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

Mamaternity

Talking to my sister again today I found out that I am going to have a newborn baby for a month and a half... Her baby is due April 19th and school gets out the first week of June- almost perfect timing yes, however, she gets no maternity leave.

What?

Because her school has less than 50 full time employees they do not have to follow whatever kinds of rules that are in place for mothers and maternity leave. So, whatever time she takes off to recuperate and take care of her NEWBORN BABY will be unpaid. Also, the school does not offer healthcare for the baby either. While she is being unpaid to have a baby she has to take the money she isn't getting to pay for her child's health insurance. It's a small school with limited funding blah, blah, blah I get that but, to she told me that one of her coworkers was in the hospital with pneumonia for over a week and not only was she paid in full that week she was gone anytime she came to school looking a little bit under the weather she was told to go home (she was paid for those days as well).

But, what is even worse and highlights the gender issue or Callie's bosses issues with her pregnancy even more is that one of the male teachers who was married was given over a week of paternity leave when his child was born a few years ago. While a week is not as much as some get, and the fact that paternity leave is even an option is wonderful. However, the fact that this man who did not give birth to a baby was given a whole week off to help his wife who also got maternity leave from her job and Callie's time is all unpaid seems to be a little unfair? outrageous? I'm not sure of the adjective I need to describe how I feel about this situation but AH!

I offered to come and put her in a sleeping bag and push her down the steps(after baby x is born) like she used to do to me, or break her are where she would have to be hospitalized so her time off could at least be paid but she declined that offer. The fact that it has come to coming up with schemes like this so she can be treated somewhat justly is so unnerving.

She is now at a point that she feels like she is walking on thin ice because of her pregnancy that she can't speak up for fear of losing her job or the rest of the respect from those in charge.

Jhallys Dreamworlds

Jhally in his film Dreamworlds II: Desire/Sex/Power in Rock Video, deals with a plethora of issues relating to the depiction of both men and women in rock video, as well as the consequences, and the idea of the dreamworld. Exploring the male adolescent “dreamworld” can be an utterly frightening place; however, this place is unfortunately the one that is plastered over every television screen throughout the nation and even the world. This dreamworld is often times made up of women as the role of a cheerleader, stewardess, maid, librarian, police woman, nurse, or just a stripper – to name a few. The women are there to be looked at when the men stand close by and do essentially whatever they want to the women portrayed in this “dreamworld". Not only does this become extremely disturbing when watched out of context, the fact that it takes it being out of context to make it as disturbing is the most unsettling.

our attitudes are shaped by what we see and the way we treat each other. In other words, when we see things that happen in music videos like scantily clad women being tied up and verbally or physically abused, we are less likely to feel shock because in videos those are most of the images portrayed. These women are being objectified – when they are treated like highly sexualized objects, there is no thought, or care into the actual person or personality they are just an object to be looked at. Often times objectified women simply become fragments, they are reduced to a body part, just boobs or a butt or a nice body

So what, all videos do it, why does this matter? Jahlly argues that in some cases there is nothing wrong with appealing to fantasy nor is there anything wrong with desiring attractive men or women. However, the problem arises when this is the only way women are presented- nothing else. Their only human qualities are the ones that please men and strictly make women sexual beings. Women are presented in this light because it is the high powered men in the business that are hiring porn directors to direct music videos thus appealing to the same senses that are heightened when watching pornography. The one way that women presented is the only pornographic way and that is the only way. Even when female artists create a video they can only use the language of sex that culture allows, thus they are almost forced to take on fantasy roles and for the camera and in turn, the male gaze. While one may argue that there is no one forcing them to perform these actions that is true, however due to the fact that we have become desensitized to the objectification of women it is the only way we have seen them be portrayed. If they want to be successful, female artists have repeatedly fallen into the same trap as those before them. To combat this image, we must first combat the idea of desensitization and take a real look at what is being portrayed in the images that flood the television screens and provide role models for young adolescents.

baby mama drama

So, I'm sure I have mentioned my sister. She is 25 and working in a charter school in Pittsburgh for low income families that do not want to send their kids to Pittsburgh's public schools. She is unmarried and single now and just moved back into our house with my mom and stepdad, this might all seem like a lot of random information however, she called me today to tell me about her day at work. When she told her boss Tom (a large -in every way- and very intimidating and mildly offensive African American man) at school that she was pregnant he was outwardly upset but seemed to get over it rather quickly. He then proceeded to hug her and rub her stomach (which at this point was only 3 months pregnant).

After that weekend Callie had another meeting with Judy the schools other head who provides most of the funding and fundraisers for the school (Judy is 60+, white, catholic, and has an exorbitant amount of money and apparently strong beliefs). In this meeting with both Tom and Judy, all the positive feelings she had were yanked away from her and she was told that she was not allowed to tell any other faculty or student in the building until they "figured out how to deal with her situation". Callie politely explained to them that she has wanted to have kids since she was 4 years-old and while she may not be in the best position she had a family giving her full support and is very confident in her ability to raise a child on her own. None of that seemed to matter. There was talk about bringing in multiple outside therapists to work with the children once they heard the news - to help them deal with the fact that their unmarried teacher was having a baby.

The thing about The Neighborhood Academy is that most of these kids are from broken families where their parents are in jail, they live in single family homes, have possibly a more confusing family structure than I do. They aren't going to care if she is having a child out of wedlock.

I somehow managed to be at school the day that one of the students and in turn the rest of the faculty found out the news. One 10th grade girl approached her in the hall- eyes beaming and just smiled and immediately Callie and I both knew that she knew. She whispered into Callie's ear, loud enough for the other students around to hear, and asked her if she was pregnant. Saying yes this apparently usually cold girl smiled and hugged her. Then my favorite response came "damnn Miss. Callie you gunnaa get fat" I'm pretty sure that was the best thing that could have happened. The next 2 hours was full of Callie telling the faculty and her favorite class about the baby. Most people didn't believe her at first and some of the students said "eww that means TJ (tom) is going to rub your belly".

The feedback from everyone continues to be positive. The kids who were going to need therapy and outside help to deal with the reality of her outrageous pregnancy, have in reality turned into caretakers giving her suggestions for eating healthy and making themselves feel apart of the babies life. They are able to connect to her on a more personal level because many of them have the ability to relate to her. One student came in the other day saying "miss. callie my mom said I have to be nice to you because you are going to have a bastard child just like her"

ANYWAY, this is a lot of information but it has made me look at a lot of different kinds of things. One of them being the hardships Callie is going through just because she is a single pregnant woman. She is literally jumping through hoops to appease her bosses so she can have a decent work environment. Another being the inappropriate advances her male boss is making on her. On top of rubbing her prego belly he has done a number of other things that if the gender roles had been reversed would be a totally different kind of situation. However, because he is a man in power over her she can't do much else other than tell him to stop. And to assume the kids at the school won't understand what it means to be pregnant without a husband makes it seem like everyone should see the world through the middle class "american dream" stereotype. But it isn't even close to the reality that many of the kids are living in. They should be emphasizing the fact the Callie is a successful and responsible adult who has made decisions that will only enhance the life of her baby.

Tough Guise

I know we watched this movie forever ago but I still can't stop thinking about it and finding examples of it in our everyday lives.

The notion that violence is not just an act committed against another person or thing but that it is actually a gendered issue still makes me do a double take when I experience media.

The Jhally video presented some points

men make up 90% of violence

The news reports kids killing kids when in reality it is often boys doing the killing

it is all in the language that is in the media. "3 girls gang banged" as if it was the girls fault.

The idea that masculinity is not natural it's all cultural

media shows that murder is gutsy and daring- when often times it is done out of fear

Manhood= power and control

The notion of being a gangster comes from Italian mob and is emulated by urban black but it does not reflect "black culture" in turn white middle class adolescents emulate this inner city culture making it their own kind of twisted and new kind of culture. For people like my dad who can listen jazz and old rock and roll -songs of slavery and racial troubles- things he himself cannot relate to, but then when there are adolescents listening to biggie smalls or kid cudi there becomes this stigma of "kids these days trying to act black". Where is the line drawn? Why do the boxes of race and gender have to be so stiff in our eyes when in reality they are overlapping and creating each other.

The message throughout the is that violence has become normalized, masculinity is a cultural norm

violence has become sexualized and inturn we have become desensitized

Invisible Children

In Carolyn Nordstrom's article titled Visible Wars and Invisible Girls, Shadow Industries, and the Politics of Not Knowing she looks at the invisibility of children especially girls in wartime aside from the images that are used as political propaganda to demonize the enemy and there are usually only one child depicted and the other girls aren't even mentioned. Nordstrom illustrates her point by providing three stories of girls.

The first was an image of a girl lying on the ground clothed (uncommon for her society and time due to the wartime nature) and looking vacantly at the sky. She had been raped and tortured at the age of 10 during the time of solider occupation and had not talked to anyone about her story.

The Second story was about a girl the same age who was raped by her family. Nordstrom thinks and compares the too- both seem to have the same outcomes- vacant disengaged prepubescent girls. Nordstrom hypothesizes that because in all cultures people believe that violating children is bad that there does not have to be anymore depth in the story. Hearing of a raped girl makes people feel uncomfortable and upset enough they don't need to her any details.

The third story was about a girl who was dumped as an orphan in the hands of men who filmed her having sex with a dog. In turn the dog mauled her and when taken to the hospital she was not able to be saved. In events to follow neither, the government nor the news media did anything to report this story. Other than having the men escorted out of the town no real measures were taken.

To reinforce her point Nordstrom provides bulleted facts about the atrocities of children in wartime.

The reality is is that those girls were not alone in their pain but, they are also not alone in the fact that their problems have been hidden by the media. Their suffering has gone unpublished in the news. There may be every once in awhile a story of children getting raped or tortured during wartime. However, it is usually the assumption that it is from the opposing side not from family members or those producing child pornography. Their stories are invisible so how can there be a change and a conscious effort to take this invisibility away where there is not information about the happenings.

Boys don't cry and Girl's don't fight: Halloween Weekend

Halloween is generally full of oversexed and outrageously stereotyped gendered costumes, this one was no exception.

However, I witnessed some pretty crazy things on saturday night most of which will go unmentioned but one thing in particular struck me. There was a freshman boy (lets call him Seth)who's older brother went here and a girl (lets call her Lily) who was telling him how she always wanted to call him by his brother's name so she was afraid to call him anything at all. After Lily made that comment Seth looked like he was about to cry and then went on to explain how he was sick of being compared to his brother, etc, etc upon hearing this Lily, who happens to be one of my close friends gave him a hug and a kiss on the cheek and told him about how she has an older sister that she feels like she is also always compared to. They talked Seth calmed down and everything was fine until Lily turned around to see two girls dressed as "school girls" staring her down. The smaller of the two approached my friend and said something along the lines of "you just kissed him I can't believe you did that" yelling and accusing Lily (who has a boyfriend) of "flirting" with Seth who the girl had been "sleeping with the past 5 nights". Lily apologized and moved on with her night until she realized that the girls were staring and talking about her so she approached them to talk and the girl responded with "Girl's don't fight, so we aren't going to fight, but you're a bitch"

As an outsider this was a wow moment. I was curious to see how this whole thing was going to go down but then the girls dont fight comment was made and left lily in awe she is the kind of girl that would be ready to fight if she thought people were talking about her with no reason.

So, to be shut down and then called a bitch for attempting to cheer someone up she was needless to say, mildly furious.

This one little 5 minute interaction involved so many different ideas and stereotypes it was honestly, very surreal.

Aint I a woman?

I believe Sojourner Truth's Ain't I a Woman speech to be one of the most awe-inspiring of it's kind on so many different levels. The bravery, valor, and inspiration she showed presenting this speech in front of the crowd she did as well as the historical time made her incredible talk all the more empowering. She took all the information that men at that time had been using to hold women as well as slaves back from gaining status in society and flipped it back on them. My favorite part is that Truth was also kind of going against the feminists present showing that she too was a woman and she wasn't even granted the rights of rights of the women there fighting for more rights. She called on the things women of that time took for granted like being helped out of carriages or carried over ditches - these things today would be considered to some "gentlemanly" while other women would take great offense to this however, that's not the point. The point is that Truth while being a woman and doing more manual labor then most men of that time had no rights but ain't she a woman?

Going along the lines of Valenti Truth uses men to define her womanhood, she shows her muscular arm to prove that she has power and says that no man could head her. Is it bad that she does this? She goes onto talk about the 13 kids she had and how there was no one there for her when she was suffering except jesus.

Her mention of Jesus is what begins the real kicker in the argument religion, where did Jesus come from? All men are born from women? She then goes on to reference how Eve (a woman) turned the whole world upside down and how it has to be the women to flip it right side up again.

Boys Do Cry

In Valenti's article Boys Do cry, she brings to the forefront many things that I believe have been in the minds of many people in our class. She discusses ____ and ____ in doing this she shows how often times men feel affected by sexism as well as women. And it is the job of the feminist to step in and end the same kind of sexism for women.

I love Valenti's point that men are not born to rape or be tougher. Just because men have a testosterone and are on the most part are physically stronger than women means that in our society they must build that strength and use it to prove their "manliness" against women maintaining their power. If from birth men were taught to believe that it was okay to cry and feel emotions outwardly and have fear of bees or soak the grease off pizza (milwaukee's best commercial) would our society be totally different? How would that change things?

Will the change come from the language used to describe men? First we must look into changing the definition of men from the opposite of what a woman is to something that is more versatile, multidimensional, and allows for the expression of self and individuality.

In this article and throughout a lot of other literature there is a lot of focus on men specifically participating in self destructive behavior, drinking, doing drugs, etc. however, what about the female population participating in these activities. From my opinion I know just as many females who like to -often times more than they should- participate in all of these activities. Are these habits ignored because they are not seen as feminine? Why is beer any less of a female drink than a male one? I'm sure that "beer" in that statement could be taken out and replaced with a lot of different words or ideas but Valenti's article brings up several different instances of how men drink and are destructive. Is it just my personal situation that I experience an even amount of men and women participating in these kinds of behaviors?

overall Valenti's article is about changing the message or the lesson that you preach to boys and girls as children to change their perspectives of what it means to be a girl or a boy. The future needs to begin in the new definition of what it means to be a man or a women, a definition that is not about the opposite gender.

Ads: Past vs. today were they any better then?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mathieus/13-vintage-ads-that-would-be-banned-today-8q4

I feel like we are stuck with the idea that nowadays our advertisements are a whole new kind of sexist. However, taking a look at these vintage ads you see that they not only were just as bad they had more words and blatant explanations of how it was a mans world. Is it better that our ads today hold more implied stereotyping and gender stratification?

The ads presented are about things that have nothing to do with men and women, yet, they are turned into male dominated scenes of power and even violence.

The first ad shows a man spanking a woman because she didn't buy the right kind of coffee. On top of that it is the woman's face -looking mildly pleased and shocked- that you see in the ad and the man's raised hand.

Another ad shows a woman on her knees in a robe serving her husband who is fully dressed. The caption above the picture is "show her it's a man's world" it's an ad for ties... today if we see an ad for ties it is usually on a fully dressed man occasionally there are half naked women surrounding him or they are in a sexual/ seductive position implying the same thing that this old ad is but it is better that it is left unsaid?

As for childhood sexuality there is a cosmetic ad featuring what looks like a painting of a 12 year-old child looking at the viewer with a seductive gaze. The ad reads "Love's baby soft. Because innocence is sexier than you think." hmmm. Again, is it better to have 12 year-olds dressed to look like they are older than they are without explicitly stating their age?

The old ad looks as if it appeals to men who are more interested in middle school girls rather than those their own age. Are there any ads like that today?

the rest of the ads are pretty self explanatory and all are shocking devaluing women and reinforcing the idea that "it's a man's world"

While I know these ads were not in as many magazines as we see today and the message they sent did not infiltrate as many types of media as those we see today. But, the idea was there and explicitly stated there was no dancing around the idea that men were (or still are) believed to be better than women.

Has the ad world changed more today just because there are not words explicitly stating that fact that it's a man's world or that it is a woman's job to cook and clean?

It's all in the words

One thing that has weaved it's way in and out of all of our conversations this week is the idea of language at the root of everything.

From using it to define what type of feminists there are, to using it as a tool to change the way the world looks at women, and even to change the way women is described.

Post modern feminists and radical feminists both are saying that in order to liberate thinking and change things on a cultural level rather than a political one that we must first change the way we talk before we can change the way we think.

But how/ what is going to change the way we talk? Where does it all come from and how can you begin doing it? While there are modifications in speech all the time due to generational differences how can we spark one that will change the face of the whole movement? And what do you change?

In chapter 6 of Tong's book about multicultural, global, and postcolonial feminism there is a lot of focus on feminism and who defines themselves as a feminist and what those connotations mean. Often times a feminist is seen to be a middle-class, white, heterosexual, woman from a certain group.

If self proclaimed feminists can't decide on what to call themselves how can there be a shift in the language. In Tongs chapter she also talked about the term "women of color" and how at first some women embraced that term to liberate them and take them away from being placed in categories such as black, brown, or yellow. They embraced this term to show how they were seeking their liberation from their color, the same way feminists embrace feminism to show that they are arguing against the social inequalities. However, many began to question whether the term was oppressing them and placing them in the "other" category. This parallels with the fact that feminist has in some cases garnered such a negative light. Feminists are seen as crazy or all having radical opinions with hairy legs etc. It was never the intention to gain that stereotype, it just all happened because of one word.

So how can we change the language if those who are trying to change it cannot even agree on where to begin or what a proper definition of a word really is.

THE CHAPTER FOUR

This chapter on the Psychoanalytic in Tong brought to light a whole to take on Freudian theories for me. Looking at how a they way women act and how it is all driven from somewhere deep inside their psyche. Tong explores how gender identity, and gender inequality is all due to some apparently troubling early childhood experiences and attachment stages with our parents. Giving the background on Freud his stage and ideals of childhood sexuality, Tong sets the stage to provide information of feminists supporting this role. Freud says that it is harder for a girl to reach "normal" sexual maturity because she must stop loving another woman (her mother) and begin loving a man (her father). Freud says that it is also hard because a female could essentially have too much sex or just give up on sex all together.

Is there a time when males are ever accused of engaging in too much mastubation thus resulting them to "give up on sexuality altogether?"

Freud also says, "their super-ego is never so inexorable, so impersonal, so independent of its emotional origins as we require it to be in men"

thus implying that it is the super-ego - the sense of right and wrong- is what holds women back from being equal to men and it is the id that is driving the women.

The chapter goes on to talk about duel parenting and how that would alter the structures of society and place more emphasis on the father to be seen as a more significant role in a child's life.

Also discussing how boys are forced to reject their mothers because they cannot have sex with them and they do not want to regress back into the state of total vulnerability like when they were in the womb. This is the reason that both boys and girls push away from their mother as they grow, argues Tong.

while the stages of development and Oedipal theories offer information to be learned from they are hard to be taken as hardcore facts in today's society. But, they still offer many underlying themes in the media. So, if Freud is so rejected why are his ideas and thoughts and theories still driving the one thing we like to indulge most in?

Men as Gendered Beings

This text by Kimmel and Messner, while short raised so many important questions and new ideas. They took a new look on gender conflict. Their thesis was that men's public image is all that is seen, but beyond that there is a lot more to be seen and understood. When gender is brought up the word female or feminism is instantly thought of, men often define themselves in a negative way with female traits. However, Kimmel and Messner argue that gender is not a lense in which men view themselves through. Our society is flooded with gender organizing jargon that has become invisible to us yet, it is how we live our day to day lives.

Kimmel and Messner argue that to men gender is invisible, men simply see themselves as human beings or generic people. Whereas women define themselves as women. But even women all can't unite under one umbrella of womanhood. There is a portion of the text that displays how race can be seen as invisible to white women just as gender can be seen as invisible to men. So does that mean white men are struggling with an identity crisis?

In class we discussed how you know that you are a woman because you aren't a man. Wouldn't that be gendering men and giving them the authority and control over gender?

Another notion brought up in this text is the idea of male public roles and how society views men only through those roles. If they were seen through the private roles in the home what impact would that have on they way we view masculinity and men in general?

Disney

We have all heard the horror stories of how racist and sexist Walt Disney is but here is just a little something I stumbled across that shows how the feminist movement has made large strides.

in case you can't read that ... here is the link

http://halucine.soup.io/post/77328149/Rejection-letter-to-a-female-artist-from

the next generation

So, the other day I was babysitting and the 6 year-old girl (child of a professor) who recently began watching the Brady Brunch she was explaining to me the family and how there were 3 girls and 3 boys and their parents and their house cleaner etc. Then she got this look of excitement on her face and said "the mom doesn't even have a job! " As we talked more she made it very clear that mom's always had jobs but this mom was special because she got to stay home and she got paid to do it (not true but that's what she thought). I asked Hannah if she thought that any of her friends had moms that didn't work and she looked at me funny and told me with certainty that all of her friends mom's had jobs and worked for a living. "what would they do if they didn't " was her response. While this is one girl in one small town in one classroom she was enchanted by the idea of a mother not working. So does this mean that there is a change in what the next generation thinks of what a "typical family" should look like? Or is it just a unique situation?

BaBiEs

In a lot of the readings it has been made clear that one of the largest differences between men and women is the reproductive aspect, women can have babies and men cannot. In class we talked about the ability to have children over the choice of adoption and how that would affect the family. What we didn't really touch on was the dirty stuff, the human nature, our internal drives that we try to suppress. It is evolutionarily our nature to enhance and further our gene-pool. Therefore, because men cannot physically have children, they get their wives or other females pregnant thus, extending their genes another generation. Does this mean that when a child is adopted the father or mother does not love the child? I would argue that in some cases strictly due to our human nature that it is harder to invest as much love for a child that does not carry your own genetic material than for a child that does. That is not to say a parent of an adopted child will not love their child to the best of their ability or would love another child more. It is strictly the laws of human nature to want to enhance your gene pool .

What is gender?

I feel like any time gender is brought up we are automatically talking about women or feminism. Does this mean there are no gender issues with men? In Gender and Race by Evelyn Nakano Glenn, she takes the issue one step further claiming that race is the study of men of color and gender is the study of white women. Glenn continues to say that gender provides a look into historical, cultural, and situational definitions of what it means to be and man or a woman. Thus, stating that there can be no one definition for a man or a woman? If each culture is different and each person comes from a different kind or historical background with different baggage that aides in shaping their person, then how can there be such specific "boxes" of men and women? Glenn argues that they are "never fixed", so then what would a socially constructed box of a women look like in 1920, 1950, 1990, 2010, or even 2050?

How would they change? Would there be anything that remained the same throughout those periods? Moreover, what would a socially constructed box of a man look like in those periods, would his profile change drastically over time or would it hold more constant theme?

I would argue that the "box" of a female has made more drastic leaps - for better and worse- than the male. However, that could just be my own constructed version of gender taking over.

Our 2 families

Class on the 9th was one that kind of filled me with a lot of different thoughts. The notion of agency or our capacity to act/ our own free will struck me as something that should be a human right. However, so many women (and men) struggle with what they can do, who has the power, and who makes the decisions. Is this all based on society and what society tells us/ is our agency as people depicted through the media? Frankly, I think that's what it all comes down to. Our values are instilled in us through the airwaves and sound bytes we hear from the television/radio/and even video games. While our families and our environment play a part in who we are, our value systems, etc. it is still Hannah Montana, Mary-kate and Ashley, Fresh Prince of Bel Air that children and adolescents are emulating (random assortment, yes but all have different aspects). One becomes so invested in the lives of these television characters - that more often than not gender stereotype perfectly- that they adopt the values of the fictional characters. I would argue that the agency we have or don't have is determined by what we see or hear in the media. Gender roles become more and more enforced through television like this.

The media is also shaping the way we view families. Very rarely do we see a new television series with a nuclear family. Just the other day I saw a preview for a new series called, Raising Hope, a show about a 23 year-old boy who is now in custody of raising a baby with the help of his family while the child's mother is is prison. While the concept is strange and is definitely challenging the "norm" it is also paving the way for new roles. Yes, the show may succeed due to it's shock value, but like all other television people will become invested in the lives and rituals of the family it is depicting. Therefore, creating, or at least sparking the fire for new kinds of gender roles.

thinkin' of class

The other day when we were talking about gender the question/ statement was raised about women's constant yearning to be like men. We said that women feel the need to be more aggressive and act according to the "male" standard but why are women trying to be like men? What is instilled in us that makes it our values? Why are women not accepted why do they have to be aggressive in the work place but then social settings being aggressive is not acceptable?

Also, when we were making the male and female boxes no one actually knew people that fit those examples, and if they did they were frowned upon. So where do these ideas come from? Aside from the media are these ideals instilled in us in the family or from the television? If a child would not watch TV would he or she still have these same visions of the female or male form?