bit more articulately. Otherwise, a disclaimer that just says this picture has been digitally enhanced will not deter anyone from looking at it critically. How would it be any different from the Surgeon General’s warning on cigarette boxes that make it blatantly clear that smoking cigarettes poses many health risks and is terribly addictive? Plenty of people still smoke cigarettes; plenty of young girls will look at magazines, and then their bodies, and then go puke. And as far as the Dove campaign is concerned, I think it’s ridiculous because it’s just another marketing scheme they’re using to promote their product. They’ve clearly picked up on the fact that many women do not support the unnatural depiction of their sex in the media. Ca-ching! more money for Dove once they make themselves look like they really care about how women’s bodies are portrayed.
…but I must admit, that video was pretty neat (and by neat I mean upsetting); I’ve never seen the transformation process of model to billboard.

When I saw this advertisement in class the other day, I was shocked mainly at the way the woman was depicted. The image is utterly disgusting; it’s basically making gang rape fashionable. What asshole in the marketing department for Dolce and Gabbana decided that this was an appropriate way to sell their brand? What model would agree to pose in this way? Who does this appeal to? The guys who get to rape the girl, or the girl who gets raped? Either way, it this ad certainly gets a lot of attention. The overarching themes in this ad are about dominance, power, and sex. Both the men and the woman are portrayed in very offensive ways. The woman, with a doll like expression on her face, seems to be unaware of the danger she’s in, and is shown as completely helpless. It suggests that women are vulnerable creatures who are meant to be dominated. One man is shown towering over her, pinning her down by her wrists. His eyes are hidden by sunglasses, but his facial expression is still clearly serious and unfeeling. The other men in the ad, who are standing nonchalantly in the background, observing the event, all appear apathetic to the situation that’s occurring. This suggests that all men are cruel and violent (and should have the same type of musculature). It’s outrageous, but not too surprising, that major companies like Dolce and Gabbana can get away with printing ads like this.

Pumping Irony

Smith argues that the reason the advertising industry has failed miserably in upholding the assertions made by the feminists of the ‘60s and ‘70s to discontinue objectifying women, and has gotten away with it, is because of humor and irony. In a post-feminist era both men and women (certainly not all) recognize that gender is a social construct, not something we are bound to or destined by nature to be. This realization has made many more consumers skeptical of what they are being sold; they might wonder whether they are being encouraged to buy something because they are a man or woman. To combat this growing skepticism, one company in particular (Jim Beam Whiskey)—and I’m sure many others are doing this as well—employed the use of humor and irony to distract its target audience (young, white, middle class men) from the fact that it was selling alcohol to them because of their gender.

Many of their print ads appeal to the modern “masculine” lifestyle for young white males, which involves drinking, being lazy, ogling at girls, and going to concerts; these activities are recognizable and attractive. The ads are also paired with catch phrases that suggest friendliness and inclusion in that they are making fun of the things that would normally annoy or upset men, namely, the things a nagging woman in their life would do to them. The phrases are meant to make fun of different scenarios such as when a girlfriend bitches about what her partner has been up to. Jim Beam consistently shows that drinking their product provides an escape from bothersome situations like this, that only real men can understand (wink, wink). Unfortunately, this type of advertising seems to be working really well; once again advertising has successfully brushed over issues of equality and respect, and has continued to encourage the polarity of gender roles. But this time, they have an excuse; they’re only kidding, right?

Representations of Masculinity and Femininity in Advertisements

I think most of us can recognize the blatant sexualization of men and women in advertising, especially women, as a major contributor to such identity encompassing issues (body image, gender roles, peer relations, etc.). I think we all are probably cognizant of the overwhelming influence advertising has on us between ages 12-16 (at least, that’s my guess). How you choose to react to these “visual aids” that supposedly relay societal interests, varies amongst different age groups, races, gender, etc. But one thing that maybe not everyone thinks about is advertising featuring young children, which may influence them, and certainly influences their parents. Literally from infancy we are portrayed in certain fashions that dictate what our behaviors, appearances, and values should be. Ads featuring infants are often shown with either blue or pink colored objects/backgrounds to denote gender (as if it matters at that age?), and they are typically shown with a nurturing, loving, (smiling) mother. As the baby grows (say, to the terrible-twos stage) they are shown playing with different toys (boys with trucks and girls with dolls) and in different environments (boys outside in the mud, girls inside on the carpet). The examples are endless and the effects are unbounded: parents face pressure to make sure their kids are “normal” and embody the correct gendered appearance/role/behavior, even at infancy! This is something I never considered before, which I think, is upsetting.

Yummy Mummies make me want to barf (but I feel bad for them too)

There is a new type of mummy around, one who embodies all that a woman should be: maternal and nurturing, but sexy and hip all at the same time. Sounds a little impossible to me. Not that moms can’t be sexy, they definitely can be. I just don’t think they should have to be sexy as defined by society, i.e. perky-boobed, flat-tummied, curvy-but-not-too-curvy, toned, and fashion forward. This is not realistic for all women. To draw from my own experience, my mom used to be tiny—I mean so tiny that even I can’t fit into her wedding dress. Then she had three kids, which I’m very thankful for. And all of us are very healthy, which I’m also thankful for. This is the case however, because my mom gained the proper amount of weight during pregnancy (for BMIs under 25, you’re supposed to gain between 35-45 pounds). Losing that kind of baby weight is very difficult, especially if you work full time. The majority of women who achieve yummy mummy status are celebrities whose job, as the media somehow forgets to point out, is to work out and look good all the time. Plus, they have such a colossal disposable income that they can afford to hire a work out instructor, a nutritionist, a stylist (and a therapist), all of whom help make yummy mummy status a reality. Of course, it’s easy to criticize the yummy mummies because you might feel jealous that they embody something you are pressured to achieve but cannot, or angry because they conform to society’s expectations. But consider that yummy mummies are caught in a double bind, just like all other mothers. Because they are youthful and fashionable, they are immediately accused of to be vain and unloving mothers whose children are probably just accessories. Conversely, if they choose not to focus as much on their appearances, then they are automatically stamped as a frumpy, boring mom. I’m glad I read the article about yummy mummies because its’ easy to forget that mothers are put under just as much pressure to possess very specific and often unrealistic characteristics as their teenage daughters.

Ann E. Cudd and Oppression by Choice

Cudd completely changed my ideas about what it means to be oppressed and how oppression is enforced/reinforced. She argues that oppression must fulfill four criteria: 1) oppression must involve some sort of physical or psychological harm; 2) oppression applies to groups that are identifiable independently of their oppressed status; 3) oppression implies that some persons benefit from the oppression; 4) oppression must involve some sort of coercion or force. I already knew about the first criterion, as well the third. I didn’t realize that to be considered oppressed, you must belong to an identifiable group. This makes sense to me, and is a logical criterion, because it allows oppression to be quantifiable. It echoes one of the conditions that is required for evolution (another quantifiable phenomenon): only populations, not individuals, can evolve. Of course, communities (groups of populations) can evolve as well, just like multiple identifiable groups can be oppressed. This is why women of minority groups experience double the oppression that white women or black men do. The fourth criterion seems fairly obvious, but Cudd brings up a really interesting point: oppression can be achieved via rational choices (that are forced to be made). She give the example of a woman who is in a relationship with a man who must decide whether she should to go to work or stay at home when they decide to have children. Both the man and the woman believe in gender equality, but they feel strongly about not putting their children in daycare. The woman ends up choosing to stay home because she knows that she will not earn as much money working as her partner would. She associates wealth with happiness (which is another story) and therefore makes the rational decision to care for her children at home so that the family will have a higher income and a better life. She is in what is called a double bind in which all of her options lead to some sort of oppression.

When Positive Thinking Is Undermining

Author Barbara Ehrenreich appeared on Democracy Now! (http://www.democracynow.org/2009/10/13/author_barbara_ehrenreich_on_bright_sided) to talk about her new book “Bright-Sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America.”In it she describes her frustrations about the bizarre culture of always having a positive attitude, even when it is clearly inappropriate. Somehow, we are supposed to believe that thinking happy thoughts will translate into desirable situations. I agree with Barbara; being positive all the time can be exhausting, and unproductive. We aren’t like Wendy and the boys; we can’t just “think happy thoughts” and fly off to Neverland with Peter Pan, although I’m sure a lot of us wish that was possible. Sure, sometimes being positive is helpful and necessary. When you’re competing in a sports game or giving a presentation for class and you fumble (couldn’t resist) or make a mistake, I think it’s important to keep a positive attitude that will at least help you finish what you started. In this sense, a positive attitude can help fuel perseverance. But, like Barbara points out, Americans are increasingly encouraged to be positive and chirpy in situations that call for the exact opposite emotions. Barbara is a survivor of breast cancer, and she uses her experience to exemplify this prevailing positive thinking movement. She explains that lots of people (doctors, friends, etc.) encouraged her to have a positive attitude so that recovery would come faster. She was suffocated with pink ribbons and flowers and teddy bears. She was urged to suppress feelings of anger and replace them with uplifting feelings; people seemed to suggest that she wouldn’t get better unless she had a cheerful outlook. She writes, “In the most extreme characterization, breast cancer is not a problem at all, not even an annoyance—it is a ‘gift,’ deserving of the most heartfelt gratitude.” I think this is an interesting, albeit really screwed up, scenario that demonstrates how overwhelmingly gender roles are engrained into our society. When women are sick, they are told to be happy about it (?!) and are given pink, “girly” presents to help encourage feelings of hope and joy. How that’s supposed to help I will never understand. A lot of attention is given to breast cancer in particular because it is one of the most prevalent forms of cancer that kills women each year; however, nowhere near the amount of attention is given to prostate cancer, one of the major killers of men. There are no teddy bears and campaigns to help men cope with the fear and anger coupled with cancer. They are left to fend for themselves, while the women are encouraged to mask any undesirable feelings like rage and resentment.

Letter to Donna Kate Rushin

Dear Ms. Rushin,

Thank you for your ground-breaking, nail-biting, eye-averting, absolutely necessary honesty. Your poem “The Bridge Poem” is outlandish and elegant. I had to read it twice before I could formulate my own version of what you were trying to convey. But the fact that it made me confused was intriguing, and that intrigue converted to insight after a second look. Your poem really speaks to me, it truly moves me. I feel like I can relate to your frustrations. Do you think that’s possible? I’m just a petite white girl who’s lived outside DC her whole life thinking she understood diversity and was accepting and intentional; the same way the USDA “suggests” that Big Ag test and retest their equipment, or the way people join groups on facebook supporting efforts to stop world hunger and believe they’ve actually made an honest effort to help. On the outside, it looks nice and seems practical, but in reality, gaping loopholes exist. Like you, I feel that I lack power, and that I have expectations to fulfill. But while you are the victim of your family and political groups and 34 white individuals and more, I am the victim of myself. You feel pressure squeezing the life out of you from the outside, while I feel like I’ll burst from the pressure exerted internally. So what should I do? You tell us to, “stretch or drown, evolve or die.” I think admittance is a stretch—I am an over-privileged white girl that didn’t fully understand her privilege until she was 20 years old. Here’s another stretch: I have the privilege to be my true self without having to explain it or rationalize it to anyone, and you don’t. That is not fair. What’s next? Evolution….Well, look for another letter in 20 years.

Fondly,

Juliet

Response to Nellie Wong's Poem

Internalized oppression is the act of convincing yourself that you’re not worthy or good enough for something/someone, without being explicitly told by an outsider; you reinforce these ideas and end up oppressing yourself. I don’t think it’s humanly possible to ever internally oppress yourself without some sort of external force driving this atrophic mind set. What are some of the main institutional and structural forces that I think contribute to the causes of internal oppression? The media (TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, etc.)àresponsible for projecting the image of the status quo…relentlessly and without shame. Perhaps socioeconomic status plays a role in that it limits the places you can live and the things you can buy, which may not allow you to afford buying into the status quo. The strict categorization of gender roles exacerbates fragile souls who are struggling to figure out who they can possibly exude true maleness or femaleness without ignoring impulses, or desires. Providing support and awareness in contrast to these overwhelming forces is the idea of conscientization: the act of trying to make people aware of their own internalized oppression. There are few institutional forces that make efforts to spread conscientization (that I can think of). But there are structural forces that can help alleviate internalized oppression: communities. I would consider a community a group of friends, siblings, a family, professors, and books (literary communities).

Privilege, Uniqueness, and Oppression

The other day in class we talked a lot about privilege, of which we all have an inexorable amount. We read three poems and talked about how they relayed different ideas about privilege. One poem emphasized the privilege of being able to express yourself without consequence, another expressed sentiments of frustration toward over-privileged women and how they use that privilege to ignore the blaring existence of oppression and poverty; the third explored the experience of not having the privilege of being part of the status quo. Each female author was unique, which in all three instances, also meant each was oppressed. This brings up an interesting idea. Usually I associate uniqueness with something positive, and it often leads to privilege. For example, if you’re the start athlete of some sport and your unique abilities stand out ot a recruiter, you might get a full ride to a great school and be given all sorts of advantages like a free education, free sports gear, status, and opportunities, what I would consider privileges (albeit earned privileges). However uniqueness can also lead to oppression. For example, you may have tattoos all over your body, in what are considered unconventional places, that prevent you from getting the job you just applied for. Because I am not unique in relation to the status quo, and because I have faced little, if any, oppression as a female, it becomes clear why the first thing I associate uniqueness with is privilege and benefits. I’ve always been encouraged to find a way to stand out in the crowd so I’ll a) get into a good college, b)be more competitive for a job, c) catch the eye of someone’s attention, etc. I guess it’s easier not to think about how something that benefits you, could harm someone else.

Are men more violent than women?

Yes, but it’s not their fault.
Men are not born naturally more violent and aggressive than women, as is conventionally emphasized in most societies. Our biology, is in fact, more forgiving and diverse in terms of all our capabilities (physical, emotional, psychological, etc.); it is culture that is more restrictive is establishing standards for what men and women can and cannot do, think, or behave. Joshua Goldstein, the author of War and Gender, calls attention to this notion that society is more limiting than our natural states: “…where biological gender gives us overlapping bell-curves, cultural gender amputates these curves and gives us squared-off boxes containing all, and only a certain category of person” (Goldstein 252). Culture skews the apparent, but certainly not the most significant, biological differences among men and women, and amplifies them so that they give power to one group over another. This is classically exemplified in the notion that all men are stronger than women, therefore they are more powerful. Goldstein argues that because most men believe they possess superior power, they are vulnerable to being molded into a warrior. A militaristic lifestyle, he argues, fuels their distorted sense of masculinity and willingness to be violent. The military is a breeding ground for power and domination, two things men are eager to attain, as they reinforce, in their own eyes and the eyes of society, their masculinity. It is important to note that masculinity is constructed to be not like something else, namely, femininity. Men are strong and aggressive, not weak and passive. Men are brave and unfeeling, not timid and emotionally expressive. Of course, it is impossible to not feel things like fear and anxiety and pressure, but it is possible to block their expression. Being violent provides men an avenue to express forbidden, “feminine” emotions that have been compounded for years. They unleash on women, other men, and themselves. I’ve started to wonder, who can blame them? I’d go crazy if I wasn’t allowed to vocalize or somehow show that I was feeling scared or vulnerable, sad or confused, etc.

What does it mean to “remake” a woman?

Remaking a woman, a theme central to many films (Cinderella, Pretty Woman, My Fair Lady, etc) reinforces the stereotypes and genuine beliefs—of both men and women—that women are objects to be used for entertainment and pleasure, they are airheads, they are obedient, and their worth is measured by their appearance. A woman is not the sole beneficiary when she is “remade”; the male who transforms her also enjoys the benefits of this change, and he is usually the one who initiates the remodeling. This encourages the sentiment that women are objects meant to be altered to improve certain qualities (usually for entertainment or sexual purposes) for men. Rarely are women remade for their own benefit, and rarely are they shown discouraging this transformation; they always seem to be incredibly pleased with these changes and are forever indebted to their benefactors. They are especially grateful, it seems, because they couldn’t possibly have figured out how to recreate themselves on their own (if it’s even necessary); they have no opinions and are lost without the guidance and advice of a man. This breeds a strong reliance on men, which in turn highlights the notion that women are malleable and docile, vulnerable to the changes a man thinks essential to implement.
Usually the process of “remaking” involves changes in the appearance of the woman, coupled with an increase in her status or opulence. Emphasis on increased beauty and wealth promotes the idea that looks are indicative of worth, hence, ugly women are worthless and poor women are worthless. Consider the reality TV show “The Swan,” in which women who are considered “ugly ducklings” undergo a three-month intensive transformation in which they are plucked, squeezed, and redressed by a team consisting of a coach, therapist, trainer, cosmetic surgeon, dentist and stylist. The final results are revealed when all the women participate in a pageant show in which one of the many women is crowned the “ultimate swan”. Not once is their former self valued. Gross. These women are portrayed as ugly, unhappy people before they have a series of plastic surgery operations, but after they spend months working on the ultimate renewal, they are suddenly beautiful, happy, and confident women. What sort of message is this sending to the general public? I think it forces us to think that in order to be happy, we must be beautiful, and in order to be beautiful, you must have money to pay for multiple therapies that will recreate the way you look. Personality and intelligence are not factors considered in what makes a woman beautiful. Women are to have white shiny teeth, perky boobs, curvaceous hips (but not too curvy), a fit body, and radiating confidence; if they do not, their worth plummets.

Connell Reflection

The world is “gender polarized,” but it doesn’t have to be. So says R. W. Connell, who brilliantly brings attention to the multiple and constraining dichotomies that force us to concentrate on sharp distinctions between men and women, especially biological differences. Phrases like, “the opposite sex” encourage us to think that there are only two types of bodies, and therefore only two types of people. We are apt to think that because of our biological differences, men are stronger, women are weaker; men are aggressive, women are passive; men study science, women are intuitive, etc. Connell argues that physical differences between the sexes are more subtle than we think; but Western culture has done a damn good job amplifying these varying characteristics, which helped lead to the establishment of a patriarchical society, since male characteristics were deemed worthy of leadership apparently.
Even with the emergence of the word “gender”—which attempted to provide a new vocabulary to differentiate between male and female humans (biology) and masculinity and femininity (gender)—we are still encouraged to use our bodies to demonstrate our gender identity. We “present and decorate” ourselves through the way we dress and modify our bodies. For example, women shave their legs, men take steroids to beef up, women get breast implants and men get calf implants. I think it’s our responsibility to challenge these expectations, which takes a lot of guts. Our outside appearance—whether we like it or not; whether we are conscious of it or not—sends a message to the public about who we are. I am not suggesting that, in order to combat this required presentation of ourselves, we should completely stop dressing the way we do; that wouldn’t solve very much. You can’t tell girls to rid their wardrobes of dresses because they emphasize the female physique too much and feminize women more than necessary; but it would be nice if men could wear dresses too without being gawked at. After all, dresses are comfortable and fun to wear! If we could slowly integrate an androgynous attitude toward clothing into our society, or at least reduce the pressure to look a certain way, then maybe the emphasis on appearance as a prevailing indicator of gender would be less prominent and more focused on expression and comfort.

Response to "Issues of Subjectivity and Identity"

Barker’s Issues of Subjectivity and Identity made me question how I would explain my identity (to myself and others). I’m sitting on a train and I just changed my shirt from a baggy soccer t-shirt to a fitted orange sweater. Already I am sitting up straighter and walking with better posture. I feel more feminine and obligated to demonstrate that to perfect strangers. I’ve probably done things like this before, but without notice or worry. But after reading Baker’s article, I became acutely aware of how I think I should act, and how I think others think I should act (did that make sense?). Barker points out an interesting idea: our identities are constantly evolving and developing. We are never the same person each day. I like this idea for two reasons. One, it parallels the chief concept taught in developmental biology that we as humans (and other creatures too) are never fully developed; we always changing and developing whether we are a fetus growing fingers and toes, an elderly person aging, or a sick patient battling cancer. So too are our identities shaped by the environment, our DNA, and ourselves; they are subject to change throughout our whole lives. This is an incredibly freeing realization. Every day we can wake up and be whoever we happen to be that day, and we don’t have to apologize for that. If our actions and thoughts don’t’ fulfill the standardized expectations established by ourselves and society, who cares? Knowing this inspires confidence and acceptance in me. I never expect to be perfect every day, but I realize that I usually think things like, “what would I normally do in this situation?” or “how would I normally react to this?” I hope I can channel these thoughts to a place in my mind where I don’t have to filter and process everything, and direct it to an area where I can just act.

Reaction to Glenn’s article

Evelyn Nakano Glenn argues that gender and race cannot be considered independently; they are interconnected relations that people identify with simultaneously. I’ll admit, I usually separate gender and race, but having read Glenn’s The Social Construction and Institutionalization of Gender and Race: An Integrative Framework, I completely agree that race and gender should be an integrated, linked study. Glenn believes that the most effective way to achieve this analysis is through the study of social constructionism. This theory expresses that the way cultures have defined and established sex and sexual meanings, as well as race, is rooted in biological means. In an attempt to eliminate cultural expectations that are typified by our biological condition, the word “gender” was created. It allows individuals to claim both masculine and feminine traits; choosing to identify with one or the other is not dependent upon biology. Race is often associated with physical characteristics, even though scholars agree that “social attitudes and arrangements” are responsible for the dominance of one race over the other. For example, Europeans contributed to the concept of biological race to help distinguish between Christians and non-Christians in the 18th and 19th centuries, which eventually led to the social structure of white, European superiority over “other” races.

The formation of race and the act of engendering others are both manifested in a “system of relationships” including norms, symbols, and practices defined by differences. Glenn notes that race and gender share three chief features that can be utilized for further study: “they are relational concepts whose construction involves both representational and social structural processes in which power is a constitutive element.” For me, this unbounded study is too overwhelming and complex to tackle. It can take a lifetime to change a single person’s attitudes about race and gender. I applaud Glenn and other social scientists who are able to articulate issues related to race and gender, and who bring light to the fact that race and gender are nothing more than concepts that we as a society have created.