Responding to Yellow

Doctors’ theories and quickness to implement “solutions” to fix the “problems” of intersex children is unnerving. And the higher than expected percent of babies born with gender anomalies means that these practices happen quite frequently. I also found the in depth descriptions of the methods of fixing intersex babies even more unsettling, especially because of the risks associated with them. It seems as if the ways by which doctors try to determine which of the two sexes to make the baby are fairly subjective and determined on a whim by the doctor. Because girls are deemed easier to make, you would think doctors would be more inclined just to make the baby a girl, in order to save some effort. Furthermore, the description of doctors of having “fixing fetishes” is creepy and makes it sounds as if doctors have a tendency to disregard the best interest of the baby and its family to display their techniques. Then when the author looks at the different theories that have been developed about the physiological aspects of determining the proper gender for intersex babies. Dr. Money’s ignorance is unbelievable, and the fact that he covered up the true results of his patient testing. His argument that nurturing and a child’s upbringing can influence a child’s gender tendency seems so farfetched. That goes along the lines of saying that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Overall, I really appreciated the author’s stance on shedding light these doctors’ practices and their quick impulses to make life-changing decisions without really consulting with or informing their patients.

"Five Sexes vs. Two Sexes"

This weeks readings from "Sexing up the Body" by Anne Fausto-Sterling were really tackled the medical way in which intersexuality and intersexuals are dealt with and have been dealt with in the past. The first chapter we read this week of "Of Gender and Genitals" really gave insight of what happens when a child has an abnormality regarding sex and how that is dealt with. The doctors feel that the babies must leave the hospital with a sex label and so they have to act fast to make the baby as they determine its "natural sex". This chapter also gave us diagrams and tables about the various abnormalities and how the genitals of boys and girls in the development stage are very similar. With the similarities in sex organs I think it is easy for things to sometimes get mixed up but the rushing to surgery to correct these things may be the right thing to do especially since the individual is not fully grown. As I read all the different abnormalities the one that garnered my attention the most was Turner Syndrome. The fact that you can have a O chromosome never occured to me I always thought in terms of X and Y. This got me to thinking that people really need to be more educated and aware of types of Intersexuality. Another thing that really grabbed my attention was the fact that technology and environment are contributing in our sexual make-up. This to me is really a scary thought I mean I have heard people say that diets and people eating chicken that they pump with growth hormones are speedy up our growth and that is why girls are getting their periods younger and younger but to changing out sexual makeup is a whole other issue. I think that more research has to be done it that area to make the statement concrete. Also this idea of prenatal testing and fixing so that your child doesn't come out intersex is absurd. The side effects are horrible and it may affect your child in the long run I think parents should allow the individual to be born yet before making any rash decisions.

When the author poses the question "Should there only be two sexes?" she answered it herself. She decided that there should be five sexes, female, male, herms, merms, and ferms. This caused outrage from many different communities who felt that she was going too far. The truth is that we cannot ignore this population of intersexuals because they are amongst us and it is getting harder to put people into boxes and keep them there as the lines become blurred it pushes peoples boundaries and levels of comfort ability and the only way to get pass this is to get educated and to become aware and to acknowledge that are more than just two sexes and in the same token more than just two gender. We must began to reconstruct these notions to include all peoples.

Response to Sara's Post

I enjoyed the readings from Anne Fausto-Sterling and Jennifer Reid Maxcy Myhre. The chapters in Sexing the Body gave me a different view on gender vs. sex. In the "Dueling Dualisms" Fausto-Sterling talks about the binary approach to gender in the western world. I like the cartoon in this chapter that depicts the history of sex it is a funny way to look at the role sex and gender has played in history. The beginning of this chapter starts out with the story of Maria Patino and how she was classified as not a women because she had testes and a Y chromosome. This I think is outrageous in the world of sports because you should be focused on your talent and well being and not if you have an extra chromosome. There are many different combinations you can get with regard to sex genes and so there should be more than just 2 ways of categorization. A quote in this chapter that really stood out to because or it's absurdity is by Pierre de Coubertin in 1912 it say "women's sports are all against the law of nature". This is a prime example of male chauvinistic thought. In "That Sexe with previliteth" she talks about hermaphrodites and how they have functioned in history. This chapter taught me a lot about the origin of the word hermaphrodites and how they have functioned in a world of complete binary when they fit both. The last reading from Listen Up was really amazing. I think the author has so much courage and I applaud her for what she does. I like that she enjoys making people uncomfortable while at the same time she wishes for a world where people didn't stare at her. I think her cutting her hair and not shaving her legs is a big help in her feminist endeavors. I agree that the time spent to get beautiful is a lot but I enjoy getting "beautified" and it helps my self esteem and many other women so i think it can be a positive thing. The readings all challenge this gender and sex question and what we do when people don't fit into either the male or female box. We must discover this by being open to the fact that their are a lot more that just two boxes.

http://bio4esobil2009.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/xy.jpg

Response to Sara

The selection from “Listen Up” was especially interesting to me because it was a radical feminst view of a minor part of women’s lives. The author explores the role of shaving her body and her choice of haircut in her life. She decided while in college she would stop shaving and cut her hair short. This was all done in an effort to save time and also because the author did not particularly care about those aspects of her appearance. She noted the differences between male and female appearances- female appearances are much more labor intensive. More time is required for women to set their hair, put on makeup and (presumabley) select stylish outfits. The author states that it became a feminist statement to stop conforming to the female norm. I, however, feel that her point is not very effective.It seems to me that the author stopped following female norms and instead followed male norms. Conforming to male appearances is not what the feminist movement should stand for. To me, the feminist movement means the right to choose to look however you wish to look. That means you cannot shave your legs, but have long hair if you so desire- straddling the lines between male and female expectations. It should not be that you must fit one mold or the other; humans are unique individuals and should therefore look unique. By choosing the male norm it seems as though the author is just another cross-dresser of sorts. Furthermore, the author is presumptious when she assumes that all males revel in the fact that they do not have to shave. I was reminded of a time when my male cousin had to shave his body for a swim meet. He half- jokingly noted that he loved his smooth legs. This got me wondering and I searched the internet for opinions on men shaving their bodies.
http://hairremoval.about.com/u/ua/menshairremoval/should-guys-shave-their-legs.htm
It seems in this particular discussion board that more men are open to shaving their bodies than the author realizes. All people seem to take pride in a certain appearance. Also interesting on this board is that women are mostly the people that are demanding men be unshaved. Men seem to be more open minded.
The author did make a good point when discussing people’s reactions to her new style. I think these reactions are more so directed at the violation of social norms rather than at the actual hairiness of author’s legs. Again, I checked online to see more people’s reactions and they were all pretty similar.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080127130409AAAkEnR
there was also a sarcastic column that listed awful reasons to go unshaven, thus reiterating the fact that women should indeed shave.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/29838/5_reasons_girls_shouldnt_shave_their_pg2.html?cat=46
Overall, I think the author made some valid points but unfortunately fell short of an effective argument and may have instead distanced herself from her target audience.

Gender, Sex, and Social Construction

These two readings examined gender categorization and the consequences of not fitting into the rigid male and female roles. The first reading, “That Sexe Which Prevaileth,” by Anne Fausto-Sterling, recounted hermaphrodites’ roles in historical societies. Over time, categorization and acceptance of hermaphrodites has continuously changed. Hermaphrodites have always struggled to find their place in the two sex dominated world, and the choice to be the correct sex. In ancient times, some societies were more accepting than others and attempted to clearly define their roles in society, split between the two typical roles of men and women. In Pre-19^th century Europe, different nations had varying tolerations for hermaphrodites, while some countries sentenced them to death, others were supportive and made exceptions for them. Then in the 19^th and 20^th centuries, with scientific advancement, doctors began new classifications of hermaphrodites. Gonads become the defining factor of biological sex. Definitions for “hermaphroditism” became stricter and stricter. The increased knowledge of the 19^th century led to a greater focus on the biology of hermaphrodites and the ability to convert hermaphrodites to better fit into “normal society.” The second reading, “One Bad Hair Day too Many,” by Jennifer Reid Maxcy Myhre, describes the authors decision to rebel against the societal norms of what it means to be a woman. Sick and tired of the endless hours put into beautification, the author embraces her idea of feminism and quits shaving her legs and cuts off all her hair. She believes that the time she isn’t spent wasting on her looks can be better spent elsewhere. She also enjoys what her androgyny does to rattle societal views and how it brings attention to the issue of gender categorization. Because gender is typically based on appearance, the author believes that her questionable appearance makes it very difficult for people to classify her, and thus people must delve deeper to get to know the real her.

I had the greatest reaction to the second reading. I also often wonder why there is so much emphasis put on the way women look and the substantial amount of time put into getting ready. At Colgate, there is definitely a standard of dress and appearance for not only going out, but also for going to class. Is it really necessary to spend an hour of my life getting ready every time I have to take a shower? When first getting into this reading, I found myself critical of the author’s emphasis on looks to promote feminism. But I think by the end, she finally makes her point that women could be spending their time much more wisely, such as promoting feminism, instead of fussing over their looks. I also got caught up in her desire to look androgynous. As we discussed in class, it seems like if you choose not to be feminine, you are automatically classified as masculine, instead of being classified somewhere in the middle. If true, does that really allow the author to transcend gender categorization?

Readings for 9/23

This weeks readings discussed the various roles that race plays in feminism.I chose to focus on the two online articles because I felt they best related to previous readings. In her article, Audre Lorde asks why she was one of the two black women present at a conference for feminism. She also delves into how difficult it is to also be a lesbian. She is a minority is so many aspects of her life that her struggle is multiplied. She feels that feminism thus far has had too narrow of a focus and actually weakens the movement. By incorporating more kinds of women such as, women of color, homosexual women, and women of various socioeconomic statuses, the feminist movement would be bolstered and gain momentum. She writes that women should all join to form one powerful force but keep individual differences intact; "Difference is that raw and powerful connection from which our personal power is forged...Without community there is no liberation, only the most vulnerable and temporary armistice between an individual and her oppression. But community must not mean a shedding of our differences, nor the pathetic pretense that these differences do not exist."I think she makes a great point that women are constantly trying to teach men (and society) how women should be treated. When women must educate other women about how they should be treated, it detracts from the ultimate goal: "Women of today are still being called upon to stretch across the gap of male ignorance and to educate men as to our existence and our needs...that it is the task of women of Color to educate white women -- in the face of tremendous resistance -- as to our
existence, our differences, our relative roles in our joint survival. This is a diversion of energies and a tragic repetition of racist patriarchal thought."

McIntosh discusses a similar problem but from the opposite perspective. She is writing as a white female about the problem of racism. She admits that it is hard as a Caucasian to always understand white privilege. She writes that white people are taught from a young age that they are not privileged; intentionally or not, Caucasians learn what they can expect from society. To further elaborate, McIntosh lists some example of white privileges that she gathered from a daily basis. The list includes, "
24. I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to the "person in charge", I will be facing a person of my race.
25. If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven't been singled out because of my race.
26. I can easily buy posters, post-cards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys and children's magazines featuring people of my race."
I think directly relates back to past readings about social norms and "programming" or the workings of the "system." No one person is responsible for the way that society functions and yet each individual exerts some influence on the whole. Many times, we act in accordance with societal laws without questioning why or considering alternatives. It is difficult for people in different strata of the system to understand alternative perspectives because they have only lived according to their designated role in society. A white man may never truly understand what it's like to be a black man because his whole life he has only ever been white. McIntosh also explains that privelage may not be the right word for these advantages because "We usually think of privilege as being a favored state, whether earned or conferred by birth or luck. Yet some of the conditions I have described here work systematically to over empower certain groups." McIntosh elaborates to explain that privilege just acts as an excuse to dominate one group over another and it may do so without the individuals knowing, "In my class and place, I did not see myself as a racist because I was taught to recognize racism only in individual acts of meanness by members of my group, never in invisible systems conferring unsought racial dominance on my group from birth." Overall, both articles write about how society needs to change and address differences between people. These differences should neither be abhorred nor ignored, but rather appreciated. By peeling away the hierarchical layers that society as built, we can better see the oppression of various groups and create change for equality.

"Follow Up: Response to Sara's Post"

I enjoyed a lot of aspects of today's reading. In the reading by Tiya Miles she brings up really good points about learning from the past. If they would have read about the feminist groups of the past they could have foreseen the problems and issues and addressed them before it destroyed the group. I'm glad that now she"s seen what the group could have possibly done and maybe she can start a feminist dialogue now because it is never too late. The other two articles were interesting one I had read before (McIntosh) and the other whom I read works of hers before but this one was new to me. This weeks readings left me with memorable quotes. The first is "In our world, divide and conquer must become define and empower" and the second is "The cultural correlation between wealth and worth". The last quote made me think of a line from Kanye West "All falls down" which says "They made us hate ourselves and love they wealth". I think that is an ideal thought that is culturally European and Western. The more money you have the more important and therefore worthy you are in this society. The truth of the matter is that this belief is completely false and that the wealthier classes have had opportunity to be heard and so they make up the majority of history because the thoughts of less wealthy people were not recorded but that doesn't mean that their thoughts and experiences aren't worthy. I just felt this quote really spoke to me and the Womens movement as well in the way that everyone despite their economic or racial background has something to say and should be heard. I enjoyed all the readings and loved the quotes by bell hooks especially. This enlightenment has started me in a quest to read more feminist authors and more articles and stories on feminist thought in and outside this classroom.

Follow up Response: to Systems of Privilege 9/23

I had fairly negative reactions to all three of the readings. I don’t know if my reaction was due to my inability to relate to the subject matter, or because of the way the authors approached the topic. Each article criticized white privileged women for the racial and somewhat class divisions in the feminist movement. I really don’t buy into the argument that white women in the movement are oppressing the black women, whether unknowingly, like McIntosh suggests, or knowingly, like Lorde argues. Based on what we have read so far, it seems as if white women and black women often fight for different objectives in the feminist movements. So is it fair to demand that the two be strongly unified into one solitary movement? I do agree with Lorde’s suggestion that all women should recognize each other’s strengths and build on that to form the movement. Also her term “racist feminism” is too strong of terminology, I think she is off hand by going as far to suggest that white feminist women are racist and purposely exclude black women from the movement. In McIntosh’s article, I have a problem with her argument that white women’s oblivion is can still be considered oppressive. Is it fair to put the blame on women who were born into the white privileged world? And as we read earlier, oppression can go both ways. Then in Miles’ article, she brings up the issue about one of the white woman’s family donating money to The Rag, and how that caused further racial and class divisions. I think this is a null and petty point. Instead of focusing on the white girl’s suggested increased status among the group, the women should have focused on continuing to spread their messages and appreciate their gained financial support to help facilitate the delivery of their message. Going back to Johnson’s writing, everyone is involved in these type of “oppressive systems,” it is just as much up to the black women as the white women to do something to change what they don’t like about it.

Response to Yellow

I also really enjoyed the reading “Patriarchy, the System: An it, Not a He, and Them or an Us” because it really changed the way I look at patriarch and the feminist movement. One of the major stereotypes surrounding feminists is that they are man-haters. Although not always true of feminists, I felt this to be a little unfair to the men as well. Blaming individual men or all men for women’s problems in society is not right. No one man, nor all men, are conspiring against all women. Instead, it is the society that our social norms and all citizens have constructed that has created our gender issues today. Last semester I took Personality and Social Psych and felt that this reading directly related to that psychology class. In that class we learned that the power of the social situation is more influential than most people realize and can cause people to act a certain way, even if the behavior is not particularly “nice”. For example, group mentality can cause people to behave in horrid ways, because they are consider themselves anonymous and to be just following the crowd. Furthermore, we learned that children learned how to behave in social situations based on social norms already in place by the culture. This influence exerts itself in the most trivial situations, like which way to stand in an elevator, to more serious situations, like how a marriage should function. From culture to culture these social norms are different and therefore in a patriarchal society, from a young age all people, not just men, are being taught how to behave according to such patriarchal ways. These facts make it easier to understand I thought this also connected back to Frye’s ideas that all people form this patriarchal norm which in turn then influences them to conform to its ways or else. “Imagine My Surprise” and Neuborne’s idea of “programming.” Despite her feminist upbringing, society had still gotten to Neuborne and in the certain situation, the social norms ultimately influenced her behavior. Subtly and yet powerfully, social norms direct our behavior every day. Therefore, as Frye suggests, it is in women’s best interest to change these social norms. If society as a whole works to change expectations for social behavior then the patriarchal ways will no longer be able to exert such a social force over people’s actions. This releases individuals from blame and yet also empowers them to make a change.

Response to Yellow

I found the reading, “Patriarchy, the System: An it, Not a He, and Them, or an Us,” really interesting. Until this reading, I had never really considered the construct of our patriarchal system. And if I did think about it, I assumed that it is supported purely by the male population. I think it is important to take away from the reading that blaming the patriarchal system for our problems doesn’t lead us to a better understanding of how the system was created or is sustained. We need to take a more proactive approach to solving the problems of the system, instead of the typical reactionary approach. It needs to be understood that women are equally to blame for patriarchal system as men, as they too are active participants in the system. The patriarchal system is largely based on socialization. The majority of women and men take up the gender roles that were passed down to them, though it is important to note that these roles are not rigid and can and have been changed over time. On this note it is interesting to consider women’s role in ancient times in comparison to now. If you look at texts like those read in the Western Traditions course, women are predominately described as powerful and influential, like Athena. This portrayal of women is particularly interesting in comparison to the image of women today as weak and emotional. The ability move past the societal norms of patriarchal society, it depends on how we participate in the system. The author states that we need to move off the path of least resistance to form new ideologies. I just don’t know how plausible this is on the grander scale given the tendency that if women stand up against the system, they are consider too sensitive, which then perpetuates the cycle even more.

"Trapped in the Birdcage of Patriarchy"

The readings this week were really enlightening. The first one entitled Patriarchy my Johnson really help me to understand this system of patriarchy and how it functions. Although we participate in this system we ourselves are not patriarchy. I liked how the reading said that when we challenge these ideas that the systems says are okay and we are in fact helping to deconstruct these notions. When we decide to speak out and to not take the path of least resistance we can in fact change the system itself. The evil that comes from this system exists because good people do nothing. "In other words, when people step off the path of least resistance, they have the potential not simply to change other people, but to alter the way the system itself happens." This system is ingrained in all of us from birth through socialization. This socialization teaches us how to participate in these social systems. The reason this is a issue is because we treat everything in this society on an individualized basis instead of seeing it as a fundamental system that works as a structure despite the people who live in it.

The second reading about the term oppression and seeing women as oppressed really struck a cord with me. I had never heard a man say he was oppressed unless he was apart of a minority group too so to hear that men claim to be oppressed as well is news to me. That I feels lessens the word oppression and also it's meaning. I compared it to my Black Diaspora class when all the white students said that they all could be considered black since the oldest human remains were found in Africa then technically we are all black. My professor proceeded to say that everyone could not claim to be black because it would discount the struggles of black people. The same I feel with this reading that if the oppressors themselves say they are actually oppressed as well that discounts the struggles face by women and other oppressed groups. The birdcage analogy was really effective in helping me understand how oppression and likewise patriarchy work. By looking at an individual situation you cannot see how it can be oppressive but if you add up all the situations in which women are oppressed it puts in to perspective how the oppression works as a system. The small things that men do that the article says is not gallant but in fact reinforces this system and puts women down goes to show that this system of patriarchy has infiltrated the way of life for all of us and most of our actions are done in our response to the socialization of American society.

Response to Sara

I really enjoyed today’s readings because I felt that they explored more controversial topics in Douglas’s argument and really forced me to seriously consider things I would never have given a second thought to in the past. For example, Clueless is one of my favorite movies. I think it is hysterical to watch a California Valley girl struggle through life. I also feel that she is not as laughable as Douglas considers. In her own way, Cher is considerate and intelligent. She tries to help others in her own way- by giving makeovers and by setting them up on dates. In each of the two cases, this works out well and all the people involved are very happy. Cher is also usually fights for what she wants and gets it in the end. In one scene, she is showing her father her report card and proudly says that she argued her C up to an A. Although having an actual A would have been more impressive for her character, I like that she acts anti-feminine and argues for a better grade; typically only male characters are so manipulative. Furthermore, Cher is tougher and more genuine than her valley girl veneer initially shows. At one point, one of her male friends is too aggressive and tries to make moves on her. She repeatedly resists his moves and removes herself from the situation. She responds well to a dangerous situation and does not simply do something she doesn’t want to. Cher is also able to look past the superficial and form more meaningful relationships. Her former step-brother is not the most attractive or popular character and in the end, Cher forms a romantic relationship with him. I think watching this movie on the basic level does not put Cher in the best light for a female role model, but if you look deeper to a core one can better appreciate the character development and the real messages being portrayed. Moreover, Clueless set the precedent for movies shown from the female perspective. Other future movies, including my personal favorite Mean Girls, would depict various situations from the female point of view. Finally, we get a deeper glance into the female psyche. This enables the American public to see what women are really thinking. I agree with Douglas that yes, occasionally these shows are a tad dramatic, but in most cases I don’t feel that they are overly exaggerated. I think that most high school girls would agree that characters in Mean Girls could have come straight from their own high school. With the advent of chick flicks, American society has the chance to better understand women and I think it also works positively to encourage more curiosity about women’s thoughts on various topics.

"Follow Up: Response to Sara's Post"

I enjoyed both chapter 4 and 5 in Douglas' Enlightened Sexism. Chapter 4 talked about New Girlyness and I think that it is so funny how women were being girly but also warrior women at the same time. Douglas talks about "Clueless" which gave a rise to blockbuster chick flicks and women and girls perspective in movies an television. We get to see the movie from Cher point of view and it is an insight that was rarely seen in movies. With "Ally McBeal" she talks about how we get the strong women but at the same time get the whiny girls insecure moments. I think that i true to life in the lives of women balancing between being successful and still feminine.

I loved Chapter 5 and the fact that we got to look at the black women perspective in media and with feminism. I enjoyed that she put the bit in there about Wanda Sykes and her "detachable vagina" idea. I think that is probably some woman's ultimate fantasy to be able to not be bogged down with the responsibility of having a vagina because it creates so much difficulty and fear with her example or be accosted or raped. I really also liked how she talked about television examples of black women. In Grey's Anatomy I love Miranda Bailey I feel like her character strikes the perfect balance of being a successful surgeon but still being a woman and not having that hold her back but in fact do her job better. In one episode after she has a child her colleagues question if she is too soft and emotional to be in her position anymore and she shows that her becoming a mother actually gives her better insight when it comes to her patients. I also like how she talks about the raw data that black women are still at a huge disadvantage in this country despite the facade of powerful figure heads like Oprah and Dr. Bailey.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVM2rjdOG8Q

Enlightened Sexism 9/15

Chapters three and four in Douglas’ book Enlightened Sexism explore the new wave of girly feminism and black women’s feminist movement in the media. Chapter three, “The New Girliness,” followed the entertainment trend to emphasize female’s increasing girliness in movies and television shows. The movie Clueless set the trend for chick flicks. It also set the tone in the post-feminist era with a “freedom to be feminine.” This ideology created a dynamic where girls and women were able to take advantage of their sexuality, while still demanding their equality and rights. The Spice Girls serve as a prime example of women who pranced around on stage in skimpy outfits, but preached the importance of girl power in their lyrics. Shows such as Ally McBeal showed the complexities of having an impressive career, but struggling to maintain a personal life. A lot of the shows at the time portrayed career women as making sacrifices at home. It was almost like women couldn’t have both and they must choose between their job and having a family. Douglas also mentions movies like Miss Congeniality and Legally Blonde where the main female characters preach true feminist values at some point during the movie, but by the end they tend to lose sight of those values. Overall, I agree with Douglas’ assessment of these movies and television shows. These media outlets tend to show women as vapid, materialistic, and over emotional. Even though some of the shows and movies display more masculine and career driven women, they make these women choose a one-sided life where they can’t have both a career and home life.

The next chapter, “You Go, Girl,” examines black women’s struggle to find their own voice in the modern feminist movement. Douglas demonstrates that black women are at an even greater disadvantage than white women. Their stereotypes only further put them at this disadvantage. Music videos and song lyrics, in particle, are responsible for these stereotypes. In the 1990’s there were several television shows and female singers/rappers that fought for women’s rights. People like Queen Latifah, Salt, and Pepper and shows like Living Single used the media for the feminist messages. The show Martin is brought up to show that black men even worked to bring down and criticize black women. Douglas also discusses Oprah’s influence over the white and black communities. In a lot of her arguments in this chapter, she explores the uses of White Speak verses Black Speak. It is here that I have the greatest issue with her argument. I don’t agree that the women who transition back and forth between the two “lingos” more easily influence people. I don’t think that because Oprah occasionally uses “ain’t” and “you go girl” that people are more receptive to her messages. I also disagree with her point that Oprah isn’t really a feminist because she asks women to look within themselves to find power, rather than demanding power from other people. I believe that Oprah’s dominance over the media and our nation has proven that black women can also make it to the top.

"Follow Up: Responding to Carolyn's Post"

In this weeks reading Douglas talked about many media examples of women. The real life examples or Lorena Bobbitt and Amy Fisher really worried a lot of Americans. They thought that this is what feminism had created women in power wielding weapons and taking the law into their own hands. This as put forth in shows got a completely different reaction. Buffy and Xena for example were powerful women who kicked butt and to many males that was seen as sexy it even was some man's fantasy. So this conjuncture about how much power women are able to have is in contradiction with the roles of males and females in society. The reality of it is that powerful women scare society because their power emasculates men and gives women the power to do it all. Men are able to fantasize about someone like Xena but if this wasn't a show the reaction would be completely different. Just like the cover of the book with superwomen and the sexy silhouette we are supposed to be both when if asked most men would just choose the silhouette.
http://http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://api.ning.com/files/K1pvU1lvYniId*ZALgs8RP9RtPEU8wQPHmLIhSo5quGSzddsIpxbonclv42oVIMp*mGqgrPhvIOMo2BykEl-5YfcYiQ26eJ5/xena1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://netflixcommunity.ning.com/xn/detail/1993323:Comment:1034184%3Fxg_source%3Dactivity&usg=__xGQstEzDO7Fa_g6L5L9exxPq-gA=&h=974&w=445&sz=36&hl=en&start=0&sig2=BhKwXWMjNY-Jmo9WvPF4EQ&zoom=1&tbnid=oJJWLp-XBB5sNM:&tbnh=111&tbnw=52&ei=aG-PTJ6hAsWAlAfru4WDDQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3DXena%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1920%26bih%3D890%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=267&vpy=162&dur=529&hovh=332&hovw=152&tx=103&ty=185&oei=aG-PTJ6hAsWAlAfru4WDDQ&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=43&ved=1t:429,r:16,s:0

Enlightened Sexism: Chapters 1-3

In this week’s reading of Enlightened Sexism, Douglas writes about the role of the media in the early heyday of enlightened sexism. In the first chapter she writes almost exclusively about television shows from the early 90’s centered around upper class white drama such as 90210, Melrose Place, and Murphy Brown. Douglass also discusses the role of musical group Riot Grrrl and magazine Sassy. According to Douglass, Aaron’s Spelling’s television shows were a few of the first to reach teenage girls and exploit the market. Most critics believed the shows, with immature plots and terrible acting, would never last long. However, teenage girls quickly became infatuated with the plots- both because they loved to mock the ridiculousness of the show but also as a form of escapism from their daily lives. Furthermore, Riot Grrrl I almost consider to be a precursor to the Spice Girls. Both groups were interested in reviving the feminist movement and reaching the younger generation. However, I feel that Riot Grrrl may have been more genuine in their feminist intentions. The members of Riot Grrrl were “deeply anti-commercial and especially hostile to how the mainstream media addressed and portrayed young women” (44). They dressed provocatively and did not conform to the traditional roles that women popstars are expected to fill. The Spice Girls however, did fit almost all the molds of tall, thin, attractive females- they just had a bit more attitude.
Chapter Two “Castration Anxiety” addresses many media and tabloid fanfare over such public news stories as the Amy Fisher case, the Bobbit Case, and Janet Reno. Douglass explains that in both criminal cases the women were seen as a warning sign of what was to come when women got out of control. Amy Fisher was seen as a sexual prostitute as well as a media whore; She was construed as promiscuous, violent and money hungry. Her male counterpart in the case was let off the hook and almost sympathized, despite being guilty of statutory rape and possibly forcing Fisher into prostitution. What I found more interesting than the criminal cases was Douglas’s discussion about Janet Reno. Reno had acted in such a way that resulted in the massacre of numerous people at Waco Texas after failed hostage negotiations. Later she took full responsibility, a characteristic not common for politicians, and gained the approval and respect of the American public. Both sides of the aisle commended Reno, she received numerous awards, and at one point had higher approval ratings than the president. And yet, Reno still fell victim to ruthless teasing by the media. Talk show hosts and other television shows frequently joked about Reno’s manlike qualities and ignored her amazing abilities as an American leader. They play her as aggressive, boorish, and somewhat of a lonely geek. Reno never conformed to the typical woman stereotype; she was over six foot, dressed in unflattering suits, spoke in monotone, and had an ambiguous haircut. She therefore had to be snapped back into place by and unforgiving patriarchy.
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=36383935

Chapter Three, “Warrior Women in Thongs”, discusses the television shows Xena Warrior Princess, Dark Angel, Alias, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Douglas writes that such women seem to have it all; they are powerful, sexual, beautiful, caring, and opinionated. However, Douglas writes, “Warrior women were both transgressive and conformist. They fought like Jackie Chan but cried over romantic betrayal or injury done to others; they were physically dominating yet caring. While they suggested, on one hand, that with enough tae kwon do lessons women could reduce the differences between the sexes even further, their form fitting, skin baring outfits made clear that emphatically marked gender differences were here to stay.” (99). I would like to ask what Douglas would deem the perfect television character. So far from all of our class readings, Douglas has a problem with every female character. She inevitably finds a problem with their social life, career, hyper-sexuality (or sexual repression), or that they are “too” perfect. I wonder what then, Douglas would feel is the best role model for young women. I don’t think any character, female or male, is ever perfect. This pattern of imperfect role models may not be specific to women but humans in general.

Response to the 9/14 readings in Enlightened Sexism

It is fascinating how the media has such a tight grip on our culture’s thoughts and opinions. It seems as though one show after another, television capitalizes on adolescent girls’ vulnerabilities. In the 1990’s, 90210 declared that superficial, wealthy, and sexy were ideal female characteristics. Young female viewers looked to the lead girls in 90210 as role models, despite the show’s farfetched plotlines. Almost all of those viewers would never be able to look like that or spend money like that, thus the show depicted an unachievable reality. Shows such as 90210 and Melrose Place are a consumerist ploy and only hamper girls’ self-confidence. Modern shows, such as Gossip Girl and The Hills are reigniting these social obscurities. Blair Waldolf isn’t exactly a perfect modern day role model with her obsession for designer clothing and conniving ways. It seems as if Sassy magazine was on the right track with their balance of girly feminism. Their articles addressed essential issues, without trying to sugar coat things. And their useful tips were actually applicable in real life scenarios. The repercussions of the modern day media attack on adolescent girls are frightening to think about. One can only hope that more outlets like Sassy are introduced to point girls in the right direction.

Response to Imani

I agree with Sara that using the same diction as the Declaration of Independence sent a strong message from the feminists to male readers. The Declaration of Independence resonates with all Americans and I can understand why they chose to emulate such a piece. In a sense, it turned the tables and evoked a subject that many men of that time probably were passionate about. However, it is yet another example of women using men’s molds to suit their own needs. Just like women use male stereotypes of “sexy” females and business women that wear suits like male coworkers, it seems that this is another example of women trying to assimilate into a male form rather than trailblazing their own path to success. I thoroughly enjoyed “Ain’t I a Woman” because the author conveyed her message in her own unique way. She wrote eloquently and perfectly developed her argument unlike the writings of the usual white males, she chose to use her own voice and write from her soul. Overall all three readings gave important information about the history of the women’s movement; a period of time that frequently seems removed from American history.

Response to Feminism and the Double Bind

These readings gave great insight into some of the issues that women faced during the first wave of feminism. I really liked how the “Declaration of Sentiments” used rhetoric that reflected the Declaration of Independence. This format strengthens the feminist message and really highlights the disparities between men and women’s rights. I also thought that the examples of male dominance sent a powerful message. Examples such as referring to husbands as wives’ masters, or male pursuit of interest regardless of female happiness clearly show men’s superiority.

“Feminism Old Wave and New Wave” was also very interesting. After previously reading about the beginning of the second wave of feminism, it was fascinating to read about how the first wave began. The fact that both movements developed out of movements for African American rights, says a lot about the type women dedicated to these causes. But unlike the second wave, during the first wave, at least some male abolitionists were supportive. You would think that people so dedicated to fighting for one group of people’s rights would also be fully supportive of another disenfranchised group. It just goes to show that all men thought that they were superior to women.

"Feminism and The Double Bind"

All of these pieces tied together really well. In Dubois' "Feminism Old Wave and New Wave" she gives us the history of the two waves of Feminism. She is not sure where the second wave end and if it still continues today. The shunning of women's right to vote by the male abolitioners gave the first wave of feminism just what they needed to start a movement of their own. Once women gained the vote the issues became different and gave way to a new wave of feminism but both strived for one thing women's liberation.

The Declaration of Sentiments was one of the first pieces of written documents of the rights of women and how they have been oppressed by men. Having this written down helped the women's movement tremendously and help take great strides in gaining supporters and taking a step in the right direction for women's suffrage.

Two years after The Seneca Falls Conference Sojurner Truth gave a speech at the Women's Conference entitled "Ain't I a Woman?". This speech gave a voice to the women who seemed to be left out of the women's movement which were women of color. The demands of Feminists at that time did not necessarily fall in line with the needs of all women. Although many black women stayed with the civil rights movement although it dismissed the rights of women was because many of them felt that the civil rights movement was better suited for their needs than the women's movement. What Sojourner Truth does is remind the white middle class women of the movement that she too is a women and that women of all races can benefit from this movement and although she is fighting for civil rights she also supports the movement.

All three readings gave us a glimpse at the history of the Women's Movement and as we look back we realize we still have far to go in gaining complete equality and women's liberation.

“Follow up: Responding to Sara's Post”

I concur that the readings this week were all insightful. I think I got the most out of "The Future that never happened. I was so excited by this reading because it gave a more in depth view of the second wave feminist movement and a look at its key players. I was so shocked and surprise to learn that Hugh Hefner was apart of the feminist movement early on and even funded some of their endeavors. A huge problem was that although he was claiming to be a feminist he in fact wasn't. He was still sexist especially where his business was concerned as seen by the playboy bunny emblem. http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.posters.ws/images/152891/playboy_bunny.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.posters.ws/17524/playboy_logo/playboy&usg=__ogH22m29rwKo6RwFqBYRKjKBXiw=&h=450&w=291&sz=13&hl=en&start=0&sig2=zLBZ_0wyJ1cA_EmPcE1O0g&zoom=1&tbnid=3jTtz-i3DsbUiM:&tbnh=123&tbnw=79&ei=rTKGTJDGD8G78gbSis1r&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dplayboy%2Bbunny%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1920%26bih%3D890%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=407&oei=rTKGTJDGD8G78gbSis1r&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=40&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&tx=69&ty=76

The difficult problem with the women's movement post Roe vs Wade was the contradiction between the sexual revolution. Some women believed it was a hindrance to the movement while other enjoyed it and felt it was a great part within the movement. That turned out to be a big problem and caused a divide within the movement. Then later with the emergence of CAKE I think that question is brought up on how to be a feminist and popular without recreating the old sexist stereotypes. One quote in particular from the reading that is describing these CAKE parties explains this idea well "Why is this the "new feminism" and not what it looks like: the old objectification?". This is also I feel and example of enlightened sexism as we have talked about in class. How can we move toward equality when we are still perpetuating inequality? As Robin Morgan said "Ponogroaphy is the theory, rape is the practice."

History of Feminism and Women's Studies

The reading for Tuesday explored different aspects of the feminist movement from the 1960’s to the present day. While each sought or seeks to increase female equality and rights, the various feminist positions vary quite significantly. The Future that Never Happened, by Ariel Levy, begins by examining staunch feminists, such as Susan Brownmiller. Brownmiller and her radical comrades set out to completely transform societal views and roles of women. Reproductive rights and career equality were issues on their forefront. Levy also goes into great detail about the sexual revolution. Despite his influence over the reimaging of sexuality and sexual mores, Brownmiller and other feminists are quick to scorn Hugh Hefner. They argued that he objectified women and only gave women ornamental value. This group of feminists was strongly opposed to pornography and compared it to offenses such as rape. Levy makes is clear that not all feminist are anti-porn or sexually repressed. She then divulges about groups like CAKE, which promotes sexuality and capitalize on femininity. Levy concludes by stating that despite the disappearance of radical feminists, the focus on excess sexuality can distract women from the original intentions of the feminist movement and make them lose consciousness to the ways our male driven culture demeans women.

Then, The Re-emergence of the “Women Question” follows the transition from women’s involvement in the civil rights movement to the creation of their own feminist movement. Female members of the SNCC and SDS played a subservient role to men. Issues of race also affected the groups. White women often got caught up in complicated relationships between the black male members of the groups and black female group members. Riffs between the white and black women soon began to form not just over the competition for the men, but also over pursuing their best interests in fighting for rights. With the outbreak of the Vietnam War, women felt even further detached from their group activism, as the subjects they protested did not directly affect them. As a result, women slowly began focusing on their own rights and trying to fight to promote them. Incidentally enough, the men who they fought besides for civil and war rights were not as supportive of the fight for feminist rights.

Finally, Betty Friedan, in the first chapter excerpted from The Feminine Mystique sheds light on the dissatisfied lives of housewives during decades following World War II. During that time period, women retreated back to their homes and pursued careers as housewives. They dedicated all their time to their husbands, children, and housework. Women no longer attempted to have careers outside of the home. After some time women became unfulfilled by their lives and developed depression. Experts were unable to pinpoint its cause. Friedan claims that women yearned to do something more with their lives, but were unable to identify what it was that they wanted. Matters were made worse by image the media and men portrayed that women were left up to their own freewill. This time period was a dark age for the American female population, but set the foundation for the feminist movement to build on.

The Future that Never Happened grabbed my attention the most. At times, I was shocked by what I was reading and at other times disgusted. There were three specific points that I disagreed with the most or found the most offensive. The first was Brownmiller’s hypothetical comparison of pornography to propaganda for gassing Jews or lynching blacks. I think that she is being overdramatic and her argument devalues the severity of those acts of hatred. Secondly, I was disgusted by Hugh Hefner’s double standard of women. The fact that he openly admits that women are nothing more than ornamental entertainment and have no intellectual simulative ability is absurd. And thirdly, I was definitely surprised to learn about CAKE. With its overtly sexual parties, to me, CAKE displays women in a way that most women and especially feminists should take offense to. The fact that they parade practically naked women around a party where men are welcome to ogle over them goes against the ideology of feminism.

Boys will Be Girls

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gspaoaecNAg

"Follow Up: Responding to Carolyn's Post"

I think Douglas addresses key issues in this new Enlightened Sexism that the media portrays. It is so easy to look at these strong women role models on television and think that there is no need for feminism today. But quite the contrary is true. We still have much further to go before we reach true equality. I think that Douglas is right on target with her analysis of how we watch shows and think if we are laughing at the characters we are not really affected by the stereotypes they are representing. You laugh at this display of sexism while still being affected by it and you do think if even for a second what if I had bigger chests?

When she talks about shows like "My Super Sweet Sixteen" I can relate because I had a big sweet sixteen party. I have to admit I acted like a brat and even cried but I'm not sure if I did it because I was an avid viewer of the show and felt like that was how I was supposed to behave or if it was purely my reaction to the situation.

When she is talk about the marketing to tween girls I remember reading many articles about how much buying power they have and the product that had tweens going crazy http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.sevensidedcube.net/wp-content/uploads/hannah-montana-show.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.sevensidedcube.net/miley-cyrus-bids-adieu-to-hannah-montana/&usg=__UclQSaPqPoHsY6Wmq_XZ78Xm0Tw=&h=1024&w=796&sz=143&hl=en&start=0&sig2=Tfa-onn4V6VzTk0vEiWTzw&zoom=1&tbnid=4ko6PbWnbp0CTM:&tbnh=121&tbnw=98&ei=svd-TK7IN4T7lwf82LW-Dg&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dhannah%2Bmontana%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26biw%3D1920%26bih%3D890%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=1460&vpy=182&dur=389&hovh=255&hovw=198&tx=130&ty=136&oei=svd-TK7IN4T7lwf82LW-Dg&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:11,s:0
I am unsure if Hannah Montana is apart of Enlightened Sexism but she may very well be.

Enlightened Sexism: Introduction

This week's reading of Enlightened Sexism introduced us to the actual idea of enlightened sexism defined by the author as "a response, deliberate or not, to the perceived threat of a new gender regime" Douglas describes the various ways in which the media over exaggerates the actual rate of women in positions of power alluring the general public into believing that sexism is a thing of the past. According to prime time television, Carrie Bradshaws, Miranda Baileys, and Olivia Bensons are popular and so common that we needn't worry. In fact, sexism is so old-fashioned mocking traditional forms of sexism has become another form of entertainment altogether. Therefore, at the same time that we have strong female role models the next channel displays some ditzy twenty-something with fake breasts jumping on a trampoline. Some say that we have come so far that we are not actually watching the woman jump on a trampoline we are instead laughing at the stupid chauvinist stereotype. But Douglas asks, are we really? Can we really watch a marathon of the Man Show and not be slightly affected? Can a woman really watch men ogle Meghan Fox with her 22 inch waist and not (maybe for a second) wish she was five pounds lighter? Douglas says no we can not. The television shows that depict powerful women actually distract us from the fact that women have not really progressed professionally as much as we think and we lapse into complacency. She also argues that we don't  laugh at the television shows that parade around half- nude, dumb, and catty girls nearly as much as we think we do. Instead it seems as though we are sucked into their hot and bitchy vortex.


On most points I can agree with Douglas. The media has certainly distracted me from feminism on more than one occasion.  Shows like Law and Order, The Closer, Grey's Anatomy, and Sex and the City show women as strong and confident both professionally and sexually. I have questioned, as I'm sure others have, is sexism really that bad still? Therefore, as women we must remind ourselves that the top five jobs for women have not really changed from secretaries and school teachers. We must remind ourselves that white women are still only making seventy seven cents to every man's dollar. And we must remind ourselves that the United States has arguably the worst infrastructure for maternity leave of any industrialized society. With that being said, I feel that occasionally Douglas may over emphasize certain points herself. For example, Douglas writes that Abercrombie and Fitch is a form of enlightened sexism because it subtly forces girls into a world of consumerism focused entirely on appearance. Scantily clad men and women influence young girls into purchasing t shirts that essentially act in much the same way as billboards. Young girls that resist such enlightened sexism are subject to ridicule by their female peers. I think in this instance Douglas over emphasizes the role of Abercrombie and Fitch in sexism. She forgets that Abercrombie sells to both girls and boys. Both genders are pulled in by the techno music and over-perfumed sweatshirts. Men and women are posed half naked on the walls. This is not a sexist problem but more of a teenage problem. Frankly, Abercrombie and Fitch has done a terrific job honing in on a market. They sell cheap products for three times the production price and their customers do all of the company's advertising for free. Furthermore, teenagers hold more buying power than ever before. Also, in most cases the tweens realize they are being duped or adapt their fashion sense and the phase only lasts a couple of years. Douglas also over stresses the detrimental role of harmless shows movies like "My Super Sweet Sixteen." From personal experience I can honestly say that friends and I would legitimately laugh at the girls on the show. Their incompetent, bratty, and unintelligent ways were comical. How can people really function like that? Douglas seems a little out of touch with current events. As a middle aged woman she may not quite understand the passing role of such trashy shows on young women. For 30 minutes her teenage daughter may seem entranced by the show but I am almost sure there will be no lasting damage. Douglas diverges into other topics as well, such as 9/11, which I would argue are unrelated to her main point. Overall, I agree with Douglas's main points but I think that she should reconsider the extent to which enlightened sexism really steeps into our lives and where it really lurks undetected.