holidays

Thanksgivng and holidays in general are one of those times where gender stereotypes seem to be extra-super heavily reinforced. Every movie, commercial, story, song and tradition seems to have the underlying message that the women should cook, clean, take care of the kids, and if dad isn't home-its simply not going to be the 'same'-implying it wont be as fun, important, or memorable. based on commercials we can imply that all men/dads are loyal, young, white and crave golf clubs, power tools or razors. whereas women are all loving, skinny, perfectly dressed, generally cooking/cleaning/putting the kids to bed and reallllly want diamonds, clothing, or a lexus with a red bow. its the man's obligation to dazzle the woman with glitz and glamour, whereas the man wants a sensible gift thats worth the hefty pricetag. Although marketing towards adults is annoying and repetitive, i hope that most of us are sensible to base our gifts and choices on indivuals instead of commercials-however, the marketing towards kids with relation to gender is a little scary. I have a 2 yr old nephew and shopping for him makes it blatantly obvious gender stereotypes are in little kids toys and clothes. There aren't really any gender neutral products. For example before we knew the sex of my nephew we tried shopping just for baby clothes in general and found that it was nearly impossible because every article of clothing seemed to have some implied gender. I have also found that this applies to toys. With the exception of some musical instruments or stuffed animals everything seems to be marketed specifically to boys or girls. Id like to think that we're getting more progressive and becoming more aware that boys do liek to play with dolls and girls do like action figures and dinosaurs, but a simple stroll through target proves that most people are still stuck in the boy/girl distinct differences. This seems small, but it shapes the way kids play and therefore has huge impacts on what they learn about their world and themselves. Overall i think its really frustrating that we're still so wholly stuck in and williningly buy into gender stereotypes that are so ghastly exagerated yet widely accepted.

oppression

I thoght our inclass discussion on oppression last tuesday was very interesting, especially becuase it was somewhat complicated for us to come up with a definition of a word that we're all pretty familiar with. i find this happens a lot with words that we throw around loosely and think we know the meanings of until we actually sit down and begin to pick it apart. The definition we came up with was broad and complex, but seemed to revolve around the notion of one group taking away or limiting another groups agency, independence, freedoms and opportunities. We said the oppression was generally legitimized at a structural level, but subsequently reinforced down throughout the social pyramid at many levels. Our group kicked around the idea of a housewife being oppressed by her overly controlling husband who took away all her freedoms and agency-is this oppression or abuse? We seemed to agree that this was isolated abuse becuase the injustice wasnt being reinforced on a larger scale-not ALL husbands take away their wives independence or freedoms. This narrowed our definition in that oppression pertains to an inherent quality-such as race. But then we also brought up the issue of poverty and innercity schools. If children in those schools don't have good tests grades, simply because they were'nt given the OPPORTUNITY to get good grades, then they won't make the grade for colleges-hence affirmatie action. we also talked about that when those students who didnt necessarily have good grades in bad highschools went to good colleges,. they excelled just as well as students who got good grades in highschools. so affirmative action in a sense tries to combat the oppression by creating quotas. But is it oppression really? granted kids don't have the same opportunities, but is it  oppression because its based on socioeconomic status and location instead of a matter of identity? or is the definition of oppression based more on the structural component-which means that this is a perfect example of oppression ebcause the system limits and inhibits their opportunities.

women in war

I thought today's presentation on women in war was really interesting. I've been fascinated by this subject ever since reading the book called S., which colleen talked about. It details the stories of women in rape camps in the balkans. I forget the exact details but i know that i read the book last year for a class and it has haunted me ever since. The notion of raping women to ruin a culture and kill a blood line i think is absolutely disgusting and yet chillingly effective. The scars of rape are unrepairable and last a lifetime, both for victim and perpetrator. Like we said in class i dont beleive that rape is the result of some 'biological drive'-i think thats a bullshit excuse for men to stand behind and blame their genes instead of their own lack of control or desire for power. Like we also said in class i think rape is one of the most blatant displays of power that humans can exert. Yes physical violence shows a power dynamic, but rape takes it one step farther. The other article that we read about the villagers who were mass raped was extremely disturbing on many levels. it was disturbing not only because of the pure hell that the villagers were put through at the time, but also the side affects that are still being felt today. For example the numerous women in the same family who were all raped but refused to confide in each other and instead were forced to suffer in silence at the risk of being completely ostracized and isolated. Its no wonder that they cannot speak out when the one women's own husband said that if she had been raped he simply would not 'keep' her. This explicity implies that she is HIS property and would be cast aside like trash should she be tainted. This not only destroys her self-worth but it also places the blame on her. she is being punished for being raped. Like amidia said rape is the only crime in which the victim is prosecuted. i think thats horribly sad yet undeniably true. it also is shown in the article about sexual assualt in the military that we read. women are ashamed/afraid to report assaults because they first of all may not be beleived, and if they are, stand to lose the ranking that they've worked so hard for. not only that but what's the point of reporting something when chances are the perp. will simply get a slap on the wrist? its simply not worth the hell of reporting it. I think that is one of the biggest problems with the military. They see themselves as the most powerful force on earth and therefore do not subjugate themselves to societal/moral norms. They seem to have the mentality that if 'were out here risking our lives and defending our country, we get a few get out of jail free cards when we get a little rowdy with the natives or our female soldiers.' i came across this same problem last year when looking at the issue of UN troops raping girls in cambodia. the charges were swept under the rug or ignored all together simply because the assailants were UN peacekeeping troops. whether it was to protect the UN reputation, the UN mission in cambodia, or the soldiers themselves, this behavior is still unacceptable. How can we ever gain the trust and respect of those we 'protect' when we cannot even protect  them from ourselves? Overall the whole system of coming forward with charges of rape being seen as a 'weakness' or something to keep to yourself is disgusting. I think thats also one of the main factors behind women in the military hiding their sexual assualts. If they come forward and say they were assaulted that totally contradicts their whole image of being a tough military women. 'obviously she's not as tough as the male soldiers because they can still dominate her'. i think thats also a reason why men in the military dont come forward. im sure there is unrecorded abuse simply because being abused is a sign of weakness. we blame the victim for not defending themselves instead of holding the perp. accountable which is 100% backwards and probably contributing to the problem itself.

human trafficking

So in doing our project, i obviously learned a lot about human trafficking but the presentation brought up some good questions that i hadn't really thought about on my own. The legalization of prostitution was not something that i considered that much because i didn't take it that seriously. Why would legalizing prostituion help in anyway with human trafficking? However numerous people in the class made good arguments- if it was legalized we could regulate it more strictly-define age limits, prices, who gets the money, mandatory health check-ups--things that would benefit the girls not their pimps. We could also tax it heavily and stand to make quite a killing of legal money instead of blackmarket underground money in the hands of 'bad' people. In an ideal world i think this would be the obvious solution. Clearly there is already a market for prostitutes so why not bring it into the open and regulate the hell out of it to hopefully improve standards for the girls and their customers? However, we do not live in an ideal world and i don't really think this is a viable solution. The only point that i really agree with about legalizing it would be that because its illegal we write it off all together, and if it were to be legalized maybe we could address issues of age and who gets paid what. In developed countries i think possibly that might work. however, we focused on trafficking being an issue in eastern europe and asia. In those countries i think its pretty ridiculous to assume that legalizing prostitution would help only because legalizing it requires subsequent regulations. Who in those countries would enforce those regulations? If they are already in such dire situations where selling your own children is a viable means of income, clearly there is not a reliable enough structure in place to ensure such regulations. If a structure like that was already in place, simply cracking down on trafficking would probably be easier. Also i dont think tihs would address the issue of forced prostitution or children at all because traffickers and brothel owners already have means of faking ages and coercing women to stay. Overall i think legalizing prostitution in a developed country might not be such a bad idea, but in developing countries i think it would simply fuel the problem of sex trafficking

For me one of the most intriguing concepts so far this semester has been the idea of language. I guess becuase its something that i take it for granted so whole-heartedly and never think about how powerful it is. This year however i'm taking communication classes and this class which have really drilled the concept home. My comm classes have made me realize how much of a powerful and dangerous tool it can be, whereas this class has made me realize how fully gendered it is. I had an interesting experience with this when I went home for fall break. I have a 22 yr old brother who is autistic and very high functioning in some aspects but extremely delayed in others. He was staying with a 'babysitter' over night and when my mother and I went to pick him up the next day we ran into the issue of is Jacob a 'boy' or a 'man'? Since i have been away for most of the past years i havent really heard this happen but apparently my mom refuses to call him a man because she says it eliminates many of the other aspects associated with being a man. For instance, Jacob always says hes going to 'be a man and be a doctor' or 'be a man and drink beer' 'be a man and drive the schoolbus'. Obviously he will never be able to do any of these things, so to eliminate these options my mom says, 'you're not a man you're a boy'. However, when Jacob went to the babysitter, they have a 9 yr old son, so by comparison when Jake would say that he was a 'boy' the babysitter said 'no you're 22, you're a man'. This obviously made his world spin the wrong direction, but also brought up what we discussed in class. What separates the 'boys' from the 'men'? In my mom's mind, manhood clearly constitutes some level of career, education, or maybe the ability to be independent? Whereas in the mind of the babysitter, Jake is a man simply because he is 22. At first i was a bit taken aback by how harsh it seemed for my mom to call jake a boy, since he is 22, but i do get where she is coming from. Its easier to explain to jake that, no you cant drive the bus or drink beer or get married because youre a boy and boys dont do that. But why can't boys do that? Again whats the difference between boys and men? Age, intelligence, salary, size, strength? I don't have the answers but it still seemed degrading for her to call him a boy. I don't think she meant it as an insult, but thats how it sounded on the outside. However when he was younger it didn't seem mean at all to respond to his questions of why he couldnt drink beer or drive the car by telling him that he was too young, or only men do that. After all if she does call him a man, then whats the reason behind his not being able to do all the things other 'men' do. Should we just say, youre not a man youre jake? or you have to go to a special school for that? I mean it brings up very touchy subjects that obviously have to be handled on a personal level but i just thought it was very interesting that she could eliminate a whole range of possibilities just by calling him a boy and not a man.

Well, with this past weekend being halloween, there were obviously many gender stereotypes at play. First of all, for many girls halloween is a contest for who can look the 'sexiest' generally this is acheived by lack of clothing. Now some may thoroughly enjoy this opportunity to go outside of their normal comfort range and rock something skanky, which is completely fine. I think the sad part is girls who felt pressured to dress slutty simply because it was halloween. I know a lot of girls who weren't at all comfortable with what they wore and got overly drunk to compensate for how awkward they felt. Obviously not a good combination, but it is an understandable response to the situation. Not saying these girls are stupid or slutty and not putting them down in anyway, i think its more sad that halloween has become a competition for 'sexiness' and lost some of the creativity that it used to have. On the same hand though, i think halloween is awesome for those girls who don't usually express that side of themselves and enjoy the opportunity to break the norm. Although some girls did seem to cater to the male desire for sexy halloween costumes, there was also a suprisingly high number of girls in funny and fully clothed costumes. For me, these girls stuck out as the confident and secure girls, not to mention warm.

Well the last few classes have kind of been all-over the place, bringing the concepts that we learned about toegether and connecting all the loose strings. Some of the things that I found to be the most interesting were 1. sociologically speaking married men are the happiest and married women are the unhappiest. This again completely contradicts what society pushes on us-based on stereotypes and 'norms' you would think that all married women are happy because they have a 'protector' and someone to look after, whereas men would be unhappy with their 'ball and chain' lifestyle. This statistic alone shows how completely unreal media portrayals are. This class combined with my message analysis and mass media class have all worked really well together to make me absolutely disgusted with the media, hah i mean all they show us are unrealistic portrayals of the 'ideal' in an attempt to make us so insecure with who we are that we base our sense of worth on materialistic things. Without the media's influence I think gender issues would be much less prevalent-especially in younger generations. I mean in everyday life i doubt kids would learn even a quarter of what they learn about gender stereotypes in a 1/2 hr of disney channel tv. the notions are so ingrained that children learn and practice them without question. Like "what a girl wants' showed, these media messages are affecting kids at younger and younger ages. Since when is it ok for 10-12 yr olds to be worried about what they look like or godforbid feel pressured to have sex? I think that's absolutely sick and makes me terrified to ever have children, because like we said I don't think there's anyway to shelter them from that and its only getting worse. i know this is pretty unrealistic but i really wish more people would just start living their own lives and basing success or happiness on their own standards instead of constantly comparing themselves to people on tv or in magazines. Granted this is probably just my own personal experience but I know that without the media i wouldnt even know half of the gender stereotypes that are out there, just because they simply don't really exist. For example, i wouldn't feel pressured to be a size 2, becuase in realife girls that skinny generally look unhealthy. The roles of people in relationships is also dictacted by the media- relationships don't work the way they do on TV but where else do we learn how they work? Unless you have good personal role-models people base their standards on TV instead of navigating the world for themselves and figuring out how it actually works. I know i don't have any answers and am just reiderating what we discussed in class, but i just cant get over how much people base their lives on, and trust the media with things that are so wholly personal.

Stereotypes 2

So after reading Valenti's chapter called 'Pop Culture Gone Wild' i realized that she was essentially saying the same things that i was thinking about masculinity. She talked about the unrealistic standards that popculture creates for women and all the contradictory messages out there. For example girls are suppoesd to be sexy  but virgins-obviously makes no sense. This plays into the masculinity debate though also. The messages and stereotypes created for men are completely impossible-never cry, be aggressive and sure of yourself allll the time-although the messages themselves arent contradictory-they challenge biological realities. So this seems to leave us all in a mixed message state of complete confusion. Like Valenti says, "How do you act like yourself when you're constantly putting on a show?" I think this ultimately boils down to the fact that people are scared to act the way they want because they know that who they really are doesnt measure up and meet all the expectations. I think its extremely sad that popculture has the power to define what we 'should' be, but outside of personal role models there isn't really any other source with the power to dictate what is 'right' or 'cool'. i dont really have an answer for what should or can be done, but i think it starts with a shift away from popculture. The media and popculture have way too much power and when their only goal is profit, that puts us in a dangerously vulnerable situation. They deliberately make standards unattainably high because if the 'ideal girl' was easy to be, girls might stop buying make-up or magazines that tell them how to get one step closer to really being pretty. Consumerism in itself is a terrible thing not only because of it's impact on the environmnet and our global health, but it has also put our self-esteems and images in the hands of corporations. overall i dont know what can be done, but i think knowledge and recognizing the fact that we are being constantly manipulated helps to break down the validity of the messages sent by popculture. Since i know that all they want is money, its easy to step back and be more critical of the messages they spew.

Masculinity

Well first of all, i think the concept of masculinity as a social construct is very interesting because its so accepted that we never even really question it. Feminism gets a lot of attention because its 'going against the grain' and is always in the forefront of gender debates. Anyone someone mentions gender conflict or movements we, or at least i, always think of feminism. However unlike feminism, masculinity is not something i've ever really encountered in an academic sense, or really sat down to pick it apart. i think the biggest concept that i got was the oz factor, or never letting her behind the curtain. I think this is the mentality that most men feel they have to live up to. It pretty much sums up the common attributes associated with masculinity-never showing emotion, staying cool calm and collected-essentially putting up a flawless facade and never showing anything else. Traditionally i guess showing vulnerability could have been a matter of life/death but i don't get why it has continued to be something so prevalent within our culture. Logically we know that everyone is vulnerable, everyone cries, everyone has emotions so why is it something we have to hide from so often? I liked one quote in particular from the newsweek article "conceiving of masculinity as something to be-a part to play-turns manliness into something ornamental and about as 'masculine' as fake eyelashes are inherently feminine". I think that really gets at the fact that masculinity for most is just a show. The wizard of oz i think is a pretty good metaphor. The image of the wizard represents masculinity-its just a facade, used as a means to an end, and even has typical masculine traits-intimidating, powerful and mysterious. whereas the man behind the curtain represents the reality of what men really are-just people who experience all the same emotions and feelings as everyone else. I think the pressure of having to live up to some unrealistic standard must be really hard. I know as a kid it was social suicide for a boy to cry about something, to them that was the end of the world. Granted it wasn't 'cool' for girls to cry but i mean if it happened, i dont think girls had nightmares about it. Also i think sometimes aggression stems from boys being so frustrated and tightly wound because something is bothering them and they feel like they don't have any emotional outlet so they let it out in a physical way. The whole notoin of rugged indiviualism, picking yourself up by the bootstraps, reinforces the thinking that its weak to rely on others-physically or emotionally. but at the same time, men do rely on each other just as much as women, its just portrayed in a different light. Being truly indivudal and not relying on anyone is seen as strange-so why is there such a stereotype taht only women rely on one another? I'm kind of all over the place with this, i just think the whole 'macho' ideal is such bullshit because its not based on any ounce of truth or reality. However like the newsweek article said, i think masculinity is starting to get a long overdue makeover-the men who can move beyond facevalue masculine ideals and embrace the reality that they are people with emotions and the ability to stay home wiht the kids and cook/clean are now starting to be seen as the ideal man, which i think is awesome. I know from my personal experience that the men who i respect most are those who are vulnerable and embrace the fact that they need other people- they rely on their families and take pride in the fact that their families mutally rely on them. I think that men who try to pretend that they are self-suffficient are very, see-through in a sense. For me anyway, guys i encounter who act like that come off as being extremely immature and arrogant and extremely insecure. they're not comfortable enough with the true 'man behind the curtain' so they put on the wizard front. Overall I think its really cool that society as a whole is starting to recognize and embrace the fact that men should not have to put on that front.

Ecofeminism

The second chapter that I read was on Ecofeminism. This chapter was a little more 'out there' than the others, but equally interesting. Their main train of thought is that females, like the earth are dominated and essentially ruined by men and male concepts. The parallels that they drew between women and the earth are ones that i had commonly heard but never really understood their signifcance. For example, 'mother earth' and girls being 'naturalized' by calling them 'chicks, cows,' and even bitch is really an animal term. This seems harmless enough but when you think about it women are always compared to or categorized with things in submissive positions. We think of domesticating animals and manipulating the world around us to benefit us.Although obviously 'mother nature' can often completley overpower man in general-this still fits into the feminine characteristic of being unpredictable, explosive, and illogical. Although all ecofeminists can agree that feminism and environmentalism are problems that go hand-in-hand, there are many divisions within the group. For example they disagree about whether it is beneficial or harmful to their cause to highlight the connection between females and the earth. Many say that this comparison automatically place women below men and there will never been equality as long as women are placed in this category. however, others believe that embracing the correlations would empower women more. There is also divisions between the idea of deep and shallow ecology-shallow ecology beleives that it is important to protect the earth because humans need it for their survival. Deep ecology says that we should protect the earth solely because of its intrinsic value and not because of its importance to humans. Overall i took ecofeminism to be a very broad concept with many different variations but their unifying idea of feminism and environmentalism being connected did strike a chord with me. In complete contrast with post-modern feminism, i think ecofeminism is too exclusive. Some of their  views were so extreme that it is unrealistic to try for a wide range of supporters. For example this seemed to be the most intensely man-hating chapter that ive come across. Furthering the division between men and women is exactly what they're against but also exactly what they're promoting. My idea of ecofeminism would be more of a mix between postmodern and eco- in that yes feminism and environmentalism are connected but it should and does pertain to everyone since we do all live on the same planet. Ideally i guess what i was thinking of before i read the chapter was that ecofeminism would promote equality for all things-men, women, plants, animals, rocks , grass--anything on the planet. Obviously thats extremely ideal and at this point i think safe to say impossible, but i was just a little taken aback by the extremeness and tangible anger that seemed to be in many of the spokesperson's veiws.

Post-Modern Feminism

So before this class, I never really questioned the idea of feminism, and like Valenti suggested, the term automatically brought all of the typical negative stereotypes to mind. Even after reading Valenti, my opinion was slightly changed but i still wasn't really intrigued by the movement-it just kind of seemed like common sense. However, reading Tong's book has significantly changed how i think about it. First of all I never considered how diverse something as seemingly simple as feminism could be. I specifically read the chapter on post modern feminism. My main concepts from the chapter were that they were mostly concerned with including everyone and avoiding divisions. Their broad definition was that there is no right way to be a feminist. I agree that i don't think there's any one way to do anything, but like the critics suggested i think thats too broad of a statement to actually unify a movement. Inclusion is important but so is action and I don't think they really focus much on action. However, i think they do focus on key concepts that other groups breeze over. The language aspect is one that I think they do a good job of emphasizing. The fact that the concept of gender is so wholly ingrained into our language makes change nearly impossible. Without having the words to describe something, its nearly impossible to explain the problem let alone the solution. Overall I think they have the right idea, and touch on incredibly important topics. but i have to agree with the criticisms in that they lack any real cohesion and it seems to be more of a philosophy than a real movement. However, i think that if incorporated into already solidified movements, they're ideas could be hugely influential.

Week Two-Second

Last weeks discussion has brought up a few different things for me; the concept of agency and discourse mainly caught my attention.
So agency is a way of thinking about power, and having the ability or option to choose and act for yourself? I think, and obviously gender plays a huge part in that. With that we talked about careers and the discussion on maternity leave, and the lack thereof in America really gets me. I think its absolutely ridiculous that women are forced to chose between kids and a career and our workplace condones this forced choice by the constraints on maternity leave and the negative consequences many women face when having children. Many people have the notion that America is the most advanced nation but compared to the Nordic and other European countries we are still way behind on our views on the private/public sector. I think its really pathetic actually that people can deem being a mother or housewife to be any less demanding, useful, difficult, stressful and equally rewarding as a full-time white collar career. Anyone who has ever even babsysat recognizes how difficult it is to raise a child, let alone many, and to still have a career on top of that? Award-worthy. Yet women do it all the time without recognition and all the additional setbacks with regards to less pay, glass ceiling, all that.
In regards to discourse and the narratives we tell about ourselves, I think language is such an interesting concept that I never even really consider. Simply the words that we use to describe everyday common practices are so gendered that it becomes ingrained and hard to even realize until you sit down and really pick it apart. The feminist article made a good point that the worst insult most of the time is feminine related. I dont really know much about the whole language concept, but i think its a really interesting topic that I want to look into more.

Week Two

With regards to the reading, "You're a hardcore feminist, I swear", I had some mixed feelings. On one hand I completely agree with her that being a feminist doesnt automatically mean you adhere to the list of "antis" that she provided, and can be liberating in the sense that you don't have to feel pressured to be the girls on the magazine. Actually I guess I completely agree with what said, it just sort of rubbed me the wrong way. I think growing up in an all-girls household with very strong-minded women I've kind of been born into being a feminist without really realizing it. It was always made very clear to me that my only real focus was to find something in life that allowed me to be completely independent and never ever totally reliant on a man. Having this drilled into my head, I never even really considered some of the roadblocks or glass ceilings that I might encounter because I am a girl. I've always been taught that my success was directly related to my amount, or lack thereof, of effort. I guess the only thing that I really didn't like was how she seemed to be saying 'DUHHH' the whole time-yes it definitely drove her point home, I guess for me it just had more of a condescending rather than empowering feel to it. However regardless of my personal opinion, I realize that most girls, especially internationally, have not grown up in the same borderline man-hating environment that I have and therefore this reading could hit home in a very different way. Overall I obviously agree that gender equality is something that must be acheieved, and yes there has been significant progress but the process should still be in motion.

Week One

So after reading Chapter 6 of Chris Barker's book and then having the discussion in class on Thursday, there's a few things I noticed and thought were interesting. First of all the concept of identity I think is thoroughly fascinating and often overlooked not only in the field of conflict but in everyday life. I agree with Barker in that most times we generalize identity to be some 'universal and timeless core of the self which we all possess'. Inherent in that statement is the notion that identity is unchanging and although everyone has their own unique 'identity', it remains the same throughout their life. This train of thought he called 'essentialism'. I agree with what he called 'antiessentialism' which argues that identity is not some 'constant to be realized' but something that is actively constructed and subsequently changed with every decision and action that we take. In relation to our discussion I thought it was interesting that everyone's 'societal ideal woman' was almost exactly the same. Granted there were some discrepancies and some pushed the envelope farther than others but overall they all hinted at the same blonde bombshell with limited brainpower. I think that furthers the notion that we as a society glob identity into one solid group with rigid and unchanging characteristics. However our group also talked about the fact that there are different 'ideal women', and each of us had very different ideas about what characteristics made a woman 'ideal'. Talking in groups it was good to see that each of us had our own unique concepts of identity and 'idealness' but in general i think the activity did a good job of bringing to light how our society generalizes and solidifies the concept of identity and 'idealness'.