In her article, "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Experience," Adrienne Rich examines "heterosexuality as a political institution" (Rich 311). Rich, who is one of the most widely read feminists of the 20th century, seeks to break the assumptions that heterosexual, white and middle class people are "normal" and all others, particularly homosexual women, are "abnormal." She opens with two quotes that lay out these widely held assumptions, that women are naturally "sexually oriented only toward men... [and] that the lesbian is simply acting out of her bitterness toward men" (312). She argues that this belief invalidates woman homosexuality and as a result, removes the lesbian perspective of so many women from feminist theory and literature (312). Furthermore, Rich maintains that heterosexuality as the "norm" must be thought of as a social phenomenon brought about by political institutions and that there must be a revolution to undo this structure (313).
First, Rich points to patriarchy and male power in society as an institution that seeks to keep women in a submissive position, unmoveable and silenced. She cites many examples of how men work to keep women down from Kathleen Gough's article "The Origin of the Family," including "to deny women [their own] sexuality"; "[to force it [male sexuality] upon them"; "to command or exploit their labor to control their produce"; "to control or rob them of their children"; "to confine them physically and prevent their movement"; "to use them as objects in male transactions"; "to cramp their creativeness"; and "to withhold from them large areas of the society's knowledge and cultural attainments" (Gough 69-70). She explains that all these actions work to maintain male power and priviledge within a patriarchal institution (316). Moreover, she explains that denying lesbian relationships is another way this power is maintained. Lesbians throughout history and under this institution have been marginalized and pinpointed as "alternative" and "different" from the "norm," that is, heterosexual. While Rich advocates for the eradication of the submission of women, she urges this cannot be done if homosexual feminists are silenced or pushed aside. All women must lose these assumptions to gain openness and understanding (317).
Rich also introduces a lesbian continuum, and says lesbian existence is a range which includes all women-identified existence (317). While the clinical view of lesbianism has been limited, according to Rich, lesbian experience should include all female bonding, friendship and comradery. She says that patriarchal institutions have denied women access to this comradeship, stigmatizing all women-idenity as lesbian, other, deviant, alternative. Citing history, Rich points to many celebrated and intellectual women who have rejected the so-called "norm" of heterosexual marriage. She explains that the work of many of these women has been "undervalued" as society sees the authors as "man haters" (321). However, if we look at their lives and work, we will understand that "women have always resisted male tyranny" (321). If we look at their lives, we can identify with this refusal of patriarchy and truly embark on a revolution. We can also see women who have married and see that this choice was no choice at all, but instead a "duty" and a "fulfillment" of the norm (322).
Rich concludes that the lie of compulsory heterosexuality keeps women "trapped," "closeted," with "broken connections" and no access to self-understanding (323). Under this way of thinking, lesbians are "condemned to an even more devastating outsiderhood than their outsiderhood as women" (323). Rather than judge whether heterosexual or homosexual relationships are better or worse, good or bad, we must instead open up the choice for all to decide what is right for themselves (325). Without a choice, the institution will continue and patriarchy will continue to exert its control.
Laurel Gilbert in her article "You're Not the Type," explains how Adrienne Rich inspired her to be true to herself as a lesbian. Gilbert, who experienced her first lesbian relationship when she was fifteen, later had sex with a boy just because her lesbian crush Kris did. "He was the only link between us," she says, and that since she and Kris could not have intercourse directly, sex with a boy would be the only way for the pair to express their deep connection to one another (Gilbert 75). Later, Gilbert found herself pregnant in a small town in Utah, something not at all rare, however still taboo and condemned. While her guidance counselor told her she should forget her dreams of staying in school and obtaining a college degree, others in her life, like her drama teacher, encouraged her to continue striving for the goals she had before giving birth. Gilbert eventually graduated from college and obtained her Ph.D. while raising her daughter as a single mother. She "became a real enigma" (82). And after reading Adrienne Rich and other lesbian feminists, Gilbert began to understand her own desires as a lesbian and as a woman. Instead of adhering to those messages that she was "not the type," she later walked through life proclaiming "I'm just the type" (83).
Abra Fortune Chernik also discovered herself as a woman, comfortable in her own skin- she just found it on the brink of death. Chernik developed an eating disorder after puberty changed her body from its frail, boyish shape to curvy and fleshy. Obsessed with conforming to the sterotype that is feminine beauty, Chernik devoted her life to exercising, counting calories, skipping meals, binge eating and purging. While Chernik was dying of starvation and malnutrition, society was applauding her dropped weight. Even in rehab, Chernik was obsessed with staying thin. Slowly dying, she found herself on a break from the hospital at the mall. When she had her body fat tested at a fitness store, the bodybuilder in the storefront congratulated her for having only 10% body fat (Chernik 106). Chernik began to realize how backwards society's messages are: obsess over weight, change your body while risking your health and you will be rewarded and congratulated. Slowly, Chernik let go of her physical ideals and decided to break free, working hard to gain weight and feel comfortable in her own body as a woman. Instead of adhering to the silencing society forces on women to stay small, she decided she would rise above. Unfortunately, just when Chernik began to feel full, she realized she was alone, surrounded by other women who were hollow, empty, and just as obsessed as she once was (109). Chernik argues that as women "we must claim our bodies as our own to love and honor in their infinite shapes and sizes" (110). We must deny society's expectations and overcome its powerful message instead of devoting our lives to countless hours that could be spent doing much more meaningful activity.
Finally, in the article "Toward a Global History of Same-Sex Sexuality," author Leila Rupp looks at same-sex sexuality from a global viewpoint (Rupp 287). She explains how same-sex sexuality means different things at different times and in different places and by exploring it throughout history we can avoid the assumptions we have adopted today (287). She points to many differences that exist within same-sex relationships, including age, class and gender differences (288). Citing history, Rupp explains how same-sex sexuality in ancient Athens was determined by age (older men with younger men) and age also dictated of what these relationships consisted (288). Also, in Japan, age was signified through dress and hair, which also signified how sexual relationships played out (289). Moreover in cultures in new Guinea, rituals were in place that institutionalized boy insemination (290). In all of these examples, Rupp explains that the people of these cultures took on different roles because they were prescribed by institutions. These were social constructs to which the people followed.
Furthermore, transgendered relationships have existed throughout history, according to Rupp. For North American natives, for example, two-spirited roles were commonplace, in which males took female names and even gave birth (291). These transgendered roles also existed in Polynesian societies and in India (292). In India, hijras were born hermaphrodites or intersexual and were sexually impotent with women (292). Dressing and acting as women, these people had ceremonial functions, but were despised (292). Women also took on roles as men in many societies, including in early modern Europe when women dressed as women and worked in typically male-dominated fields (293). In these examples, Rupp points out, the sexual relations between two people of the same sex are "better defined as different-gender than same-sex relations" (293). Countless examples show that these different-gender relationships are perceived in different ways according to each culture (294). Rupp believes that the modern use of the the term "same-sex relations" is perhaps Western and related to those who identify as gay or lesbian without labeling themselves by age, class or gender (295).
Next, Rupp argues that "sexuality" itself is a modern concept, since throughout history sexual acts were not necessarily connected with sexuality, but with power or ritual (295). She raises the question: "are certain acts associated with specific forms of relationships?" (295). For example, is intercourse simply sex, a sign of power and domination, as it was in the past? In Bathoso society, when women kiss and engage in what we would in the U.S. consider lesbian sexual acts really sexual if no penis is involved (296)? Is intercourse necessary? Are male and female genitals both necessary? What, Rupp asks, constitutes a sexual act?
Rupp continues that since we do not have much history of what constitutes a sexual act, whether it must include a penis, and what female-to-female sexual acts have been like throughout history, we can not evaluate what counts as sex between women (297). Some historical accounts show that touching of the breasts is a sexual act, others show that genital contact constitutes lesbian sex, while others show a combination of both. Furthermore, potentially sexual acts among friends throughout history have proven to be difficult to classify (300). While Rupp does not pretend to have answers to these difficult questions posed, she does proclaim that they are important to research. Same-sex relationships and sexual acts among people of the same sex are determined by historical context and cultural institutions. Moreover, they are influenced by class, race, gender, age and many other categories that define who we are (302).
Chernik, Abra Fortune. "The Body Politic." in Listen Up by Barbara Findlen. Emeryville: Seal Press, 1995.
Gilbert, Laurel. "You're Not the Type." in Listen Up by Barbara Findlen. Emeryville: Seal Press, 1995.
Gough, Kathleen. "The Origin of the Family." in Feminism In Our Time by Miriam Schneir. Toronto: Random House, Inc., 1994.
Rich, Adrienne. "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence." in Feminism In Our Time by Miriam Schneir. Toronto: Random House, Inc., 1994.
Rupp, Leila J. "Toward a Global History of Same-Sex Sexuality."
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Short Response 10/05/10
When reading Sex “R” Us, I cannot help thinking about a little girl -- Suri Cruise. Now a only four-year-old girl, Suri has been a fashion celebrity for years. Fashion magazines, newspapers, and blogs never stop talking about her dressing. She is doing a lot of things, about fashion, what most girls before 12 or 10 (since Rebecca Walker first had sex at 11) would not bother to think about. She wears lipstick knowing that which color is better for going out. She wears shoes with heels, though not real high-heel shoes. But how many girls at her age wear that kind of shoes? I agree that girls and women have our rights to determine what we want to wear, but I can hardly believe that it is really Suri who choose to dress like a doll. Although I can always see “Suri picking lipsticks” and hear Tom Cruise saying that : “Suri dresses herself”, I still believe it is Suri’s parents , Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, who instruct her to do that. I do not believe a 3-year-old girl would wake up and know that which angle is best for shoot (Suri often stares at camera from certain angle). But why Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes “encourage their daughter to parade her little body around as a competitive activity”(ES159)? They must know well that how harmful it is for girl at such young age to wear lipsticks and people with basic knowledge would understand that shoes with heels are unhealthy to even grown-ups. Are they trying to catch men’s eyes? I doubt this either since Tom Cruise is rich enough that he can provide Suri an affluent life till death. But why do they make her an eye candy at risk? I think it may because Tom and Katie believe that, though they may never accept, girls are sexual object and they are born to look good!
Monday, October 4, 2010
Main Post 10-5
“Listen Up” always provides good stories about different topics that feminist face. Rebecca Walker’s “Lusting for Freedom” was a very interesting read. Her account on her sexual experiences was very different to what I’m used to hearing. She lost her virginity at a very young age and how she played different roles with each of the men she was with was also weird (to me). I’m glad she was able to do this without a loss of innocence or the felling of guilt. She had a good point about sex for girls, “Sex can also be power because knowledge is power, and because yeah, as a girl, you can make it do different things: I can give it to you, and I can take it away… (Walker 20)” Most women do have that power in deciding whether or not a couple has sex. You don’t hear very often of men turning down sex. In most movies and shows it’s about the girl wanting to wait and the boy trying to coax her into sex. This is a type of power. She also talks about how women are punished for exploring their sexuality by being called sluts or impure. She doesn’t think that is fair, she thinks women should have a safe place to explore their bodies. “Sex… It can be more: more sensual, more spiritual, more about communication and healing (24).” This is good way of explaining sex and how it can be more than just the physical stuff but also involved in mental stuff.
“Tight Jeans and Chania Chorris” by Sonia Shah is good example of how sexuality varies cross culturally. In this article Sonia describes how her sister had taken on Western ideas of sexy and how she started wearing tight jeans and reviling clothes. Her parents are upset but not for the reasons that I assume, like they don’t want her dressing too sexy. But in fact they didn’t want her dressing sexy in American clothes. When Sonia’s sister wears sexy Indian clothes they are fine with it. That was a neat little twist at the end. The fact that they only found it inappropriate when she was wearing Western clothing was interesting. It shows that culture can also play a huge role in deciding whether sexy is appropriate or not.
Susan Douglas’s chapter entitled Sex “R” US was good read. I really enjoy her chapters the most, even though I disagree with some of the stuff she says. When she talks about Calvin Klein and the photo shoots he did, I was really disturbed. I can’t believe he would ever think it was ok for four years to jump around in only underwear. It’s really never ok to sexualize children. Douglas then goes on to describe the female icon that began to come into main stream media, “the sexpert” as she calls it. “The sexpert knows a lot about sex is comfortable with sex, initiates and enjoys sex on an equal footing with me, and talks a lot about sex with her girlfriends (Douglas 156).” The sexpert is white, well off, and really pretty. And by becoming a sexpert your suppose to cater men and what they want. Pick up any Cosmo and all it’s about is how to please your man. I don’t understand how submitting makes you the one in power and I think Douglas has a problem with this point also. Douglas describes all these shows and stores that sell sex, Cosmo, Abercrombie and Fitch, and even Toddlers and Tiaras. The Toddlers and Tiaras show is so creepy and really don’t understand why these parents make their kids enter beauty pageants at age 3. The magazine Cosmo started off sort of risqué magazine but not too hard core and now it’s all about sex and what a man wants in bed. Television has also seen a rise in sexual content. “The sexual content of prime-time shows – both scenes and references – increased from 43 percent in 1976 to 75 percent in 1996 (168).” That is huge percentage to me, how are families suppose to sit down and watch a show like that? It would probably be so awkward and parents don’t want to have to explain a sexual reference to a young child. Plus parents probably don’t want their impressionable kids watching that kind of stuff. Sex and the City is a perfect example of the sexpert. It showed sex in a positive way in the female perspective. Yeah most of their conversation revolved around men and relationships but the show also had a huge emphases on the sisterhood between the four women, and how that was the most important relationship out of anything. Rap videos were Douglas next topic that jumped out at me. Most rap is the most women hating thing out there. Douglas had a great quote, “We love hip hop, but does hip hop love us (179)?” That’s actually a really good question because I love rap music but some songs make me really question that choice. Some women rappers like lil Kim and da brat try to portray the “hard” female who acts just like males. But they make me just as uncomfortable as the men. I understand their trying to take back words like bitch and stuff like that. But bitch to me is always going to have a negative association to me. I think sex ed is good thing at the right age. I think around freshman year in high school all kids should get some kid of sexual education. Kids don’t have sex because of the class; they don’t get the idea from that. But the class could really explain the dangers of sex (STDs) and can offer protection options for kids who are ready or think they are ready. The media shows enough sex but in the media they don’t really talk about protection or STDs so kids need a way to learn about it. The media is really increasing its sexual content and hopefully the American society can handle it.
Patricia Collins’s article is a fascinating look into male and female black sexuality. She says the black women have been portrayed of having animal like sexuality and Black men having violent and dangerous sexuality. Both, male and female, are hyper sexualized, this in turn gives people a reason to associate blacks with uncivilized ways. Is this still going on today? Do people still associate blackness with gorillas and apes. Maybe not most people, but some defiantly do, racism still exists. “Black sexual stereotypes are rendered virtually invisible by their ubiquity; yet, they persist through a disconnected mélange of animal skins, sexually explicit lyrics, breast worship and focus on the booty (Collins 29).” I like this quote because it’s kind of like enlighten sexism because people think black people have conquered racism and things like that so it’s alright for them to be over the top wild.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTDk85A18aE
“Tight Jeans and Chania Chorris” by Sonia Shah is good example of how sexuality varies cross culturally. In this article Sonia describes how her sister had taken on Western ideas of sexy and how she started wearing tight jeans and reviling clothes. Her parents are upset but not for the reasons that I assume, like they don’t want her dressing too sexy. But in fact they didn’t want her dressing sexy in American clothes. When Sonia’s sister wears sexy Indian clothes they are fine with it. That was a neat little twist at the end. The fact that they only found it inappropriate when she was wearing Western clothing was interesting. It shows that culture can also play a huge role in deciding whether sexy is appropriate or not.
Susan Douglas’s chapter entitled Sex “R” US was good read. I really enjoy her chapters the most, even though I disagree with some of the stuff she says. When she talks about Calvin Klein and the photo shoots he did, I was really disturbed. I can’t believe he would ever think it was ok for four years to jump around in only underwear. It’s really never ok to sexualize children. Douglas then goes on to describe the female icon that began to come into main stream media, “the sexpert” as she calls it. “The sexpert knows a lot about sex is comfortable with sex, initiates and enjoys sex on an equal footing with me, and talks a lot about sex with her girlfriends (Douglas 156).” The sexpert is white, well off, and really pretty. And by becoming a sexpert your suppose to cater men and what they want. Pick up any Cosmo and all it’s about is how to please your man. I don’t understand how submitting makes you the one in power and I think Douglas has a problem with this point also. Douglas describes all these shows and stores that sell sex, Cosmo, Abercrombie and Fitch, and even Toddlers and Tiaras. The Toddlers and Tiaras show is so creepy and really don’t understand why these parents make their kids enter beauty pageants at age 3. The magazine Cosmo started off sort of risqué magazine but not too hard core and now it’s all about sex and what a man wants in bed. Television has also seen a rise in sexual content. “The sexual content of prime-time shows – both scenes and references – increased from 43 percent in 1976 to 75 percent in 1996 (168).” That is huge percentage to me, how are families suppose to sit down and watch a show like that? It would probably be so awkward and parents don’t want to have to explain a sexual reference to a young child. Plus parents probably don’t want their impressionable kids watching that kind of stuff. Sex and the City is a perfect example of the sexpert. It showed sex in a positive way in the female perspective. Yeah most of their conversation revolved around men and relationships but the show also had a huge emphases on the sisterhood between the four women, and how that was the most important relationship out of anything. Rap videos were Douglas next topic that jumped out at me. Most rap is the most women hating thing out there. Douglas had a great quote, “We love hip hop, but does hip hop love us (179)?” That’s actually a really good question because I love rap music but some songs make me really question that choice. Some women rappers like lil Kim and da brat try to portray the “hard” female who acts just like males. But they make me just as uncomfortable as the men. I understand their trying to take back words like bitch and stuff like that. But bitch to me is always going to have a negative association to me. I think sex ed is good thing at the right age. I think around freshman year in high school all kids should get some kid of sexual education. Kids don’t have sex because of the class; they don’t get the idea from that. But the class could really explain the dangers of sex (STDs) and can offer protection options for kids who are ready or think they are ready. The media shows enough sex but in the media they don’t really talk about protection or STDs so kids need a way to learn about it. The media is really increasing its sexual content and hopefully the American society can handle it.
Patricia Collins’s article is a fascinating look into male and female black sexuality. She says the black women have been portrayed of having animal like sexuality and Black men having violent and dangerous sexuality. Both, male and female, are hyper sexualized, this in turn gives people a reason to associate blacks with uncivilized ways. Is this still going on today? Do people still associate blackness with gorillas and apes. Maybe not most people, but some defiantly do, racism still exists. “Black sexual stereotypes are rendered virtually invisible by their ubiquity; yet, they persist through a disconnected mélange of animal skins, sexually explicit lyrics, breast worship and focus on the booty (Collins 29).” I like this quote because it’s kind of like enlighten sexism because people think black people have conquered racism and things like that so it’s alright for them to be over the top wild.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTDk85A18aE
Short Response 10/5
Messages about sex and sexual power are all around us. When we open a magazine, flip on the TV or cruise the internet, we are inundiated with mixed messages about sex. On the one hand, we are told that dressing provocatively and pleasing your man are the most important things to bring to a relationships. Cosmo gives us instructions on how to suck, lick and tug every part of his body so that he'll be begging for more. "Gossip Girl" and "90210" depict sexually active teens who aren't afraid to switch partners episode to episode. And who can forget those models Abercrombie and Fitch hires to stand shirtless in storefronts as eye candy for every fantasizing pubescent girl? On the other hand, we receive messages from parents, teachers and even boyfriends that women should not be openly sexual, as they will just appear to be STD-ridden and "slutty." Our schools promote abstinence and major politicians denounce the sexual objectification of women in rap songs and music videos. What are we to believe? Is the Cosmo "fun, fearless female" a slut? Or is she in control of her body and therefore carefree and powerful? On the flip side, if a woman does not follow the Cosmo guide, is she necessarily a prude? Or is she simply exercising the same sexual power that more fearless women exhibit?
As I read Douglas's chapter "Sex 'R Us," I couldn't help but think of Charlotte from "Sex and the City." Charlotte, who wears pearls and lives on Park Avenue in her preppy apartment, is immediately identified as the "prude." Charlotte is not a virgin, nor is she even close. She is sexually active, yet prefers to downplay her sexual activity to appear "lady like." Charlotte is often teased by the others because of her girlish tendencies and her insistence on mouthing words like "sex" and "pussy." However, I can't help but wonder how Charlotte is labeled a prude when she is clearly sexually active and engaging in the same activity as her three best friends. In fact, it is not until the fourth season that Charlotte settles down, and later rejects her then-husband because of his inability to hold an erejection. If Charlotte is a prude, what are women who are not sexually active? It seems this label is unwarranted and shows that women who are virgins are somehow weird or different.
Furthermore, Cosmo too places sexually inactive females in the same category as somehow different from all other women. In an advice column titled "How can I tell a guy I am a virgin and not freak him out?" Cosmo tells a 26-year-old virgin that her "um, inexperience" should be downplayed so as not to scare potential boyfriends away who may be scared of "responsibility" or "committment." To this sex-crazed magazine, those who choose to wait are somehow weird and will scare the only ones who matter (potential sexual partners) away.
Navigating these mixed messages about sex is difficult and often places women in difficult positions. Should teens wear low-rise jeans and bustier tops to appeal to boys? Or should they hold off on sex, only to appear weird and sexually inactive in the future? It seems the media promotes different conceptions of what is sexually acceptable and what is sexually inacceptable and it is up to us to filter these messages as best as we can.
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/advice/how-can-i-tell-him-im-a-virgin
As I read Douglas's chapter "Sex 'R Us," I couldn't help but think of Charlotte from "Sex and the City." Charlotte, who wears pearls and lives on Park Avenue in her preppy apartment, is immediately identified as the "prude." Charlotte is not a virgin, nor is she even close. She is sexually active, yet prefers to downplay her sexual activity to appear "lady like." Charlotte is often teased by the others because of her girlish tendencies and her insistence on mouthing words like "sex" and "pussy." However, I can't help but wonder how Charlotte is labeled a prude when she is clearly sexually active and engaging in the same activity as her three best friends. In fact, it is not until the fourth season that Charlotte settles down, and later rejects her then-husband because of his inability to hold an erejection. If Charlotte is a prude, what are women who are not sexually active? It seems this label is unwarranted and shows that women who are virgins are somehow weird or different.
Furthermore, Cosmo too places sexually inactive females in the same category as somehow different from all other women. In an advice column titled "How can I tell a guy I am a virgin and not freak him out?" Cosmo tells a 26-year-old virgin that her "um, inexperience" should be downplayed so as not to scare potential boyfriends away who may be scared of "responsibility" or "committment." To this sex-crazed magazine, those who choose to wait are somehow weird and will scare the only ones who matter (potential sexual partners) away.
Navigating these mixed messages about sex is difficult and often places women in difficult positions. Should teens wear low-rise jeans and bustier tops to appeal to boys? Or should they hold off on sex, only to appear weird and sexually inactive in the future? It seems the media promotes different conceptions of what is sexually acceptable and what is sexually inacceptable and it is up to us to filter these messages as best as we can.
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/advice/how-can-i-tell-him-im-a-virgin
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Short Response 10/5
Sexuality is very prevalent in mainstream society. Magazines, movies, newspapers and television shows exploit highly sexualized characters and plots in order to increase their ratings. As a viewer, I generally love these type of shows. Douglas lists a few of these to be: Sex and the City, Grey's Anatomy and Desperate Housewives. Many of these shows depict women as sexual beings- but for the most part they are in charge of their sexuality, i.e. Samantha Jones. However, Douglas notes that many of these shows still have harmful undertones to the viewers watching them. Although the women in SATC are successful and independent, for the most part their lives and daily escapades revolve around the opposite sex. Most of the women exhibited carefree attitudes when it came to sexual partners and relationships. They slept around and had one night stands, but still managed to live a fabulous life. Samantha truly exemplifies the notion of an independent women, who likes to have casual sex, with no strings attached. She does not want children and loathes the idea of a serious relationship. Douglas stated that not even Samantha could be considered a slut. However, I feel that this is a false belief. After bringing up SATC to several of my guy friends, they only knew Samantha as the slut. Thus, despite the writers attempts to make Samantha seem like she is in control of her sexuality and dominant over men- she can still very easily be reduced to a slut.
Obviously companies realized that a major demographic to exploit was young teenage girls. Thus, they were the main recipients of these mixed messages about sexuality. Females were now being sexualized at younger and younger ages, making it extremely difficult to understand their own bodies and sexuality. The media basically tricked many women into thinking that they had achieved sexual equality with men. They sent the message that sexual display and sex was the true way to gain power and thus women should embrace their objectification as flattery and equality. When you think about it, this is so smart. Every girl wants to feel empowered and comfortable with their sexuality. Instead of feeling ashamed for sleeping around and exploring the world of sexual pleasure, we could simply think that we were empowering ourselves.
Rebecca Walker pinpoints this confusion over sexuality. The way in which we view our sexuality is a big responsibility that can either hinder or help us. Walker learned at a young age how to transform herself into what each man wanted. She wore a mask to fit into the role that people expected of her. Eventually she grew out of this and left a relationship if it didn't offer her potential to grow. Her discussion of exploring sexuality was also interesting. Our bodies have natural and innate desires to be touched, admired, appreciated, explored and pleasured. When women indulge in their natural desires they are called sluts and whores. Thus, we turn to television and media to see what we are missing. Of course that source generally seeks to objectify and humiliate women.
Obviously companies realized that a major demographic to exploit was young teenage girls. Thus, they were the main recipients of these mixed messages about sexuality. Females were now being sexualized at younger and younger ages, making it extremely difficult to understand their own bodies and sexuality. The media basically tricked many women into thinking that they had achieved sexual equality with men. They sent the message that sexual display and sex was the true way to gain power and thus women should embrace their objectification as flattery and equality. When you think about it, this is so smart. Every girl wants to feel empowered and comfortable with their sexuality. Instead of feeling ashamed for sleeping around and exploring the world of sexual pleasure, we could simply think that we were empowering ourselves.
Rebecca Walker pinpoints this confusion over sexuality. The way in which we view our sexuality is a big responsibility that can either hinder or help us. Walker learned at a young age how to transform herself into what each man wanted. She wore a mask to fit into the role that people expected of her. Eventually she grew out of this and left a relationship if it didn't offer her potential to grow. Her discussion of exploring sexuality was also interesting. Our bodies have natural and innate desires to be touched, admired, appreciated, explored and pleasured. When women indulge in their natural desires they are called sluts and whores. Thus, we turn to television and media to see what we are missing. Of course that source generally seeks to objectify and humiliate women.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Who Needs Men? We Do.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/20/why-the-new-macho-is-good-for-women.html?obref=obinsite
Despite making significant strides in the social, political, educational and occupational fields, women are still seriously disadvantaged in all of these categories. Women are currently making up the majority of graduating classes and also earning a higher number of Ph.D.s and M.A.s. Many women are also earning the primary income for their family, or at least acting as a co-contributor (1). Despite these facts, the glass ceiling is still in place, which prevents many women from reaching the “highest echelons of the corporate world” (1). Domestic life has become one of the major deterrents in preventing women from achieving the same level of success as men. Although our society has become one focused largely on convenience and efficiency, women are still responsible for doing twice the amount of chores than men perform (1). This notion is commonly called the double- shift, in which women perform their first shift at their place of employment and then perform their second shift when they return to their home. Such a routine is quite physically and mentally demanding on an individual.
Jessica Bennett and Jesse Ellison, authors of Who Needs Men? We do, assert that a duel liberation is in order. As women we must acknowledge the fact that we need men to gain equality and liberation. Of course such a statement will undoubtedly make some females cringe in disbelief. The irony is obvious, we need men, who allegedly oppress us to help us gain our liberation. But if we flush their argument out a bit further, we see that there is a great deal of merit in it.
The first thing that needs to stop is the age-old battle of the sexes. For true progress and change to occur men and women need to stop viewing each other as remote and distant enemies. Instead, we must realize that working in unison is far more efficient and beneficial for both parties. For instance, they cite that numerous studies have shown a correlation between the number of female members on a corporate board and the companies overall success. Additionally, it is speculated that if the United States achieved true work equality, our Gross Domestic Product would increase by nine percent (1). Such an improvement is quite striking, considering that we are currently in the midst of what is being hailed one of the worst economic downturns in our nations history. For this to occur, men would have to play a larger role in the domestic sphere. The burden of domesticity and child rearing can no longer fall solely on the female’s shoulders. To validify and bolster their argument, the authors used Iceland as a success story. Recognizing the importance of both men and women in the work force, the prime minister mandated a three-month paternity leave. Both mother and father receive approximately eighty percent of their salary while they are taking care of their newborn. Iceland currently has the smallest wage gap, because employers no longer feel that it is a waste to invest time, resources and money into training a female employee if she is just going to get pregnant and leave. The fear and anxiety surrounding pregnant career women is greatly reduced. They know that their partner will be available to assist them and also have a piece of mind that their job is secure. Additionally, because they are receiving a large portion of their salary, finances will be less of a burden. This decreases the stereotype that men must be the primary provider, because both husband and wife are being compensated to take care of their child.
Bennett and Ellison continue their discussion of the importance of female and male cooperation. Using the London Business School as their primary resource, they state that productivity levels increase when men and women work together. When an optimal mix of female and male workers exists, there is a better flow of diverse ideas and a decrease in close- mindedness. In Enlightened Sexism, Susan Douglas stated that certain career professions, such as: “secretaries, retail and personal sales workers, managers and administrators, elementary school teachers and registered nurses” were totally female dominated (2). Bennett and Ellison also came to the same conclusion and found that these professions are going to face major expansion in the upcoming years. Thus, men need to get over the female stigma attached to many of these professions and begin to enter these fields. Incorporating men into these fields would increase productivity amongst other things. In general, these professions are underpaid. If men began to take positions in these fields, the wages would most likely increase and thus help close the wage gap. Additionally, with more men entering the field, the level of competition and prestige will increase, which will help attract higher levels of talent.
It is clear that both authors stress the importance of cooperation and unity between men and women. A major component of their argument relates to Marilyn Frye’s Oppression article. She discusses the psychological effects of oppression. When men oppress women they are also being oppressed. This can be seen in the fact that men are in their own way limited to lifestyle and occupational careers. If a man chooses to be a nurse he faces taunts and jeers from his friends. His masculinity and career success will most likely be called into question, as many will probably wonder why he is not a doctor. This is seen in popular culture and media. The box office hit Meet The Parents, featured Ben Stiller as a male nurse. He faces un-relenting criticism from his fiancées family as to the reason why he was not a doctor. His career seemed incomplete, even though nurses are crucial to the success and operation of a hospital.
Bennett and Ellison smartly laid out their argument. I found it particularly clever to begin their article with two prevalent stereotypes in American culture: the cool, masculine Marlboro Man (men) and the unattractive, also masculine Rosie the Riveter. They expose and put the stereotypes of the angry, raging, man-hating feminist in direct contrast to the womanizing, whiskey drinking male. For men and women to come together and achieve equality, we need to expose and discuss these stereotypes, in order to destroy them. As a society we need to realize that a majority of us do not fit into these ridiculous stereotypes. In fact, these stereotypes should upset us and act as a catalyst for change. Men should not want to be seen as drunken oafs, constantly in pursuit of sexual pleasure. This demeans and belittles their character and morals.
Of course men enjoy the seen and unseen benefits of a patriarchal society. But maybe it’s time to take a step back and stand side by side with their female counterparts. Why should they feel the constant strain/ constraint of years of tradition that say that they need to work all the time and be the primary monetary providers. Men should not be ridiculed by society when they choose to stay home with their children, while their wife provides for their family. A child is equally the father and mothers, so why should the male miss out on child rearing and PTA meetings. Similarly, women should not be made to feel like horrible mothers and parents because they want to pursue a fulfilling and challenging career. Patriarchy severely limits and curtails both male and female roles. Our society needs to expand its mindset and allow for un-conventional family arrangements.
With this being said, I can see how many feminists would have a problem with Bennett and Ellison’s article. Primarily because they would feel that this article relays the message that men’s liberation is equally important to female liberation. This can strike a nerve with many feminists, who would believe that men do not need any more liberation than they already have. Male privilege in our society is already so prevalent and abundant that women should focus on helping other women out, instead of men. It can also be construed that female's cannot achieve liberation without men. Personally, I really liked the arguments and examples that Bennett and Ellison laid out. I think for equality to happen, both men and women need to see that equality will benefit both parties. It is part of the human condition to want to achieve some level of benefit when helping another person. This article makes it clear that women aren’t out to take over the world and subjugate men into peasants. Instead, women want equality- which will inevitably help all involved.
(1) Who Needs Men? We Do. Jesse Ellison & Jessica Bennett. 20 September 2010. http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/20/why-the-new-macho-is-good-for-women.html?obref=obinsite
(2) Enlightened Sexism. Susan J. Douglas. First edition 2010.
News Flash: It's not over
A classic debate in today’s society is whether or not Feminism is required. Many would like to argue that it is not needed; Christina Hoff Sommers is one of these people. But the fact of the matter is that women still in 2010 do not make as much money as men do. In Jessica Bennett and Jesse Ellison’s article “Why Women Need the Paycheck Fairness Act” they attempt to explain why feminism is still necessary and they exploit problems in Christina Hoff Sommers argument that the Paycheck Fairness Act is pointless. The truth is that feminism is still needed in order to obtain women equal pay to men.
The Newsweek article that Bennett and Ellison write is a very cut throat article. It basically dismantles all of Sommers agreements and makes her look like an idiot who doesn’t care about women. The articles begins with the explaining of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which is “a ‘common-sense bill,’ as president Obama has called it, that would make it easier for women to file class-action suits against employers they accuse of sex-based pay discrimination, and require companies to be more cognizant of their pay practices (Bennett, Ellison 1).” Sommers is completely against this saying that it would place women against men. But According to this article this is the first anti-feminist remark she has made. Sommers has written a couple of books against feminism and has made a living on beating down feminists and all their problems (1). Sommers bases her argument on the fact that women’s “individual choices” in things like education, experience, etc. is the reason they don’t make as much money. But this is just not true according Bennett and Ellison, female M.B.A.’s who made the choice to not have kids and get a good education still earn 4,600 less per year in their first jobs out of business school (2). And that woman who work with men still make an average of 20 percent less than them (2). Bennett and Ellison even say they grew up in an era where they thought feminism wasn’t needed but the reality was that most women still make less in the same fields as men. They then go on to explain how this wouldn’t put men against women because men and women should be working together to make the work place equal and empower all. The Newsweek cover story was even an article explaining this idea of men and women working together to help the economy and to make this country equal. The last thing they seek to explain is the fact that this act isn’t trying to say that men intentionally underpay women, no they are simply pointing out the fact there is this inequality and lets try to fix it through government law. According to Bennett and Ellison this issue has been on the “back burner” for way to long, so it needs to be not only addressed but it needs to be fixed. They blame Sommers for creating these tensions between the sexes.
Christina Sommers is a really good illustration of Susan Douglas’s idea of Enlighten sexism. She feeds into this idea that women are powerful and equal to men and that it’s cool to act like there is no problem and women should stop whining. Sommers is a part of this big media scam that is trying to show that women no longer need feminism because men and women are equal. Susan Douglas would have a big problem Christina Sommers because she is sending a message with no facts to back it up. Christina Sommers depicts feminism as this horrible thing that is ruining the world and that this bill is going to feed into this destroying of the world. Susan Douglas would disagree because she knows that his bill could really help women get the equal pay they deserve. Christina Sommers is under the impression that women just like to complain, but the truth is that women are not given the same amount of money as men and something needs to change that. Feminist are probably tired of having to work for equal rights, they just want it so they don’t have to keep doing all this campaigning. Most feminist would love to equal rights because then they can say they accomplished the goal of feminism, but they can’t do that until it actually happens.
Allan Johnson would also probably have a few things to say Christina Sommers. He would definitely have a problem with her statement about how the bill would put women against men. He would also accuse Sommers of feeding the system of patriarchy. It’s always a relief to feminism when a man sticks up for women and tells people that women are being treated unequally. Allan Johnson is one of those guys; he acknowledges that patriarchy exists and he seeks to reform it by telling everyone what creates it. And who creates it? Everybody, everyone who lives in this society adds to the system and allows it to continue. But people like Christina Sommers add even more to it by not acknowledging there is a problem. Once again if there was no problem then women would be getting equal wages.
I really enjoyed this article by Jessica Bennett and Jesse Ellison. One of the reasons why is because I used to be like Christina Sommers, I thought feminism was dead and unnecessary and that women really just like dragging things out and making big deals out of nothing. But after taking this class and reevaluating some of the views I had on feminism, I realized I was wrong. It’s easy for to judge the people of the past and the women in the work force today because I have not yet entered that sphere. I really don’t understand what they went through and still go through, so I have no right to judge. Women have to stick together and people like Christina Sommers I think really set women back. Yeah it’s all good for her because she looks good to the men, they think she’s cool because she doesn’t complain and moan about things. She gives men the power to look down on us; she is giving them ammunition to make us look dumb. Susan Douglas is right it really is the new thing to be an antifeminist. This growing stigma associated with being feminism is not a good one. Because if you really do sit down and look at the facts: women are making less than men are not popular in executive positions, etc., you would notice that maybe we aren’t as equal as we all thought. This bill would really help, yes it stinks we need a bill to get women equal pay, but what else is there. People aren’t going to pay attention to this problem unless they have the fear of getting in trouble (this case the fear of being sued). And yes some women will take advantage of it, but what law isn’t taken advantage by some sort of person. The fact is there are some greedy/lazy people who are trying to get ahead by taking advantage of certain things, in this case the law. Hopefully the courts will be able to weed out his people and prevent them from scamming their bosses.
Throughout the years Feminism has made giant leaps. But why stop now? Feminist need to keep going step by step in order to gain equal rights. One way of doing this is by passing the Paycheck Fairness Act so that women can get the same pay as men. Feminist shouldn’t even care what people like Christina Sommers say, they are ignorant to the facts and one day maybe they’ll see their errors. But for now feminist still have a job to do and hopefully in the near future their job will be done.
The Newsweek article that Bennett and Ellison write is a very cut throat article. It basically dismantles all of Sommers agreements and makes her look like an idiot who doesn’t care about women. The articles begins with the explaining of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which is “a ‘common-sense bill,’ as president Obama has called it, that would make it easier for women to file class-action suits against employers they accuse of sex-based pay discrimination, and require companies to be more cognizant of their pay practices (Bennett, Ellison 1).” Sommers is completely against this saying that it would place women against men. But According to this article this is the first anti-feminist remark she has made. Sommers has written a couple of books against feminism and has made a living on beating down feminists and all their problems (1). Sommers bases her argument on the fact that women’s “individual choices” in things like education, experience, etc. is the reason they don’t make as much money. But this is just not true according Bennett and Ellison, female M.B.A.’s who made the choice to not have kids and get a good education still earn 4,600 less per year in their first jobs out of business school (2). And that woman who work with men still make an average of 20 percent less than them (2). Bennett and Ellison even say they grew up in an era where they thought feminism wasn’t needed but the reality was that most women still make less in the same fields as men. They then go on to explain how this wouldn’t put men against women because men and women should be working together to make the work place equal and empower all. The Newsweek cover story was even an article explaining this idea of men and women working together to help the economy and to make this country equal. The last thing they seek to explain is the fact that this act isn’t trying to say that men intentionally underpay women, no they are simply pointing out the fact there is this inequality and lets try to fix it through government law. According to Bennett and Ellison this issue has been on the “back burner” for way to long, so it needs to be not only addressed but it needs to be fixed. They blame Sommers for creating these tensions between the sexes.
Christina Sommers is a really good illustration of Susan Douglas’s idea of Enlighten sexism. She feeds into this idea that women are powerful and equal to men and that it’s cool to act like there is no problem and women should stop whining. Sommers is a part of this big media scam that is trying to show that women no longer need feminism because men and women are equal. Susan Douglas would have a big problem Christina Sommers because she is sending a message with no facts to back it up. Christina Sommers depicts feminism as this horrible thing that is ruining the world and that this bill is going to feed into this destroying of the world. Susan Douglas would disagree because she knows that his bill could really help women get the equal pay they deserve. Christina Sommers is under the impression that women just like to complain, but the truth is that women are not given the same amount of money as men and something needs to change that. Feminist are probably tired of having to work for equal rights, they just want it so they don’t have to keep doing all this campaigning. Most feminist would love to equal rights because then they can say they accomplished the goal of feminism, but they can’t do that until it actually happens.
Allan Johnson would also probably have a few things to say Christina Sommers. He would definitely have a problem with her statement about how the bill would put women against men. He would also accuse Sommers of feeding the system of patriarchy. It’s always a relief to feminism when a man sticks up for women and tells people that women are being treated unequally. Allan Johnson is one of those guys; he acknowledges that patriarchy exists and he seeks to reform it by telling everyone what creates it. And who creates it? Everybody, everyone who lives in this society adds to the system and allows it to continue. But people like Christina Sommers add even more to it by not acknowledging there is a problem. Once again if there was no problem then women would be getting equal wages.
I really enjoyed this article by Jessica Bennett and Jesse Ellison. One of the reasons why is because I used to be like Christina Sommers, I thought feminism was dead and unnecessary and that women really just like dragging things out and making big deals out of nothing. But after taking this class and reevaluating some of the views I had on feminism, I realized I was wrong. It’s easy for to judge the people of the past and the women in the work force today because I have not yet entered that sphere. I really don’t understand what they went through and still go through, so I have no right to judge. Women have to stick together and people like Christina Sommers I think really set women back. Yeah it’s all good for her because she looks good to the men, they think she’s cool because she doesn’t complain and moan about things. She gives men the power to look down on us; she is giving them ammunition to make us look dumb. Susan Douglas is right it really is the new thing to be an antifeminist. This growing stigma associated with being feminism is not a good one. Because if you really do sit down and look at the facts: women are making less than men are not popular in executive positions, etc., you would notice that maybe we aren’t as equal as we all thought. This bill would really help, yes it stinks we need a bill to get women equal pay, but what else is there. People aren’t going to pay attention to this problem unless they have the fear of getting in trouble (this case the fear of being sued). And yes some women will take advantage of it, but what law isn’t taken advantage by some sort of person. The fact is there are some greedy/lazy people who are trying to get ahead by taking advantage of certain things, in this case the law. Hopefully the courts will be able to weed out his people and prevent them from scamming their bosses.
Throughout the years Feminism has made giant leaps. But why stop now? Feminist need to keep going step by step in order to gain equal rights. One way of doing this is by passing the Paycheck Fairness Act so that women can get the same pay as men. Feminist shouldn’t even care what people like Christina Sommers say, they are ignorant to the facts and one day maybe they’ll see their errors. But for now feminist still have a job to do and hopefully in the near future their job will be done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)