Where is there to go?

After our last class (about religion) I couldn't help but wonder what happens to women when they need a safe place to turn to? I have always assumed that religion or churches or any place of worship would be welcoming to those in need however, from what was discussed in class it made it feel like there would be a lot of women in different denominations that would –if the situation arose– would have nowhere to turn to if they didn't have a husband. It seems that if they are married and then divorce they will not be accepted back into their place of worship. Or if they don't marry or don't follow the specific rules of the religion they will be denied a "real" right to worship. And following those specific rules seem to oppress women more than liberating them.

When Hannah was talking about how she got looked at and judged when she did not follow the correct protocol of wearing a head covering in church it made me recognize how judgmental and offended people get when their rules are not followed strictly. Women's roles in religion or at least the ones we discussed in class seem to be a key factor in what is keeping women in the cage Frye discussed. It seems that oppression of women in religion is just excused as oh, that's just the way it is, or oh, that's tradition, or this is how it was meant to be. But then if there are so many religions that are enforcing this gender stereotyping in the name of religion it will also infiltrate the lives outside of religion enforcing the gender box. Then once this religious stereotype hits the media it becomes sexualized so the "ideal" american woman holds the catholic or Christian values of being a good wife, and supporting her husband etc, and then the sexuilization of the media creates this image of what we imagine as the woman in the boxes we made in class. Does religion need to change for the gender stereotype to change?

Where is there to go?

After our last class (about religion) I couldn't help but wonder what happens to women when they need a safe place to turn to? I have always assumed that religion or churches or any place of worship would be welcoming to those in need however, from what was discussed in class it made it feel like there would be a lot of women in different denominations that would –if the situation arose– would have nowhere to turn to if they didn't have a husband. It seems that if they are married and then divorce they will not be accepted back into their place of worship. Or if they don't marry or don't follow the specific rules of the religion they will be denied a "real" right to worship. And following those specific rules seem to oppress women more than liberating them.

When Hannah was talking about how she got looked at and judged when she did not follow the correct protocol of wearing a head covering in church it made me recognize how judgmental and offended people get when their rules are not followed strictly. Women's roles in religion or at least the ones we discussed in class seem to be a key factor in what is keeping women in the cage Frye discussed. It seems that oppression of women in religion is just excused as oh, that's just the way it is, or oh, that's tradition, or this is how it was meant to be. But then if there are so many religions that are enforcing this gender stereotyping in the name of religion it will also infiltrate the lives outside of religion enforcing the gender box. Then once this religious stereotype hits the media it becomes sexualized so the "ideal" american woman holds the catholic or Christian values of being a good wife, and supporting her husband etc, and then the sexuilization of the media creates this image of what we imagine as the woman in the boxes we made in class. Does religion need to change for the gender stereotype to change?

talk about a box: how to cure a feminist

Found this article from maxim titled "how to cure a feminist" from 2003 the text is kind of hard to read here so here is what the article says..

1. WIN HER OVER
A feminist is just like any other woman: She won’t give you the time of day if you don’t know how to approach her. To prove you’re not part of the dreaded penisocracy, pretend to share her beliefs. But hide your lack of actual knowledge of feminist issues and show her how much you value her opinion by asking intelligent questions: “What must women do to earn equal pay for equal work?” or “Has Gloria Steinem’s marriage hurt the feminist agenda?” or “Did you see Cagney & Lacey on Lifetime last night?”

2. OPEN HER EYES
Don’t just wait for her to think differently—give her some options. Begin by discussing “lipstick” feminism, which is far more moderate than the combat-boot variety. “She can be a girly-girl and still be a feminist,” explains Jennifer Baumgardner, coauthor ofManifesta: Young Women, Feminism, and the Future. “There’s no need to eschew things like shopping, makeup, or boyfriends.” Don’t think she’s ready for a Maxim subscription just yet? Sign her up for Bust, a feminist-lite mag that says women can be independent, strong, and relatively hairless.

3. TREAT HER RIGHT
Once a relationship is established, you should treat a feminist just like you’d treat any other girl you’re interested in, Baumgardner advises. As long as you’re not overbearing, she won’t object to your opening the occasional door or picking up a check. Next, unlock her repressed Malibu Barbie fantasies and buy her a tight tank top with FEMINIST printed on the chest from outspokenclothing.com. Tell her she looks great—but try to avoid phrases like “bodacious ta-tas.”

4. SHIFT HER FOCUS
To preserve any chance of getting your chin buttered, you’ll have to reshizzle her feminist-tinged interests so you can actually spend time with her. “Focus on the things you have in common,” suggests Michele Weiner-Davis, author of The Sex-Starved Marriage. She likes pro softball? Take her to a major-league game. She’s a staunch environmentalist? Go camping. She supports a woman’s right to reject the outdated mores of our male-dominated society? Tell her to get closer to your mike

This step-by-step guide to "curing" feminism is OUTRAGEOUS. It embodies every kind of stereotype in this how to section of the magazine the same girl is depicted first with baggy jeans, no makeup, messy hair, smoking a cigarette, hairy armpits, with her hand on her crotch. The next depiction shows the same girl wearing jeans, sneakers, her hair is brushed and she is showing a little bit of waist line. The real kicker on this one is the speech bubble reading " maybe you're not a bum like my absentee father" Because of course the only reason women would support women's rights or any part of feminism is because she had no real male figure in her life to cause her to think the right way...

It gets better, the next image is of a girl wearing heels, a short skirt, a top that covers only her breasts, her hair is styled in pigtails, and she has her hand in her mouth in a sexual way saying " I think a man completes me..." because how else would a women be able to feel secure or complete about herself unless she had a man to make her feel complete? The last woman is pictured wearing lingerie, heels, with dark makeup, and suggesting that she is about to take off her underwear her speech bubble reads " your Camaro makes me so hot!"

This is saying to the general public that all women who are feminists are hairy, fatherless lives, hate men, and need a man to convince them that they need to stop wearing combat boots and get in touch with their femininity by talking about lifetime and letting men open doors for you.

Pink Guns

WHAT!

Alright. So, I was reading this article for a class about breast cancer awareness and merchandise tie-ins and it really got me thinking about what this means.

First of all I am just going to say that I am in no way against any kind of cancer research or fundraising for research, however, the more I think about this whole thing the more the gendered aspect comes to light. Even on our own campus the dig pink volleyball shirts were a little outrageous with volleyballs on the boobs. Overly sexualizing cancer and taking away the meaning of what the shirts were raising money for. But now they are making handguns that are pink with the ribbon engraved on them. The argument in the article reads, " There are millions of women in America who use firearms for personal protection, self defense and recreation. To suggest that these women would not want to show their support and solidarity for victims and survivors of breast cancer is unfortunate." Because buying a gun for self defense really shows how much you care about breast cancer?

Do guns have to be pink for women to want to buy them?

This is a disease that impacts both men and women but due to the pink color that is shown and seen everywhere our society places a female connotation on the illness.

The Bird Cage

At first when I read this article I did not agree with Frye's notion that women are in bird cages. The fact that there is no way to get out of the cage and no matter what you think, do or say, can keep you out of the cage was something hard for me to grasp. But thinking further it is a frightening truth. Each bar is a different idea or truth of the oppression of women as a whole. If they dress a certain way, there is a bar and that bar is also connected to one that is about not dressing a certain way, connected to a bar about the workplace about education about parenting or peer interactions. No matter how far apart these bars seem to be they all connect at the top of the cage. Like a network. Barriers are not able to be skipped in one way and not another the bird cage metaphor is brought up again looking at the wires like a blockade how they all become connected at the top they are all as equally restrictive

One must look at the idea of oppression like a cage or a structure

Frye calls into attention that when women don't feel like they are living up to their assigned traits that they are not human, there is a notion of feeling unwanted or unreal. To feel as if you aren't a real woman is oppression in itself. She also says that when someone dresses unfeminine it shows to the world that they don't care about themselves. She isn't promoting the idea simply stating that it is the norm. So, the days that I just want to wake up and roll out of bed I am more manly? But what I like most at least at Juniata is that if you dress up or wear a dress people ask you why you look so nice or why are you wearing a dress and make a bigger deal about it. However, in reality wearing dresses is much more convenient than wearing pants and a shirt . Anyway that's besides the point.

I believe that the drive behind all of gender inequality is in the language, the definitions of things. For Frye that is no exception she says, the definition of oppression used to mold things to restrict prevent things motion mobility mold immobilize. in defining women as oppressed that makes it so there will be no chance to mobilize or break out of the mold. I sincerely hope that is not true. However, when one does break from the mold their femininity will be questioned etc. but does that still mean that they are oppressed?

American Media Influence

SSEMPA: Sir, I think that what we do not understand here is, A, in Africa, sodomy is an abomination. It's an abomination to our culture, to our God, and when you do bring sodomy, you practice sodomy, you bring a curse on the nation.

HARRIS: There's a common theory that the people who have the biggest problems with gays and lesbians have themselves struggled with homosexual urges.

SSEMPA: No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

HARRIS: Have you ever?

SSEMPA: That means everybody who fights terrorism is themselves a terrorist. (LAUGHS)

HARRIS: Are you comparing homosexuality to terrorism?

SSEMPA: It is sexual terrorism.

HARRIS: Do you ever worry that you're whipping up hatred in a way that could end up being violent?

SSEMPA: I don't worry about whipping up hatred. Actually, what I worry is that people, like you, who seem to hear what I'm saying, but they don't seem to understand. I worry that networks of televisions are controlled by homosexuals.

here I pulled out a couple of the quotes that were the most interesting to me and the most powerful.

First of all the notion of sodomy being an abomination in African societies and in-turn being an abomination on the entire nation. I understand the religious aspect and how that plays into what is going... well kind of... but I recognize that there are some people that may be offended by the act of sodomy. But what I don't understand is why there is talk of a death penalty if you a a homosexual. Why in a nation full of conflict and death want to be harming anymore of the citizens. Why does what goes on in the privacy of ones own home have anything to do with cursing the nation? Shouldn't the nation feel cursed for killing it's people who haven't done anything except for act on their natural sexual urges?

What about those who use rape and sodomy as an act of systematic warfare? Why aren't they being put on trial or sentenced to death? Why does the influence American's have on this nation have to be so negative?

Another line that I thought was incredibly powerful was the last" I don't worry about whipping up hatred. Actually, what I worry is that people, like you, who seem to hear what I'm saying, but they don't seem to understand. I worry that networks of televisions are controlled by homosexuals." How this message of killing homosexuals is equal to network television. And because there isn't support for this mindless killing than television must be run and controlled by homosexuals. However, it is almost exactly the opposite, network television is primarily run by rich white men

Sex edUcation

Not to dwell on the subject but my sister is so insanely relevant to this class it is almost unreal.

Again I was talking to her not long after the class presentation on sex ed and I was still a little fired up about the whole thing and ideas of how to change and better the system were still flooding my brain. Then, Callie calls and tells me that she is so upset because now her school is implementing sex ed courses for all the students I think once a week - all because of her. I was so excited and started asking her questions about how long the class was, who was teaching it, what was being taught, all the things we discussed in class. Then I took a second and realized she wasn't calling to tell me how great it was but to tell me how frustrated she was with the situation. The class had been started because of her and her "situation".

Should this be something she should be offended by? Personally, I think she should be proud that she is setting a precedent in a place that can hopefully only benefit from a sexual education. I have a slight feeling that they will be taught an abstinence only program due to the conservative nature of the head of the school and the fact that they go to church every morning before school. I can only hope from what I have learned that this will be an honest and educational experience for these kids. I am sitting here debating whether some information is better than no information.

As long as it has the ability to teach the students ways to practice safe sex and the complications involved then I think there is a possibility of positive knowledge.

However, there needs to be a program in which there can be positive open discussion, honest and helpful advice, where students can talk about real issues and questions rather than what the educator is talking at them. I don't think it needs to be broken up into the strict and overlapping columns of abstinence only and comprehensive because those words make people cringe before they even know the truth behind them. Thus, creating a new kind of sex ed with a new name and some of the same ideas could be the beginning of a new and improved version of educating students about their almost inevitable sexual lives