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.