http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/20/gabby-sidibe-cover-girl.html
While the mass media leading the wave, it also always stand in the teeth of the storm. There is no right thing for mass media to do. Traditional fashion magazines are one of the kinds of mass media that usually involved in controversy. They are often be blamed for sending wrong messages, such as all beautiful girls and women are thin, women are born for shopping, and perfecting body image is of crucial importance in attracting men, to the society. However, when they try to run opposite to their traditional ways, they would be accused of conspiracy. Elle magazine is recently stuck in controversy for this reason.
Elle is under fire for putting Gaborey Sidibe on the cover of one quater of its October issue. Gaborey Sidibe is a talented Oscar-nominated African-American actress. Gabourey Sidibe first made her name last year by her outstanding performance in the film Precious. According to Wikipedia, Sidibe plays the protagonist Claireece "Precious" Jones in the film Precious which is based on the novel “Push” by Sapphire. Claireece is an uneducated 16-year-old girl who also suffers from obeseness. She also has given birth to two children after being raped by her own father and tries to get rid of her parents’ hands.(1) It was this role that earned Sidibe a nomination for Academy Award for Best Actress which is an high achievement for new actresses like her. “The film won numerous awards, including two Academy Awards, a Golden Globe Award and Sundance Film Festival Grand Jury Award.On December 15, 2009, she was nominated for a Golden Globe in the category of Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture Drama for her performance in Precious. On April 24, 2010, Sidibe hosted Saturday Night Live with musical guest MGMT.”(1)
In celebrating its 25th anniversary, Elle selected Gabourey Sidibe as one of the Hollywood’s favorite 25-year-old actress and put her on its cover. (2) Elle published four different covers and the other three girls that appeared on the covers of this issue were Lauren Conrad, Megan Fox, and Amanda Seyfried.(3) Yes, of all the other three girls, none is of the same type as Gabby; actually, compared to Gabby, they are from the same box: typical it-girls of Hollywood, thin, and white.(3) Elle is thus drawn into the vortex of controversy. With only a few of people cheer on Gabby’s appearance on the cover which is usually only available for white celerities, most people accused Elle of making joke on Gabby.
Many people pointed out that Gabby looks much lighter on the cover than she looks on the cover of Ebony. So Elle is accused of having lightened her skin in order to make her more like an Elle-cover-girl which is usually the type of the other three girls. However, Elle denied such accusation and said "Nothing out of the ordinary was done. We have four separate covers this month and Gabby's cover was not retouched any more or less than the others.” (3)
In addition, Elle was also blamed for treating Gabby differently from the other cover girls. Take a look at all the four covers and it is not hard to notice that while Megan,Lauren, and Amanda were given knee-up shots with enough margins, Gabby was shown above chest and her body image almost occupied the whole cover.(3) Does this suggest that Elle meant to hide Gabby’s non-size-2 figure and make her look narrower?
Furthermore, some people believed that Gabby was on the cover simply because Elle wanted to increase its diversity. (4)Previously, another fashion magazine, Vanity Fair, was charged of racism for its cover of March,2010 issue. In the name of “A New Decade, A New Hollywood!”, the cover story of Vanity Fair’s March issue picked several hot stars who are all white and thin. New hot stars like Gabby who is fat and non-white were left out. People thus blamed Vanity Fair for suggesting that only white thin chicks can be counted as new muses. (5) Therefore, it may be possible that Elle used Gabby as a tool to avoid being racist.
Allison Samuels, the author of the Newsweek article, highly suspected the real reason lying behind Elle’s choice. Why Gabby gained a lot of attention from the White world but no other African-American actresses, who had the same accomplishment as Gabby, had done before? She thinks that Gabby, at present, cannot be the African-American actress with the highest achievement. So Elle felt free to put Gabby on its cover may because Gabby, without the traditional beauty of Black women, could mean no harm to the domain White female beauty. Allison also afraid that Elle might send wrong information with Gabby’s cover suggesting that this represents Black beauty. (5)
However, I think Elle, unfortunately, was caught into an non-win situation by public. Elle would be blamed with or without Gabby for being racist in both cases. Gabby is a gifted actress as well as the other cover girls but with completely different types of beauty. There is nothing reprochable here that Elle tried to display Gabby’s beauty in a different way since what works for the other girls may not work for Gabby. And why should Elle provide the same Gabby as she was on the cover of Ebony? While Allison question Gabby’s appearance on the cover of Elle because many other African-American actress did not make it, I view Gabby’s appearance as sign of more and more African-American girls will make it. Isn’t it a great progress that Elle has made to diversify its message to the society? I also think that, in this controversy, it was not Elle that should be blamed but the team behind Gabby, as Geneva S. Thomas also pointed out. Her team members must know what is the best way to show her beauty and what kind of Gabby does the public want. Why they did not stop Elle making Gabby’s appearance look wrong, especially with Gabby’s hair which is a big deal to African-American women? (2)
It seems that people who are identified or self-identified as weaker group usually think it is of crucial importance to gain respect from the stronger group while ignore their own importance. As we have read in Feminism Old Wave And New Wave by Ellen DuBois, feminists tried to win women rights by gaining respect from the major society which meant the male-dominated society. During Civil War, many women actively participated in the “patriotic work” to show their “political seriousness” and abilities. Because they believe, their rights would be gained once men realized their functions in the evolution. However, such expectation was failed. And feminists gradually realized that “the oppression of women was not top priority for anyone but women themselves” because men just do not bother to care about that. (6)
Similarly, Black women tend to seek places in the White-dominated society to prove their importance. However, I think it is more practicable for Black women to create their own fashion industry than to demand their places in present White-dominated fashion industry. First, as men do not care about women’s rights, the White-dominated fashion industry does not care about African-American women’s appearance within it. On the other hand, fashion is something that strongly connected with exterior characteristics. Since White fashion is often created primarily for White women, it does not fit Black women. Just like we Asian girls would better not to dress the same as White women for we have different characteristics, Black girls should create and follow their own fashion trend. And ”mainstream has always have a fascination with the so-called exotic look of very dark skin, fuller lips, and broader noses”(4). With their own Black fashion directors, Black women can show their true beauty to the world without disguise by White fashion directors. African-American women also have their own gifts that envied by people from other communities. As we have read in You Go, Girl, many white women envy “hip, funny, and sassy Black women”(7. P147) such as Oprah Winfrey and Wanda Sykes who can even make their voices “in the mainstream culture”(7. P127). Although I have just been the States for a month, I also found that many fellow Black girls are witty and gifted in acting and dancing. For example, in my acting class, a Black girl always surprises me with her improvisation and good sense of rhythm.
As Allison says in the Newsweek article: “Hollywood and the fashion just don’t care.” So why do Black women care about them? Since places are often available for black women in films made by African-American directors, then train and support more directors of this origin.
Sources:
“Gabourey Sidibe” Wikipedia. 23 September 2010 at 00:16. 26 September 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabourey_Sidibe
(2) “Gabby Sidibe’s Elle Cover Is Another Reason Why Black Fashion Directors Are Necessary”. By Geneva S. Thomas. 10 September, 2010. 26 September 2010.
http://clutchmagonline.com/newsgossipinfo/gabby-sidibes-elle-cover-is-another-reason-why-black-fashion-directors-are-necessary/
(3) “Was Gabourey Sidibe's skin lightened for the cover of ELLE?” By Jennifer Romolini, Shine Staff. 15 September 2010 at 12:57pm. 28 September 2010.
http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/was-gabourey-sidibes-skin-lightened-for-the- cover-of-elle-2391180/
“Gabby Sidibe: Cover Girl?” By Allison Samuels. 20 September 2010. 26 September 2010.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/20/gabby-sidibe-cover-girl.html
(5)”Vanity Fair's "Racist" March Hollywood Magazine Cover: Too White for 2010?” By Jaimie Mancham-Case. 03 February 2010. 26 September 2010.
http://www.examiner.com/movie-in-los-angeles/vanity-fair-s-racist-march-hollywood-magazine-cover-too-white-for-2010-photo
(6)”Feminism Old Wave And New Wave”. By Ellen Dubois. First circulated in 1971.
(7)”Enlightened Sexism”. By Susan J. Douglas. First edition 2010.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Response to the Reading of 09/30/2010
“With great delight, Money quoted Joan’s mother to the effect that Joan had grown to love wearing dresses, that she hated being dirty, and that”she just loves to have her hair set.”Money concluded that his case demonstrated that”gender dimorphic patterns of rearing have an extraordinary influence on shaping a child’s psychosexual differentiation and the ultimate outcome of a female or male gender identify.”” (67.)See? How did Money come to the conclusion that Joan/John’s sex change was successful? Because Joan/John’s mother said that s/he behaved in “feminine” ways: loved dresses, liked cleanness and similar misunderstandings about female. (Let’s first ignore the possibility that Money’s statement about what Joan/John’s mother said maybe fabricated either by Money or by Joan/John’s mom. Because later it was exposed by Diamond and Sigmundson that in 1980, Joan/John actually had had masculizing surgery and adopted a new life as a husband and father becoming John/Joan. So it was doubtful that Joan/John had really behaved in they “feminine” ways.) So, does that means if a girl likes to be dirty she must be he? It also makes me feel frustrated that Milton Diamond (interestingly, women are usually portrayed as fanatics of Diamond and Money) first agreed with Money that Joan/John’s sex change was a success for the same reasons. And when looking for “evidence of unusual masculinity in CAH girls”(74), preference of toys and interests in “play rehearsal of mothering” become determining facts in declaring girls “normality”. Because they believe that normal girls must like girls’ toys and enjoying playing mothering roles, and these girls fail to do so must be abnormal. None these scientists, who usually represented the most intelligent minds of their times, had escaped the false programming about women. In fact, I have never had a Barbie toy in my life and I like to play fathering role rather than mothering role. So, am I abnormal?
Short Response to Sexing the Body
In chapter three, Sterling-Fausto explains that "the rules for living as a male or female are strict" (75). It is easy to see this in the way parents raise their children and the ways in which men and women are expected to act. For instance, young boys are often taught to be athletic and less emotional than females. In the Good Morning America segment "Boy Fights Bullying for the Right to Cheer," an eleven-year-old boy named Tyler Wilson is interviewed about his experience being bullied for being a member of an all female cheerleading team. Wilson was bullied by classmates for not fitting the role of the stereotypical boy. Instead of playing little league or soccer, Wilson decided to do something different, something that made him happy, yet was a stereotypical female sport. Unfortunately, Wilson's decision led to constant bullying, to the point of a broken arm. This is not the only example we can see of people receiving backlash for transgressing the gender lines. We see this when boys cry or when girls join a youth football team. "The rules for living as a male or female are strict," but it is our perpetuation of such stereotypes and our disapproval of those who do not fit those typecast roles that create an unaccepting environment.
http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/boy-fights-bullying-for-the-right-to-cheer-22181559Newflash 10/1
Thursday, Reuters printed an article titled “U.S. Television Getting More Gay Friendly,” which explained how the percentage of LGBT characters in popular cable and network programs has dramatically increased in the past few seasons. According to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), 58 regular characters on network television programs this season identify as LGBT, with 23 of these characters on major network channels and 35 of these characters on mainstream cable networks like HBO and Showtime. GLAAD President Jarrett Barrios credits the increase of LGBT characters on television to "the shift in American culture toward greater awareness and understanding of our community." I think that the prevalence of LGBT characters on television programs today demonstrates the public’s growing acceptance of those who do not identify as heterosexual, a sexual orientation that for centuries has been viewed as the “norm.” However, I think that television programs can still do more to include LGBT characters from all walks of life regardless of class, age, race, or gender (Serjeant).
According to the article, viewers have given their stamp of approval to shows portraying LGBT characters. Network hits such as "Modern Family" and "Glee" are not only Emmy winners, but attract some of the most impressive numbers of viewership. "Modern Family" portrays a gay couple raising an adopted baby while "Glee" includes a gay male singer (and fan favorite) as well as a musical prodigy who is proud of her two gay fathers (Serjeant).
Mainstream cable networks are also embracing LGBT characters. The show that takes the prize for including the most LGBT regular characters on television is HBO’s hit "True Blood." Six recurring characters are LGBT, representing a significant portion of the 35 LGBT roles appearing on mainstream cable networks. Furthermore, the number of recurring roles on these networks has increased from just 25 LGBT identified characters last year. This impressive jump in numbers shows mainstream network’s concerted effort to include more and more LGBT characters as well as the public’s acceptance of such characters. Since viewers of these shows must subscribe to the channels, it shows they must be willing and ready to pay money to see shows with LGBT characters (Serjeant).
Furthermore, there are plenty of other shows that portray viewer-accepted LGBT characters. According to Reuters, theCBS drama "The Good Wife" includes a bisexual investigator, the CW hit "Hellcats" portrays a lesbian cheerleader, and NBC’s "Outlaw" features a bisexual lawyer. In addition, the mainstream cable network Showtime has shows featuring seven characters that are gay, lesbian or bisexual. Large networks such as these and many others must trust that viewers will not only watch their shows, but also accept each character portrayed, regardless of sexual orientation (Serjeant).
It is clear that the increase in the number of roles of LGBT identified characters is a sign of the times. Barrios agrees, “The recent critical and commercial success of shows like 'Modern Family' and 'Glee' clearly indicate that mainstream audiences embrace gay characters and want to see well-crafted stories about our lives” (Serjeant). Viewers are not only watching shows featuring LGBT characters, but are looking for more story lines based around these characters, as they have proven to be fan favorites.
More importantly, the LGBT characters portrayed in these television hits are not all the stereotypical gay characters. While Susan Douglas laments about the false stereotypes of women and homosexuals featured on popular television programs, it appears that these typecast roles have been varied and redefined (Douglas). While Kurt on "Glee" clearly fits the stereotypical gay man with his high sense of fashion and flamboyant personality, other characters like Emily from "Pretty Little Liars" and Callie from "Grey’s Anatomy" do not fit the stereotypical butch that most people relate to lesbians. Susan Douglas would probably applaud the media’s progression away from typecasting roles of the typical gay and lesbian characters on television programs.
However, it seems that despite the progress television has made in creating roles for those who identify as LGBT, networks have a ways to go before they include everyperspective . According to the article, GLAAD laments that there have yet to be any black LGBT characters portrayed on network television shows (Serjeant). Audre Lorde, a black, female, lesbian feminist would too agree that television must work to include everyone in the struggle for equality. Lorde argues in Sister Outsider that movements, more specifically the feminist movement, require all voices to be heard and all perspectives to be considered. She says that within the feminist movement we must consider race, age, class and sexual orientation in order to be as inclusive as possible. If we do not include all these different groups of people in our discussion of equality, we will leave out important voices and immediately categorize these people as “abnormal” or “other” (Lorde).
Susan Douglas would also agree with Lourde and GLAAD that television must portray all types of LGBT characters of various races, classes, ages and genders. Moreover, Douglas would say that leaving these people out of television creates a false impression of the world in which we live. Just as portraying a large number of women on television as high-powered working females creates a false impression that females are not oppressed and the struggle for equality is over, leaving out LGBT characters from programs creates a false impression that all homosexuals and transsexuals are white (Douglas).
Despite the shortcomings of TV networks, I still believe that it is a triumph for the LGBT community that channels want to portray gay, lesbian and transsexual characters in their programs and that the public wants to see them. Perhaps one day all different voices will be heard. Until then, I will be satisfied watching Kurt belt out a high C on "Glee" andCalvin throw a touchdown in a flag football game on "Greek."
Douglas, Susan. Enlightened Sexism. New York: Henry Holt and Company, LLC, 2010.
Lorde, Audrey. "The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle The Master's House." Sister Outsider. The Crossing Press Feminist Series, 1994.
Serjeant, Jill. "U.S. television getting more gay friendly." Reuters. 29 Sept. 2010. <http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68S0GS20100929>.
According to the article, viewers have given their stamp of approval to shows portraying LGBT characters. Network hits such as "Modern Family" and "Glee" are not only Emmy winners, but attract some of the most impressive numbers of viewership. "Modern Family" portrays a gay couple raising an adopted baby while "Glee" includes a gay male singer (and fan favorite) as well as a musical prodigy who is proud of her two gay fathers (Serjeant).
Mainstream cable networks are also embracing LGBT characters. The show that takes the prize for including the most LGBT regular characters on television is HBO’s hit "True Blood." Six recurring characters are LGBT, representing a significant portion of the 35 LGBT roles appearing on mainstream cable networks. Furthermore, the number of recurring roles on these networks has increased from just 25 LGBT identified characters last year. This impressive jump in numbers shows mainstream network’s concerted effort to include more and more LGBT characters as well as the public’s acceptance of such characters. Since viewers of these shows must subscribe to the channels, it shows they must be willing and ready to pay money to see shows with LGBT characters (Serjeant).
Furthermore, there are plenty of other shows that portray viewer-accepted LGBT characters. According to Reuters, the
It is clear that the increase in the number of roles of LGBT identified characters is a sign of the times. Barrios agrees, “The recent critical and commercial success of shows like 'Modern Family' and 'Glee' clearly indicate that mainstream audiences embrace gay characters and want to see well-crafted stories about our lives” (Serjeant). Viewers are not only watching shows featuring LGBT characters, but are looking for more story lines based around these characters, as they have proven to be fan favorites.
More importantly, the LGBT characters portrayed in these television hits are not all the stereotypical gay characters. While Susan Douglas laments about the false stereotypes of women and homosexuals featured on popular television programs, it appears that these typecast roles have been varied and redefined (Douglas). While Kurt on "Glee" clearly fits the stereotypical gay man with his high sense of fashion and flamboyant personality, other characters like Emily from "Pretty Little Liars" and Callie from "Grey’s Anatomy" do not fit the stereotypical butch that most people relate to lesbians. Susan Douglas would probably applaud the media’s progression away from typecasting roles of the typical gay and lesbian characters on television programs.
However, it seems that despite the progress television has made in creating roles for those who identify as LGBT, networks have a ways to go before they include every
Susan Douglas would also agree with Lourde and GLAAD that television must portray all types of LGBT characters of various races, classes, ages and genders. Moreover, Douglas would say that leaving these people out of television creates a false impression of the world in which we live. Just as portraying a large number of women on television as high-powered working females creates a false impression that females are not oppressed and the struggle for equality is over, leaving out LGBT characters from programs creates a false impression that all homosexuals and transsexuals are white (Douglas).
Despite the shortcomings of TV networks, I still believe that it is a triumph for the LGBT community that channels want to portray gay, lesbian and transsexual characters in their programs and that the public wants to see them. Perhaps one day all different voices will be heard. Until then, I will be satisfied watching Kurt belt out a high C on "Glee" and
Douglas, Susan. Enlightened Sexism. New York: Henry Holt and Company, LLC, 2010.
Lorde, Audrey. "The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle The Master's House." Sister Outsider. The Crossing Press Feminist Series, 1994.
Serjeant, Jill. "U.S. television getting more gay friendly." Reuters. 29 Sept. 2010. <http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68S0GS20100929>.
Main Post 9/30
Anne Fausto- Sterling covers a range of very controversial and challenging issues. Her discussion really stems from the fact that our society only recognizes and embraces two sexes: male and female. Despite ancient civilzations acceptance and admiration for those born hermaphrodites, our modern civilization has strayed very far from this path. Because our culture is becoming extremely sexualized, we are also seeing more pressure being put on individuals to perform their correct gender roles. Females are expected to be prettier and thinner than ever, while males are expected to be in shape and masculine. Although there is a rise in metrosexuality, for the most part these gender roles are adhered to. Thus, the 1.7% of the population that falls in between male and female on the sex- spectrum face a very harrowing life in our black & white society.
Unfortunately, the "standard procedure" for children born intersexual is quite controversial and very hastily executed. When a baby is born with neither/ both or either genitalia the doctors act as quickly as possible to fix this problem. Parents do not have any time to reflect on the situation or reach out to people in similar positions as them, they are forced the make a decisive and life changing decision within a matter of hours. Many prominent figures in the medical field have debated over intersex children and what the proper recourse is. Albert Ellis believed that nurture was more important than nature. If you raise the baby to be a female than that's what it will be. Later, John Money and his team would also come to this same conclusion. Others, such as Dewhurst & Gordon thought that assigning a sex to a new born was essential to prevent them from living a life of shame and freakhood. Doctors are extremely careful in how they word their diagnosis to the parents of an intersex child. They do not want to tell them that their child is inbetween a male and female, so they usually say that they have some sort of abnormality. Doctors do this because when they re-assign a sex to the child it is crucial that the parents believe in the child's sex- for development sake.
Fixing the newborn is usually a very tedious and long-term process. Numerous surgeries, examinations, tests and drugs are needed to allow the child to cosmetically be a sex. Fausto- Sterling points out that these surgeries are very dangerous and unnecessary. Although the child will now have the appearance of a male or female, their organs usually do not function properly. Thus, many intersex children who undergo sexual re-assignment cannot achieve sexual climax, penetration and/ or birth. These surgeries also leave scaring and insensitivity in the child's sexual areas. Fausto- Sterling also believes that male gender re- assignment is done for social purposes and not medical. When a new born has a small penis doctors are inclined to operate so that the child can feel comfortable in social situations. Usually an intersexual male will be infertile, which leaves doctors to simply concentrate on how the penis looks and functions. Thus, the penis is being changed for its relation to other individuals instead of the child's. This is a dangerous path to take. Doctors may hastily convert a small penis into a vagina without giving the penis proper time to grow. This is done because it is much easier to make a male into a female, than it is to re-construct a penis.
As mentioned earlier, doctors do not tell the patient or the parents the full truth and instead abide by societies standards to transform the child into a male or female. The child who has undergone surgeries is not told of their true identity, because they need to be protected fro, the truth. The effects of these lies are seen in the case of John, who lost his penis at 7months old due to a circumcision incident. Doctors transformed John into Joan, hoping that he/she would be able to live a normal life. John / Joan also had an identical twin brother, which would allow researchers to study nature v. nurture. John Money was particularly interested in this case because he was a strong proponent of nurturing in comparison to nature (biology). Milton Diamond strongly opposed this theory, because Money was arguing that all humans were essentially sex- neutral at birth and that nurture could determine a child's sex. When Joan was thirteen years old BBC reported that she was not well adjusted to living as a female. She displayed many male characteristics and eventually had her breasts removed and a penis constructed to complete her transition back to being a male. Diamond concluded that the brain was prenatally gendered and thus re-assignment would usually fail.
It is clear that for the parents of intersexual children there is no easy path to take. Fausto- Sterling suggests that we expand our concept of sex to include: herms, merms and ferms. Of course this is very controversial in a society that has traditionally only had two sexes. She believes that infant genital surgery should be stopped and the patients should be allowed to decide when they are of age. There is no need to perform cosmetic surgery just to make the child conform to our two sex system. Though I am not totally opposed to this notion I do find it troubling that she would compare these operations to that of FGM. Fausto- Sterling briefly discusses doctors who have blatantly ignored parent's wishes and performed these operations, which I find reprehensible.
I currently struggle to figure out where I stand on this issue. I think that children born intersex are going to have a very difficult life with or without surgery. With that being said, I do not think I would particularly like a society that had five sexes. This may be because this idea is so new to me. I know that a two sex society is exclusive, but I'm not sure how comfortable I would feel with the utopian society Fausto- Sterling describes. Again, this may be due to ignorance or just a sheer lack of understand as to how that type of society can function.
Unfortunately, the "standard procedure" for children born intersexual is quite controversial and very hastily executed. When a baby is born with neither/ both or either genitalia the doctors act as quickly as possible to fix this problem. Parents do not have any time to reflect on the situation or reach out to people in similar positions as them, they are forced the make a decisive and life changing decision within a matter of hours. Many prominent figures in the medical field have debated over intersex children and what the proper recourse is. Albert Ellis believed that nurture was more important than nature. If you raise the baby to be a female than that's what it will be. Later, John Money and his team would also come to this same conclusion. Others, such as Dewhurst & Gordon thought that assigning a sex to a new born was essential to prevent them from living a life of shame and freakhood. Doctors are extremely careful in how they word their diagnosis to the parents of an intersex child. They do not want to tell them that their child is inbetween a male and female, so they usually say that they have some sort of abnormality. Doctors do this because when they re-assign a sex to the child it is crucial that the parents believe in the child's sex- for development sake.
Fixing the newborn is usually a very tedious and long-term process. Numerous surgeries, examinations, tests and drugs are needed to allow the child to cosmetically be a sex. Fausto- Sterling points out that these surgeries are very dangerous and unnecessary. Although the child will now have the appearance of a male or female, their organs usually do not function properly. Thus, many intersex children who undergo sexual re-assignment cannot achieve sexual climax, penetration and/ or birth. These surgeries also leave scaring and insensitivity in the child's sexual areas. Fausto- Sterling also believes that male gender re- assignment is done for social purposes and not medical. When a new born has a small penis doctors are inclined to operate so that the child can feel comfortable in social situations. Usually an intersexual male will be infertile, which leaves doctors to simply concentrate on how the penis looks and functions. Thus, the penis is being changed for its relation to other individuals instead of the child's. This is a dangerous path to take. Doctors may hastily convert a small penis into a vagina without giving the penis proper time to grow. This is done because it is much easier to make a male into a female, than it is to re-construct a penis.
As mentioned earlier, doctors do not tell the patient or the parents the full truth and instead abide by societies standards to transform the child into a male or female. The child who has undergone surgeries is not told of their true identity, because they need to be protected fro, the truth. The effects of these lies are seen in the case of John, who lost his penis at 7months old due to a circumcision incident. Doctors transformed John into Joan, hoping that he/she would be able to live a normal life. John / Joan also had an identical twin brother, which would allow researchers to study nature v. nurture. John Money was particularly interested in this case because he was a strong proponent of nurturing in comparison to nature (biology). Milton Diamond strongly opposed this theory, because Money was arguing that all humans were essentially sex- neutral at birth and that nurture could determine a child's sex. When Joan was thirteen years old BBC reported that she was not well adjusted to living as a female. She displayed many male characteristics and eventually had her breasts removed and a penis constructed to complete her transition back to being a male. Diamond concluded that the brain was prenatally gendered and thus re-assignment would usually fail.
It is clear that for the parents of intersexual children there is no easy path to take. Fausto- Sterling suggests that we expand our concept of sex to include: herms, merms and ferms. Of course this is very controversial in a society that has traditionally only had two sexes. She believes that infant genital surgery should be stopped and the patients should be allowed to decide when they are of age. There is no need to perform cosmetic surgery just to make the child conform to our two sex system. Though I am not totally opposed to this notion I do find it troubling that she would compare these operations to that of FGM. Fausto- Sterling briefly discusses doctors who have blatantly ignored parent's wishes and performed these operations, which I find reprehensible.
I currently struggle to figure out where I stand on this issue. I think that children born intersex are going to have a very difficult life with or without surgery. With that being said, I do not think I would particularly like a society that had five sexes. This may be because this idea is so new to me. I know that a two sex society is exclusive, but I'm not sure how comfortable I would feel with the utopian society Fausto- Sterling describes. Again, this may be due to ignorance or just a sheer lack of understand as to how that type of society can function.
short response 9-29-10
“One can only attempt to imagine the anguish of the parents. That a newborn should have a deformity… (affecting) so fundamental an issue as the very sex of the child… is a tragic event which immediately conjures up visions of a hopeless psychological misfit doomed to live always as a sexual freak in loneliness and frustration (Fausto-sterling 47).” This quote I feel really sums up what Anne Fausto-Sterling is talking about in the third and fourth chapters of her book. She describes really how traumatic it is for the parents of intersex kids and what a difficult decision they face. It’s sad that this quote is probably what most Americans think about intersex babies, but the truth is that is what Americans think. Parents have the option of immediate surgery, prenatal fix, or therapy later in life for the child. Each choice has its negative and positive affects and how really knows what the right choice. If we didn’t live in the society we live in now, were there are only two genders, it would not be addressed. The kid would grow up and be a regular person. However this is not the society we live in. Today there are such clear lines when it comes to gender, your either male or female, no in between. So parents have to make a choice. Most choose surgery but what about the risks to the babies health, and what if later in life the child doesn’t identify with that sex and they have to go through another painful surgery to become what they feel like. I can’t even imagine being put in that situation I hate to say it but I would probably get the surgery for my kid and probably not tell him/her. How do you go about telling a child they were born different? And knowing kids today and how hard it is to grow up I wouldn’t want my kid going through having to identify with a sex later on life. People are cruel today and to society there is no room for intersex people. Fausto in the book warns people about this choice giving many examples of kids who resent their parents for getting the surgery and not telling them. There’s even a group for it. Now I understand what they are talking about and think there right I would not follow them. If it was me I don’t think I could handle my parents telling me I was a different sex, I would want them to keep it from. That’s just added stress that no one needs. I understand it’s a lie but no other option seems good enough for me. I can’t believe society has shaped me this much, because I don’t mind intersex people I just wouldn’t want their life and all the stigma it comes with. Anne is right American culture needs to adopt a third gender so that these people don’t feel so alienated and so that parents don’t have to be so devastated if they have an intersex child. And she is also right in regards to becoming closer, Gays now are not always super feminine, and lesbians today aren’t all really butch, we are started to blur the line between male and female.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Response to Main Post 09/28/2010
Better Be Labeled "IT" not "HE" or ''SHE''
“In my more ambitious and perhaps foolishly hopeful moments, I imagine a world in which there is no simple categorization by sex, no gender, but only people. I imagine a world in which I am no longer stared at. I imagine a world in which people are attracted to me not because of what sex I am (or appear to be) but rather because they find me fascinating. I imagine a world in which I am at home.” (Listen Up p.88, One Bad Hair Day Too Many, or The Hairstory of an Androgynous Young Feminist by Jennifer Reid Maxcy Myhre) What Jennifer want is exactly what I want the world to be! Jennifer is often insulted by people calling her “butch”, “dyke”, or “androgynous”. Because she quits to shave her legs and has a crew cut by which actions she used to declare her feminist’s stand. She behaves in ways that most people would consider as “unfeminine” behaviors. And she also thinks that it is wasteful to spend an hour in front of mirror to dress and wear makeup because the time can actually be used in more meaningful things such as reading. If it was not for reading Anne Fausto-Sterling’s Sexing the Body first, I would be strongly against Jennifer’s view and drop feminists’ books immediately in fear of that I may become one of the stereotypical feminist just like Jennifer. Thanks god that I did not read Jennifer’s work first! In Anne’s work, she addresses about gender and sex. She says that sex is determined by physical facts while gender is determined by people’s own conviction. Our society interests in “pigeonhole” people, people with penis must be put in the box of male while people with ovarium in the box of female, and there is no appropriate place for people possess both penis and ovarium so they must be abnormal and need to choose one of the box to stay. Previously, I never doubt the “fact” that people can only be female or male, but now I do. I think, as Anne also points out, that the so-called “fact” is not real fact that nature gives but what people consider as “fact”. While people consider only two sexes exists as “fact”, the fact given by nature may be there are only different individuals without sexes. And generations by generations, people in the society are taught about the “fact” and most people do not bother to doubt it. The categorization of sex is actually the origin of inequality towards sex in the world. Jennifer suffers because what being female with a crew cut means to the society is what people possess both masculine and feminine characters mean to it.
“In my more ambitious and perhaps foolishly hopeful moments, I imagine a world in which there is no simple categorization by sex, no gender, but only people. I imagine a world in which I am no longer stared at. I imagine a world in which people are attracted to me not because of what sex I am (or appear to be) but rather because they find me fascinating. I imagine a world in which I am at home.” (Listen Up p.88, One Bad Hair Day Too Many, or The Hairstory of an Androgynous Young Feminist by Jennifer Reid Maxcy Myhre) What Jennifer want is exactly what I want the world to be! Jennifer is often insulted by people calling her “butch”, “dyke”, or “androgynous”. Because she quits to shave her legs and has a crew cut by which actions she used to declare her feminist’s stand. She behaves in ways that most people would consider as “unfeminine” behaviors. And she also thinks that it is wasteful to spend an hour in front of mirror to dress and wear makeup because the time can actually be used in more meaningful things such as reading. If it was not for reading Anne Fausto-Sterling’s Sexing the Body first, I would be strongly against Jennifer’s view and drop feminists’ books immediately in fear of that I may become one of the stereotypical feminist just like Jennifer. Thanks god that I did not read Jennifer’s work first! In Anne’s work, she addresses about gender and sex. She says that sex is determined by physical facts while gender is determined by people’s own conviction. Our society interests in “pigeonhole” people, people with penis must be put in the box of male while people with ovarium in the box of female, and there is no appropriate place for people possess both penis and ovarium so they must be abnormal and need to choose one of the box to stay. Previously, I never doubt the “fact” that people can only be female or male, but now I do. I think, as Anne also points out, that the so-called “fact” is not real fact that nature gives but what people consider as “fact”. While people consider only two sexes exists as “fact”, the fact given by nature may be there are only different individuals without sexes. And generations by generations, people in the society are taught about the “fact” and most people do not bother to doubt it. The categorization of sex is actually the origin of inequality towards sex in the world. Jennifer suffers because what being female with a crew cut means to the society is what people possess both masculine and feminine characters mean to it.
Short Response to 9/27
When reading Jennifer Reid Maxcy Myhre's article I felt quite uncomfortable with many of her statements and beliefs. I can honestly say that I am not attracted to men with long hair and I rarely like when women have shaved heads. With that said, this was not the main reason why I did not like her article. I feel that in her attempt to be rebellious and unique, she is actually become the stereotypical feminist. When I asked my roomates if they were feminists they replied "no I shave my legs." Many of them thought feminists were hairy, ugly and masculine. I feel that Myhre is the epitome of these stereotypes, she exclaims "Giving up my 'femininity' was my first action as a feminist."This statement made me upset, because I feel that we have spent a lot of time in class discussing other qualifications of feminists. Yet, Myhre seems to base her status as a feminist directly on her looks. I do understand her point that looks should not matter and that our appearance defines us within society- but I feel that she is playing into this. I also agree that labels such as "masculine/ butch" should not be used, but I do not think that the fear of being called these names is directly from male supremacy. Finally, I feel that this article is negative, because the women who are feminist but care about their looks are cast in a negative light. It seems that she places herself on a higher pedestal and looks down upon the women who aren't as brave or courageous as she is by shaving her head.
response to main post 9-27-10
This issue of Gender and sex has always been a hot topic in society. I really think society makes gender stereotypes. A baby is born and is shaped by its environment, it would not identify with either gender if it didn't grow up in our kind of environment. I feel like life would be easier if we didn't have these gender lines to abide by. It kind of ties in with article by Jennifer Reid Maxcy Myhre. Her whole article talks about her rejection of feminism because she doesn't like all the things that come with it like, shaving, hair styling, etc. She also talks about the prejudice associated with her doing this. People look at her funny and say rude comments, which sucks because no one deserves that. But she says that her first step toward feminism was through rejecting femininity. That shouldn’t be what feminism is about, it’s not about how you look. It’s about getting rights and things of that nature.
Main Post on Sexing the Body and "One Bad Hair Day"
In the first two chapters of Sexing the Body, Anne Fausto-Sterling introduces the interesting distinction between sex and gender. First, in "Dueling Dualisms," Fausto-Sterling highlights the history of this distinction and how the conceptions of sex and gender have drastically changed over time. In particular, she highlights how scholars have changed how sex is measured scientifically and how theories have been constantly tweaked to point different factors that influence sex identities and change gender roles.
To begin her argument, Fausto-Sterling recaps the story of Maria Patino, who was a hurdler for the Spanish national track team, olympic-bound in 1988. When Patino was sex-tested by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), however, a test which all athletes must pass in order to advance on to the games, her results revealed that "her cells sported a Y chromosome, and that her labia hid testes within" (1). As a result, Patino was not allowed to compete and all her past accomplishments were stripped. Even though Patino had all the biological characteristics of a woman and identified herself as a woman, since she had a Y chromosome she was scientifically labeled a man. This story was highlighted to show the complexities of sex and gender and most importantly that "labeling someone a man or a woman is a social decision... and only our beliefs about gender-not science-can define our sex" (3).
Fausto-Sterling continues by exploring debates about sex and gender and how the scientific world has approached these topics over time. She points to social constructs and how the vocal majority has had the final say on what constitutes sex. While science can experiment to build knowledge, science cannot produce universal truths about the living world (7). She argues that the politics of science have molded how our conceptions of sex have changed over time and "in order to change the politics of the body, one must change the politics of science itself" (8). She also looks at the age old debate of nature vs. nurture and how scientists have argued over whether sex and gender are influenced entirely by biology, entirely by environment, or a mixture of both. She concludes that culture and historical periods greatly impact how we view our bodies and gender.
Furthermore, Fausto-Sterling argues that sexuality is determined by scientists as fact, but such facts are influenced by culture. As a result, we must deny dualisms that divide sex into either/or categories. She explains that in doing so, we oversimplify the many complexities of sexuality and gender and therefore limit feminist theory. For example, one cannot denote that the penis and vagina are merely ideologically different (23). Instead, she insists, we must account for both the material and ideological differences that sex produces. Finally, she looks at the different systems of measurement scientists have employed to account for the varying characteristics of sex. However, she continues, even though these systems of measurement of sex are said to be real while gender is said to be constructed, science is constructed as well.
In her chapter "That Sexe Which Prevailith," Fausto-Sterling continues with another story about Levi Suydam, who was only allowed to vote in the state of Connecticut after he passed a sex test. Since he had female characteristics, the opposition party demanded that he be tested to ensure he was truly male. Suydam passed the sex test, since he indeed had a phallus and testicals; however, days later the physician discovered that Suydam menstruated regularly, had a vaginal opening, and had the bodily characteristics of a female. While we do not know if Suydam lost his right to vote, Fausto-Sterling insists that this story shows society's desire to pinpoint whether one is female or male (30).
In response to the political constructs of sex, Fausto-Sterling calls for a sexual continuum. She looks, in particular, at the history of intersexuals in ancient Greece and Rome. Hermaphrodites, she says, are nothing new. In fact, in ancient cultures they were thought to be perfectly normal, as sex was seen as more of a continuum in these past eras. In three different stories, Fausto-Sterling highlights how different past cultures viewed hermaphrodites politically and socially and concludes from each of these stories that "different countries and different legal and religious systems viewed intersexuality in different ways" (35). As time progressed and biology became more organized, the two-sex distinction became clearer and those who fell outside male or female began to be considered as abnormal. For instance, clearer lines began to be drawn to determine “true hermaphrodites.” As a result, fewer and fewer people were identified as true, and the rest were categorized as abnormal.
Finally, Fausto-Sterling points to the period in which doctors began changing one’s sex at birth to fit the male-female model. Rather than leave the body in its natural, now “abnormal” state, doctors performed surgery to correct such wrongs. This desire to correct abnormalities at birth, she argues lay the assumptions that “first, there should only be two sexes; second, that only heterosexuality was normal, and third, that particular gender roles defined the psychologically healthy man and woman” (44).
Jennifer Reid Maxcy Myhre echoes some of Fausto-Sterling’s worries in her essay “One Bad Hair Day Too Many, or The Hairstory of an Androgynous Young Feminist.” In her essay, Myhre gives her account of being an androgynous female, one with which the public is confused because it is too difficult to tell whether she is male or female. What began as her wish to shave her head in order to avoid the annoyance of getting ready each morning became a political statement about sex and gender. Myhre argues that gender is socially constructed and that she refuses to be placed in a box marked according to gender, but rather wishes to be seen as a human with complexities that make her who she is.
To begin her argument, Fausto-Sterling recaps the story of Maria Patino, who was a hurdler for the Spanish national track team, olympic-bound in 1988. When Patino was sex-tested by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), however, a test which all athletes must pass in order to advance on to the games, her results revealed that "her cells sported a Y chromosome, and that her labia hid testes within" (1). As a result, Patino was not allowed to compete and all her past accomplishments were stripped. Even though Patino had all the biological characteristics of a woman and identified herself as a woman, since she had a Y chromosome she was scientifically labeled a man. This story was highlighted to show the complexities of sex and gender and most importantly that "labeling someone a man or a woman is a social decision... and only our beliefs about gender-not science-can define our sex" (3).
Fausto-Sterling continues by exploring debates about sex and gender and how the scientific world has approached these topics over time. She points to social constructs and how the vocal majority has had the final say on what constitutes sex. While science can experiment to build knowledge, science cannot produce universal truths about the living world (7). She argues that the politics of science have molded how our conceptions of sex have changed over time and "in order to change the politics of the body, one must change the politics of science itself" (8). She also looks at the age old debate of nature vs. nurture and how scientists have argued over whether sex and gender are influenced entirely by biology, entirely by environment, or a mixture of both. She concludes that culture and historical periods greatly impact how we view our bodies and gender.
Furthermore, Fausto-Sterling argues that sexuality is determined by scientists as fact, but such facts are influenced by culture. As a result, we must deny dualisms that divide sex into either/or categories. She explains that in doing so, we oversimplify the many complexities of sexuality and gender and therefore limit feminist theory. For example, one cannot denote that the penis and vagina are merely ideologically different (23). Instead, she insists, we must account for both the material and ideological differences that sex produces. Finally, she looks at the different systems of measurement scientists have employed to account for the varying characteristics of sex. However, she continues, even though these systems of measurement of sex are said to be real while gender is said to be constructed, science is constructed as well.
In her chapter "That Sexe Which Prevailith," Fausto-Sterling continues with another story about Levi Suydam, who was only allowed to vote in the state of Connecticut after he passed a sex test. Since he had female characteristics, the opposition party demanded that he be tested to ensure he was truly male. Suydam passed the sex test, since he indeed had a phallus and testicals; however, days later the physician discovered that Suydam menstruated regularly, had a vaginal opening, and had the bodily characteristics of a female. While we do not know if Suydam lost his right to vote, Fausto-Sterling insists that this story shows society's desire to pinpoint whether one is female or male (30).
In response to the political constructs of sex, Fausto-Sterling calls for a sexual continuum. She looks, in particular, at the history of intersexuals in ancient Greece and Rome. Hermaphrodites, she says, are nothing new. In fact, in ancient cultures they were thought to be perfectly normal, as sex was seen as more of a continuum in these past eras. In three different stories, Fausto-Sterling highlights how different past cultures viewed hermaphrodites politically and socially and concludes from each of these stories that "different countries and different legal and religious systems viewed intersexuality in different ways" (35). As time progressed and biology became more organized, the two-sex distinction became clearer and those who fell outside male or female began to be considered as abnormal. For instance, clearer lines began to be drawn to determine “true hermaphrodites.” As a result, fewer and fewer people were identified as true, and the rest were categorized as abnormal.
Finally, Fausto-Sterling points to the period in which doctors began changing one’s sex at birth to fit the male-female model. Rather than leave the body in its natural, now “abnormal” state, doctors performed surgery to correct such wrongs. This desire to correct abnormalities at birth, she argues lay the assumptions that “first, there should only be two sexes; second, that only heterosexuality was normal, and third, that particular gender roles defined the psychologically healthy man and woman” (44).
Jennifer Reid Maxcy Myhre echoes some of Fausto-Sterling’s worries in her essay “One Bad Hair Day Too Many, or The Hairstory of an Androgynous Young Feminist.” In her essay, Myhre gives her account of being an androgynous female, one with which the public is confused because it is too difficult to tell whether she is male or female. What began as her wish to shave her head in order to avoid the annoyance of getting ready each morning became a political statement about sex and gender. Myhre argues that gender is socially constructed and that she refuses to be placed in a box marked according to gender, but rather wishes to be seen as a human with complexities that make her who she is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)