Gender as a Class

Class is inherent in any kind of social comparison. Ethnicity and sex are both factors that go into the considerations of class. For most of history, women have been considered subservient to men, at least in the sense that men have a higher social status, and women just tag along with whomever they are lucky enough to be attached to through marriage. Women were never expected to do anything beyond making babies, looking pretty, and supporting the husband as best she can.

It seems that among developed countries, America unfortunately lags far behind most of the others when it comes to social equality in gender. While xenophobia is common in humans in general, most countries do not consist entirely of immigrants from all over the rest of the world. The disconnect between “us” and “them” is about as great here as they are in any other culture, but women in most other countries only differ from each other in terms of class, which is not nearly as alienating as race. Differing cultural backgrounds, upbringing, and even appearance can serve to distance feminists of different races more than social status ever could. Banding together to reach a common goal would force women of different cultural backgrounds and upbringings to acknowledge themselves as belonging in a “group” with people they have spent all their lives being told they need to distance themselves from. This intermingling of different cultures does not turn America into a melting pot. Instead, it has become a breeding ground for prejudice. Forced confrontation does not make people more accepting, it just highlights the differences between each group and magnifies the smallest inequality. People feel more comfortable interacting people with a more similar cultural background, and being in close proximation with other races, without getting close enough to think of them as anything more than “others” only serves to widen the gap between “us” and “them”. 

-Naifang Hu

Gender in the Giant of Childhood - Disney

One of the most fascinating aspects that Professor Halberstam mentioned even within the first lecture was the media's influence on children's gender perception through simple concepts such as which colors are designed for which gender. It is not a new concept to me, since the topic seems to be of much discussion in multiple courses especially within academic settings. One company that has a particularly large influence on children is Disney, and they partake widely in the painting of gender norms.

In specific, I would like to address the topic of Disney princesses. Many girls declare their dream profession to be a "princess." This does not come as a surprise, since most of the Disney movies that involve princesses, they are usually the characters that get treated most kindly. Examples that I am talking about range from Snow White to Beauty and the Beast, Cinderella, and, even lately, Tangled. Over and over again in the movies, the audience gets shown a somewhat disadvantaged girl who waits for her prince charming to arrive one day to make her life better by living easily ever after in the arms of a cartoon equivalent to Zac Efron.

Therein lies the problem - the female character always seems to be waiting for a prince to stumble along and choose her. Rarely, very rarely is the plotline that a prince is waiting for the perfect princess to come along. Instead, if the story is from the prince's perspective, he goes across the country to find the perfect princess. The prince gets to do the active choosing, while the princess does the passive waiting and hoping. And somehow the message is so slyly built into the plotlines that even parents have a hard time realizing the subconscious messages passed onto their children, often not intended by the parents.

There is a disclaimer, though. Disney is not the only culprit in this dilemma. Many other film makers, such as Dreamworks (Shrek, anyone?) partake in this societal brainwashing. Furthermore, not every children's movie focuses on gender roles in such a way. As a matter of fact, children's movie makers are now starting to give more control to the feminine gender and even start playing with gender expression within movies (such as Toy Story 3 - Pixar seems to have guts!). All in all, it is a complicated issue to think about as a parent - should one let children watch such classic childhood movies and risk instilling values in them that one does not necessarily want to plant in young minds, or should one avoid all of those movies and risk having the child be out of touch with a firmly established classic cultural aspect within society?

P.S. This post was inspired by a colleague Christine Weitbrecht through her discussion on Tangled - http://www.neontommy.org/news/2010/11/tangled-successful-revamp-classic-disney-formula

"The Next Battle" woman in military

The Next Battle

The question of trans service could be getting a big boost with the focus OutServe has decided to give it

by Chris Geidner
Published on January 29, 2012, 8:20pm | Comments

The new issue of OutServe Magazine, which is available online and at select military bases and outside of certain installations across the world, takes on what it calls ''The New DADT: Transgender Service.''

One of the six current or former servicemembers who are transgender and profiled in the fifth issue of OutServe's publication, who goes by Bryan in the article to protect his identity, says, ''I want to speak out about it because I know a lot of people are not going to, and I feel like for anything to change … a group of people are going to have to step up to the plate and talk about it … like people did during the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' repeal.

OutServe Magazine cover, Jan/Feb 2012

''I want to be part of that so maybe one day I can … serve openly, and so other people can.''

Sitting down with Metro Weekly for an extensive interview shortly before the issue's publication, Bryan says, ''It's obviously a very personal issue for me, being identified as trans male, and serving in the military. The military is near and dear to my heart. I love it a lot. I would like to be able to stay in the military and [would] like to have a full 20-year career, and I want to do all these things that I know probably won't happen because of the policy that forbids trans people to serve openly – or to serve at all, really.''

Jonathan Mills, a staff sergeant in the Air Force, serves as the executive editor of OutServe Magazine. He tells Metro Weekly that ''after the smoke cleared'' from the repeal of ''Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'' which took place on Sept. 20, 2011, the ''common sentiment echoed by our staff and members was, 'When are we gonna start pushing the T of LGBT?'"

''At the last editorial board meeting, it was decided this is the time to start focusing on this," Mills says of the planning for the issue about to be published. "Even though this might not be the politically advantageous time to introduce it, it's important for us to do this.''

Katie Miller, the former West Point cadet who resigned over the discrimination she faced under DADT, wrote the OutServe Magazine article. ''I knew Katie was a great writer," says Mills, "but once I got the piece, I was blown away. She did such a great job, and I'm so proud of everyone who was involved in this specific article.''

Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, was happy to see the attention paid to the issue by OutServe.

''I'm delighted that OutServe is anxious to do great trans work,'' she says. ''I think it's really great that OutServe cares and is very concerned about the fact that there is a group of LGBT people who are still exposed to persecution and prosecution.''

Of securing out trans service equality, Keisling notes, ''I think there's some reticence from a lot of the groups to bringing this to the Defense Department while they're still working on a lot of things with 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' repeal. But, the Pentagon can do more than one thing at a time, so it's a real shame.''

For the 20-year-old Bryan, the article is coming out three years into his military service.

''I enlisted in the North Carolina Army National Guard when I was 17 years old," he says. "I was a junior in high school. Growing up, I always knew I wanted to join the military. My grandfather was a Marine. That's all I ever heard about, was World War II, the Marine Corps, the military.''

When Bryan enlisted, though, he identified as lesbian.

"I had come out as lesbian when I was 16 years old," he says. "I always knew though -- even coming out as lesbian -- I still knew there was something more there. It wasn't just who I was sexually attracted to -- who I liked -- it was who I was. And I discovered that more and more and more.''

Nonetheless, identifying as a lesbian at the time, Bryan went to basic training the summer in between his junior and senior year of high school, then went back to finish high school, then to the Army's advanced individual training for military police.

''I graduated from there October 2010, so I've been a fully qualified MP for a little over a year now, been enlisted for over three. February will be my three-year anniversary,'' he says. ''I haven't gone to Iraq yet, haven't gone to Afghanistan. Just been doing my one-weekend-a-month drills and we do our two-weeks-over-the-summer annual training. I'll probably, of course, go to Afghanistan sometime in the near future.

''I discovered [I was trans] when I was at military police school," he says. "I was at MP school from August through about October 2010. I cut my hair off within the first two weeks of being there. My hair was really, really long – tight curls, past my shoulder, my entire life – and I cut it to how short it is now, super short, crew cut, buzz cut.

''The military's really, really gendered," he continues, "and it's really segregated by gender, which is another huge problem. So, just being in female barracks, constantly being around females -- it made me more aware of my gender and how uncomfortable I really, really was in this whole situation. So, toward the end, a couple of weeks before graduation, I told a couple of my really close friends – I wasn't sure I was 100 percent male, but I knew I wasn't female. So, I started telling my friends, 'This isn't me, who I am. It's really hard for me. I feel more male identified than anything.' And they were like, 'We already knew this. Why are you telling us? No big deal.' So, that was a sigh of relief.

''It's actually funny that the military made more aware of my gender. But, at the same time, I can't be who I want to be because of the military.''

Transgender service is not allowed, Bryan says, for two reasons. ''You can't be transgender and in the military because it's considered a medical disqualification on the basis of the hormones and the surgery. They just assume trans people have 'the surgery.' And then, there's a psychological disqualification because they see it as having gender identity disorder.

"Even if you haven't been formally diagnosed with gender identity disorder, if they find out that you're cross-dressing or that you identify as trans in any way, they can discharge you under the basis of gender identity disorder.''

Bryan is, in a sense, optimistic that the circumstances can change more quickly than they did for out LGB service. ''One of the reasons why 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' took so long is that it was a federal law," he says. "The thing about trans military service is, there's not a federal law, signed by the president, on the books -- it's simply a regulation by the Armed Forces. We're not going to need to go through that drawn-out, legislative process. The drawn-out process is going to be in education and in convincing the Armed Forces that it's okay for trans people to serve openly.''

That, however, is in theory. In practice, Bryan notes, ''I got a $20,000 enlistment bonus, so if I was to be discharged under GID or any other clause for me being trans, I would have to pay back my bonus, lose my education benefits, lose my health benefits, pretty much lose everything that I've gained the past three years and that I've worked for the past three years.''

NCTE's Keisling concurs, telling Metro Weekly, ''It's an outdated, unneeded, discriminatory policy, but it looks like [Defense Department officials] are going to make us jump through hoops and throw a lot of good people out. There are going to be a lot of people who are going to get hurt. But justice prevails -- after we beat each other up for a while.''

"I wish things would change tomorrow," Bryan says. "I wish tomorrow I could wake up and be like, 'I'm trans in the military. I identify as male.' I want to conform to male [physical fitness test] standards. I want to wear a male Class A uniform. I wish it was like that. I could do infantry. But it's not, and I realize that. As hopeful as I want to be, as 'yeah, wishful thinking' [as I want to] think, yeah … when you see how slow the process of policy works, [you see] policy takes a really long time.''

Bryan saw some of that, interning in fall 2011 for Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. ''It was a really great time to be there … right in the midst of the repeal," he says. "It was hard for me, personally, because I knew I still couldn't serve openly, but it was really rewarding being on the team, being a part of the process. I know people in the military, obviously, who are gay, lesbian and bisexual, so it was still really rewarding for me to know that I was helping them to be able to live out their dream, be able to live out there life, but it still hurt because I know -- in my personal opinion, I don't think trans military service is anything we're going to take down any time soon.''

Bryan's contract with the military runs out in three years. "As it stands today, if my contract ended today, I wouldn't re-enlist," he says. "Not because I don't love the military, not because I don't want to serve my country, because I do. But because, at the same time, I want to be who I am, I want to fully transition, like, live my life.''

He looks up. ''Think about it. It took how many years to repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'? And LGB issues are a lot less taboo than transgender issues. And the American public is a lot more educated on LGB issues than they are on transgender issues -- and this really all has to start with education. Not just about what it means to be trans in the military, but what it means to be trans, period. Even a lot of LGB Americans – let alone straight, cisgender, heteronormative Americans – don't know anything about the real transgender community.''

Keisling says this issue of OutServe Magazine — and Bryan's participation in the article — could play a big part in that.

''Just as important as advancing the policy conversation, this article is going to be seen by lots and lots of military people who are going to start coming out," she says. "This article is going to be a moment of awareness for a lot of folks. You can't put things like this back in the closet.''

Of his aim for the article, Bryan says, ''I just hope that people realize that we are out there. This is a real issue for us and our lives. We're very underground and secretive, obviously, because we could lose everything, but we're out there. A lot of us … would love to serve 20 years, would like to keep getting the benefits, would like to keep doing the job we're doing.

''I love being able to say I'm in the Army, being able to say I'm an M.P., love the training I do, the camaraderie I've built. I just want people to know we're out there serving our country, just like any other soldier – straight, gender normative, gay or lesbian, whatever. It's tearing soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines apart. It's tearing us apart as a family and as a community, and it's really detrimental to our lives.''

the original article   http://www.metroweekly.com/news/?ak=7010

Nike ATHLETE campaign

On 24th of August 2007, Nike Inc. launched its multiplatform campaign titled “ATHLETE” as an effort to promote the awareness to respect female athletes and judging them based on their athletic abilities. This campaign featuring world-class athletes such as Mia Hamm, Gabby Reece, Picabo Street and Serena Williams took on a variety of forms including broadcast television, billboard, print and digital destination. In particular two video clips designed to be broadcasted on television and internet, women athletes were seen stepping on top of an elevated platform and voicing out their thoughts over a large “voice-amplifying” cone, in which they display dissatisfactions over the common society bias that female athletes are not as good as men.

This bias exists in all kind of sports, where female athletes receive less viewership and concern from the society. For example, televised WNBA games are played during a shortened summer season by players make ten to twenty times less than their male counterpart. The scenario is worsen when the television coverage of female athletes is inconsistence and somewhat non-existent most of the time as media focus mainly on the games played by male athletes. In fact, the usage of elevated platform and large “voice-amplifying” cone in the videos metaphorically suggests the “lack of existence” of female athletes compared to male athletes in the society and the deficient of interest towards them. This only suggests that female athletes are not valued as much as male and thus in need of a platform to change such perception. In this case, Nike Inc. had provided them a connecting bridge between them and the society as an effort in making their performance and efforts spent in sports make known to public.

relationships and gender roles

This past week I started to think about the relationships between people in committed relationships. And it made me wonder if someone in the relationship has to be subordinate to the other. Does one have to be more assertive or more logical rather than emotional? In all types of relationships you see people trying to morph themselves into a mold of what they ought to be.

 Could we have relationships where there were no roles to be played? It seems like in our present society that would be pretty far off. I don’t even know how we would get out of this mind frame. But I guess it would start by having the conversation in the first place. Which takes place in classes like the one we are taking now.

I think we are moving in the right direction in this country. Now more than ever people are being able to be themselves without that added pressure of being forced into a mold.

Female Role Models in Japanese Anime

I just read an article Disney, Miyazaki, and Feminism: Why Western girls need Japanese animation by Christine Kraemer（http://inhumandecency.org/christine/miyazaki.html）, in which the writer includes an interesting fact that although America has a more obvious tradition of feminism, we find stronger female role models in Japanese anime than in American animation. This is a surprising contrast, especially when you take into consideration all the efforts America women have made to fight against sexism, and that Japanese women are historically facing more oppression from public. It is true that in American culture more positive female characters have been created in respond of women's liberty movements, but neither Mulan nor Indian prince Pocahantas can entirely free themselves from the men-oriented society.

Unlike female roles in Disney who struggle to be leaders or show the potentials of leadership, women in Miyazaki's films are natural leaders themselves. In Japan anime has become a medium of artistic expressions, and it has a wide range of audience from children to adults. This may partly account for the difference in portraying female roles between Disney and Miyazaki. In America animation is still a genre mostly target at children and teenagers, resulting in a more conservative and even simplified way in shaping characters; while in Japanese anime, women characters are tend to be less stereotyped, and wider range of audience makes it possible for pioneering individuals to convey their own ideas towards feminism without considering target audience. More social and historical reasons may as well contribute to the fact, and feminism in animation is an interesting topic that I may continue to keep my eyes on.

The "Womenless" Film Industry

In Hannah McGill's article, Gender Bias in Hollywood, being amused by her DVD company's Christmas gift which only contains men's skin products, she points out the limitations of the mainstream film industry regarding its gender bias. Women in mainstream films that are recognized as "successful" or "popular", as she notices, are usually either insignificant characters or stereotypically categorized to be "...pregnant, preoccupied by domestic chores, or both."

Referring to almost every film that comes up in my mind, I can strongly relate to her upset about this situation and am quite surprised at how I didn't pay attention to this trend. Indeed, despite some progress that has been made, the film industry is still a male-dominant industry in every way. Women in this industry serve specific purposes, and almost every one of them is to contribute to a men's story. Only in those clearly labeled as "feminist" films would women become the center of the story and actually be depicted as independent individuals. The problem is, these films have always been considered as different and as the minority. Film being a powerful mass media and a highly influencial art form, is both an evident reflection and a major determinant of the society's stand on gender. Judging from the current status of the film industry, we still have a long way to go eliminating gender bias.

Gender Cues

I recently read an article about the process through which children learn about genders and identifying themselves with their genders. So as young children, we often search for cues about gender that provide the answer to who should or should not engage in a particular activity, who can play with whom and why girls and boys are different. The assumption from cognitive perspectives suggests that children are actively engaged in the search for ways to find meanings in and make sense of the social world that surrounds them. In doing so, they look for gender cues given by the society to form interpretation of what they see and hear. From this newly generated knowledge, children develop expectations about other people and draw personal standards for behavior. For instance, girls should have long hair and boys should have short hair. This process is rather instinctive than taught by elders. Once we have gained enough knowledge about the distinctions between male and female, we develop stereotypes about gender that we then apply to ourselves. For instance, girls have long hair and boys have short hair. So in genderal, gender identification plays a significant role in our psychological development at a young age and enhances our learning of the world and ourselves.

However, I feel that such identification consequently directs us to the social norms that limit our freedom of choice. Identification with one gender group actually gives children motivation to be similar to other members of their group and increased preferences for members of their own groups. As a result, children experience growing selective attention to and memory for information relevant to their own sex and increasing interest in only things suitable for their sex. Moreover, experimental studies also conclude that: “they pay more attention to and remember more information relevant to toys they believe are appropriate for their own gender group than to toys they believe to be for the other sex”. Because of this natural loyalty that we have towards our gender groups, we feel a strong obligation to behave and act in certain ways and stay within those boundaries. Overall, while gender cues are necessary for one’s development, they are built upon gender stereotypes and social conventions that isolate a female world from a male world. Gender identity helps us to make sense of the world, as default rules for coordinating relations with others. Nonetheless, it is a “diffuse background identity” that acts to regulate and control our behaviors and actions in alignment with social expectations. In that respect, gender identity restricts our freedom of choice. In our society, social conventions, religious and cultural beliefs continue to dictate our freedom to pursue our will and give rise to discrimination that, in turn, pressure us to conform with the prescribed norms.

Can Feminists Be Christian?

An article on the Guardian Online written by Kristine Aune, “Feminists can be Christians, too,” talks about an interesting subject, especially for those with background on the relation between feminism and Marxism. Looking at the title of Aune's article, at first, it seems hard or somewhat absurd for feminists to be Christians or to have faith in organized religions because many religious institutions historically functioned as consolidators of traditional role of women in society and/or set standards for desirable behaviors depending on different sex. Like Aune, I personally think it would be possible for a feminist to be Christian if one allowed oneself to personalize Christianity.

As implicitly shown in the article, personalization of Christianity seems to be a key here. In other words, one may not to be able to be a feminist while being a devout follower of conventional sects of Christianity due to their strict teachings and doctrines that could possibly interfere with typically more liberal or radical, feminist principles concerning women’s role. By allowing oneself to personalize Christianity, however, one can interpret the Bible in one’s own way, making it possible for the interpretation to be compatible with feminism. This seems to be able to help a feminist relate to Christianity in a lesser compromising way.

2 different, yet similar ideologies

Before I read articles about Marxism and Feminism, or Marxist Feminism, I was actually unsure of what the two terms exactly meant. After reading several articles, now I have a better understanding of the two terms. Marxism not only set the base for the foundation of Communism, but also advocated a classless society. Marxism defined the period when nations may face revolutions: when the nations are industrializing nations. Marxism's ultimate goal was to make all the human beings equal. Feminism is an organization(?) that struggles for more rights for women. Since the past, men, in general, had more rights than women. As a result, women were working to expand their rights and ultimately to be equal to men in terms of power, opportunities, and what not.
The two terms, Marxism and Feminism, are similar in that both wanted equality, even though in different definitions. That's probably how a combined term 'Marxist Feminism' was established. Furthermore, feminists often incorporate Marxism ideas and examples to support their view points. Prostitution is one of  more controversial terms. Some say that prostitution is a wage labor, while some others say that prostitution is an independent service. Prostitution, as Marxist feminists say, takes away spiritual qualities of people, even though prostitution may be just one of many labors. Since labor takes away the spiritual qualities, prostitution was and is still a very controversial labor. Marxism advocates the division of labor; everyone does some kind of labor and is ultimately equal to all, in terms of the work he or she does and the earnings (the kinds of jobs people have and the earnings determine people's classes). Since Marxism says all people do same amount of work and get same earnings, people will eventually live in classless societies. Classless society is what women also wanted, as gender, in the past, somewhat determined people's classes as well.

Switch of Traditional Gender Roles

In today's traditional gender roles, it is usually very unusual to see a stay at home dad and a working mother. The main reason for these stereotypical gender roles for society would be human’s innate want for the male sex to be the dominant sex. In this way, the men feel like they have to control many aspects of female’s lives, which also includes making the money for the family. They want to be the sex who makes the money in order to be the one who is in charge of the finances and the household stability. When people in society see those traditional gender roles switched, with the woman making the money and the man staying at home, it does not make sense in their mind and they usually do not agree with it.

This switch of gender roles has taken place with my friend’s uncle. He is not married and has no children but about ten years ago, he became the guardian of two of his sister’s children because at the time she was not able to take care of them because of her drug abuse problems. Because he is also a homosexual, many people thought that he was not fit for raising the two children. He did not work because he was slightly disabled but he was the only one who fed and cleaned for the children as they grew. When I first met him, I was confused because he was always in the kitchen and cleaning the house and at the time, I was used to seeing females in the kitchen. This switch of traditional gender roles was something new to me but I eventually realized that no matter what the sex of the individual is, they are always capable of doing anything they set their minds to.

Occupy Valentine's Day?

Valentine’ s day is just around the corner and already we can walk into any store and be bombarded with pinks and reds. I can admit to the fact that I was once brainwashed into liking and enjoying the materialistic aspect of this “holiday”, however I think my view on Valentine’s day has evolved a bit more. My position on this “holiday” is rather mixed. While I am in a relationship, neither one of us feels pressured to cave into the commercialization. But we can both appreciate it as a day to celebrate (all kinds of) love and friendship.

I recently stumbled on a blog post on feministing.com (link here: http://feministing.com/2012/01/26/occupy-valentines-day/) that takes the Occupy ideology and applies it to Valentine’s day. “The language of occupying gives us a critical moment to radically re-envision the kind of world we want, romantic and otherwise.” This re-envisioning of Valentine’s day includes battling against commercialization, heteronormativity, and exclusion. Why is it that this “holiday” is one that limits the appropriate and authentic ways to express love and affection? No one should have the ability to police the relationships of others and determine whether or not certain relationships are valid or invalid. The blog post advocates for us to “Occupy Valentine’s Day” because “Celebrating love is a beautiful thing but shouldn’t depend on if we are in a relationship or not, our sexual orientation, our class background, our citizenship status or our marital status.” I know I’m not going to buy into Valentine’s day celebrations, but I think I can hop onto this “Occupy Valentine’s Day” wagon if its intentions are real. 

Unchanging Roles in Society

One of the things that got to me from the readings was the assumption of who gets to play what part in the world. Who got to decide where the women’s sphere or men’s sphere should be and why? Looking at the people that surround me, I came to the notion that these roles in society are influenced from generation to generation. Coming from a patriarchal society, that’s the way it was construed. Men wanted to have the power and one of the ways to do so was to take over any form of independence that a woman could have, and so they locked them in the house and condemned them to work in things that if applied to the workforce, would be considered worthless. An interesting observation is that most of the children are predisposed this notion as they grow, depending on how their family plays the roles of men and women.

In my friend’s family, for example, the concept of machismo rules and so the father is the authority figure. Whenever there’s something to do that involves washing dishes and cooking, her mother orders her to serve her brother. Rare are the times that her brother actually serves his own plate. Because of this, her brother grew up with the notion that he should not do certain things around the house and has adopted his father’s machismo. When I perceived this, I found it a bit strange because I was not raised like this at all. Although my grandparents, uncles and aunts live their life like this without complaining, I find it hard to comply. Ever since I was small I saw both my parents share the work, in and out of the house. Both would have a job, take care of us, cook, and so that’s the way I think about the roles in society. I believe that they are shared and that no one has the right to decide on who gets to do what. No one of the sexes is better than the other, but sadly this unbalance is subliminally seen in the movies we watch as in Chicken Run when no one would pay attention to Ginger until a male figure, the rooster called the room to attention. And when a woman does happen to take the lead as in the marriage between the farmers, the woman is seen as evil in her ambition to profit more from her farm. And sadly that’s how it still is as long as generations keep on passing on their oppressive lifestyles to their children. Women will always be seen as a worthless dreamer as in Ginger’s case or independent and mean as in Ms. Tweedy’s case.

Marriage: Who is the “right” person?

People fall in love and marry. What if the marriage is not between the same cast and race? What if the marriage is between the same genders? Is marrying the right thing then? Society has put down some norms, which everyone must follow. But some people chose to go against these norms and face the consequences.

Elton John, a famous music artist, chose to declare his sexual preference and go public with his marriage. He received a huge public response, some negative and some positive. Mostly negative. Moreover, when he tried to adopt a child, he could not do so because of his marital status. He suffered the consequences. However, Elton John is a wealthy personality; he need not worry about his future. But people, who are not as well of, have to think about their reputation, family and society before they get into any alliance with the not so appropriate partner.

If such is the society we live in, then why does the word freedom exist on our constitution?

Gender Discrimination in the work place

          The gender gap at work is still alive and well according to new research that examined gender roles in the workplace.
          The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics cites women working 41 to 44 hours per week earn 84.6% of what men working similar hours earn. It gets worse as women work longer hours — women working more than 60 hours per week earn only 78.3% of what men in the same time category earn.
          Dr.Elisabeth Kelan, Ph.D., from King’s College London found that workers acknowledge gender discrimination is possible in modern organizations, but at the same time maintain their workplaces to be gender neutral. The author notes “gender fatigue” as the cause for workers not acknowledging that bias against women can occur.
          People think that gender discrimination happened sometime ago and will nto happen again in the near future. They expect women to get over the discrimination and move on with their jobs saying that such discrimination will not happen again. however, this discrimination has been going on for a long time and no one is doing anything to stop it. Individuals tire of acting upon gender discrimination in spite of the fact that incidents of gender bias either occurred at one time within their organization or could occur again. This "laziness" on the part of individuals makes gender discrimination a hard topic to address. "Gender Fatigue" should be overcome to ensure equal job opportunities and equal pay for all.

         

Albert Nobbs: A Look into Gender in Irish Society

            The much-nominated film Albert Nobbs explores gender in the early 1900s, with attempts to break gender stereotypes leading to a prison of a new sort. Starring Glenn Close as the eponymous butler at a posh Dublin hotel, the titular character is a biological female who dresses as a man with the eventual hope of gaining financial freedom and owning a shop. Having played this role for a few decades, Nobbs is the perfect butler, attuned to the desires of the patrons without revealing any of his/her own sentiments. Albert has dreams of owning his own shop, with a lady working at the counter, but Irish social restrictions dictate that the woman working can only be his wife. Thus, Albert sees himself forced to marry a woman in order to fulfill his dream.

            The eponymous character of this film attempts to break certain walls of society; however, she unintentionally creates a new prison for herself as she is forced to maintain the role of a man. Albert cannot even fulfill his dreams without upholding the norms of Irish society, especially the fact that the woman who works for him must be his wife. This film is a great example of gender stereotypes, particularly how women are dependent upon men and the emphasis placed upon marriage, concepts that link to the readings we were assigned this past week. Aside from marriage, the female Nobbs would be unable to achieve financial liberation; thus, she feels forced to take the persona of a man in order to survive on her own.

            

Thoughts on Halberstam's Match Point

Recently, i read an article titled " Match Points?" written by Halberstam. It explores femininity from the context of both class and race in society.
According to Halberstam,double standard exists in sports around male and female behavior. It exists because female athletes are limited with the normative standards of female beauty-femininity. They are not suppose to display excessive masculinity and are expected to behave gently like a typical lady. For example, Serena Wiliams was given a point penalty because she directed words of disbelief to the judge who said that she was threatened by Serena. However, on the other hand, male tennis player- McEnroe’s cry of disappointment was viewed as passion, proving him a ‘human’ player who can emote.
Moreover, the omission of Williams sisters from the 2009 Australian Open’s ‘list of the 10 most Beautiful Women’ signifies the treacherous path walked by female athletes who are bounded by normative standards of female beauty and the beginning of racial judgment in sports. Williams sisters were perceived as not feminine due to their “masculine” physique. Acceptable femininity is of opposition to athleticism, activity and aggression where female athletes should not display too muscular bodies, in which the Williams sisters did. The racial tension also co-exists in this case as the sisters are blacks , thus face greater pressure and implicit suspicion and disdain due to their superior performances in sports. Ironically, Melanie Oudin, a nineteen year-old blond pony tailer has been discussed as ‘Cinderella’ figure saving the US women’s tennis, signifying the return of tennis to whites while consigning Williams sisters as the ‘ugly sisters’ though they have contributed much in this sport.

Hooters: An Experience That Truly Brings Out The O_O Look

Last evening, I had the opportunity to dine at a Hooters Restaurant. The last time I went to Hooters was with my Boy Scout troop when I was 12. Naturally, I had much more of an interested perspective on Hooters from a scholarly point of view this time around. I couldn't believe that here, gender stereotypes were emphasized to the borderline point of
ridiculing them.

As I walked into the establishment at 11:00pm on a Thursday evening with a male friend of mine, we were two of about a total of 15 men in the restaurant. One other dining group had a woman with them, who was obviously working towards embodying the "perfect model" look that our society values so much in women. In the background, "Barbie Girl" was blaring, and almost every square inch on the wall seemed to have a tv on it. There were more screens showing basketball than people in the restaurant. The waitresses were dressed in extremely short orange shorts, with short sleeved, low cut shirts with the restaurant's slogan of "Delightfully tacky, yet unrefined" written across the front. That seemed to definitely be the theme of the evening.

As we ordered drinks, my friend was asked whether he would like his beer to be "man-sized". That was such a necessary affirmation of his masculinity. When we ordered the buffalo wings (since everyone comes to Hooters only for the wings, right?), we were asked whether we would like to have them breaded or naked. Every single item on the menu seemed to be aimed towards playing with a straight male reader's fantasy. For me, it was astounding that not every person in the place wasn't either repulsed by all of this, or bursting out laughing at this joke.

It's easy to be caught up in a university atmosphere where equality between genders is not even drawn into question. At least in classroom settings, one would be scorned at by the rest of the class if one were to make a comment that would indicate that one seriously believes that one sex is better off than the other. Sexualizing one gender is kept at a controlled level, since such sexualisation of someone reduces their scholarly credibility. That is why it can come to such a drastic shock when one steps out of such a controlled environment into a world that seems to have neglected any progress society has made since before the suffrage movement. Hooters seems to treat its female employees as sexual objects rather than people, and makes no effort to hide that fact. Customers frequent the venue with such expectations, and as long as one knows what one gets themselves into when entering a Hooters Restaurant, all is at peace. Yet it is frustrating to see that some people who act in a certain way in the workplace or at a university can so easily switch roles and go back to more deeply engrained habits and beliefs. One can only hope that society will come to a point one day when Hooters and other similar forms of entertainment for men are seen more as a parody than a serious money-making business.

Flipping Sexes

Lately I have been watching reruns of sex and the city. On one episode it talked about ones sex and really brought up how gender roles play a huge part of our everyday lives. The episode was called "boy girl boy girl" and it raised the question if flipping ones sex was the wave of the future. In the episode you have Charlotte who is the more Conservative character hosting an art exhibit which is showing photos of "Drag Kings". Drag kings would be women who dress up as men facial hair and everything. To cut to the chase the artist had Charlotte pose for him dressed as a business man. It seemed like the minute she put the sock in her pants she instantly became more aggressive and her sex drive went through the roof. It was like she got an instant shot of testosterone she could not resist the photographer and had to have him as soon as possible. It was like she had been instantly freed from all of the constraints of being a women. This made me realize how in many ways men are a lot more free to act aggressive or be promiscuous. I wish it was that easy to see how it is to be the other sex, I have always been curious on what it would be like to be a man. Not so much the anatomy of a man but the way society treats you and what is expected of you in general. To have sayings like "boys will be boys" cover my crazy actions it seems like a weight would be lifted off of my shoulders. This episode really made me stop and think which made me love the show even more.

Raising Awareness? How?

Women in this current age are often seen as delicate creatures that are incapable of fending for themselves, and are in continuous need of help from men to sustain our existence. This widespread stereotype is very dangerous, not only for the women of today, but also for the future generations of women still to come. Women have shown a remarkable ability to adapt to very hazardous situations because society deems it “normal”. An example of a hazardous “normal” situation would be allowing oneself to continually be in a relationship with a man who shows obvious signs of abusive tendencies. It is permissible for men to behave in an abusive or semi-abusive way, because men are taught that aggression is an acceptable means of venting ones stresses or any other emotion on the negative side of the emotional spectrum. In reaction to their partner’s negative emotions, women, through our mystical femininity, are supposed to be able to soothe, care for, and allow our male counterparts to express themselves in such haphazard ways. Yet if a woman shows the slightest sign of vulnerability or anger, through means of tears, or yelling, we are raving lunatics.

            Obviously, since there are undergraduate courses in colleges all across the nation dedicated to social injustices, especially the injustices women face because of gender stereotypes and social norms, this is an important issue to bring awareness to. Since so many women are labeled as hormonal, therefore irrational, it is hard to get the message of inequality out. I wonder how we can most effectively, as women, raise awareness about the injustices we face without being rudely labeled and scorned for wanting to be able to effectively be self-sufficient, or take care of those we love? 

The Fa'afafine: A Third Gender in Samoan Culture

            In Samoan culture, there exists a third gender called the fa’afafine, the societal term for biological males who are raised with a female gender identity. Parents raise fa’afafine often because they already have too many sons, and thus need a female presence in the household to assist with domestic duties. As they are considered a third gender in Samoan society that embodies both male and female characteristics, fa’afafine are free to have relations with either men or women, without them or their partners facing censure; however, these fa’afafine may not have sexual relations with each other. In fact, fa’afafine often form relationships with men, a connection that is not considered homosexual in the eyes of Samoan society.

            When compared to Western traditions, this Samoan system may seem strange, but this “third gender” parallels a sort of socially accepted transvestite practice. It seems like a bizarre deviation from traditional male and female roles of the Western world, but these fa’afafine are dedicated members of the family who do not actually have a choice in the matter of becoming a fa’afafine because the parents decide to raise them in this third gender mold so that they can help around the house. The concept of “third gender” thus became an identity in and of itself in Samoan society with these biological males who have female traits. So much so that they formed organizations that use their struggles to battle discrimination against this minority group, much like the feminists we recently read about. 

Does identity must always be paired with gender, sex and ethnicity?

“Because, being on the bottom, we would have to do what no one else has done: we would have to fight the world” – Michele Wallace.
The last two weeks have allowed me to develop a new perspective on feminism and I’ve come to realize that black women oppression is a direct result of race, class and sex discrimination. Both “A Black Feminist Statement” and “Born in Flame” realistically portray the struggle of black women towards liberation. They share the grievances with white women for gender inequality, yet white women own certain privileges that black women are prohibited due to their skin color. This racial oppression is then shared with black men, nonetheless these men are ignorant to and neglect the rights of their women with their conservative, autocratic viewpoints and the benefits they gain from female oppression. I feel that the difference in interests and priorities of these groups is the main reason why there isn’t a big enough change to liberate black women from their oppression. Hence, black women are the only ones who care enough to fight for their needs and rights. As much as the quote by Michele Wallace underlines determination and the will to fight, it also reflects the solidarity black women face.

In many cultures, especially those South-east Asian countries, gender roles offer men a lot of privileges that they often take for granted. These conservative beliefs forbid the freedom of women in the past and continue to do so in the modern society, only in more subtle ways, by restraining their career, interest, and dream pursuits. I often ask what are the main reasons behind gender roles. To create an orderly society? Yet, how can an orderly system be established when the ideology it is build upon is unjust and causes anxiety among the oppressed ones. What does it mean to be a man or a woman? Does our identity must always be paired with our gender, sex and ethnicity? I believe that our society’s way of categorizing people is unavailing and cruel that separate the population as a whole and give rise to discrimination that in turn become our grievances and issues that we must fight everyday.

Feminism in Society

            Many adolescent youths undergo a variety of different aspects of feminism in society. Because every individual is different and has varying personalities, they will have diverse effects of feminism. The feminist idea can mean various things to people, but it is an idea that should be practiced by everyone regardless of gender. Such issues that society has placed upon females,  are that they should attain a certain physical appearance to be accepted by the opposite sex. Another issue that society has placed upon women is that women should always be “dressed” up; this includes wearing make-up as well as uncomfortable clothing. Because females are perceived to be the “second sex,” they are not taken seriously within society simply because of their gender. These social issues should be avoided by influencing the act of feminism within our society.

         Females are constantly concerned about how males in society view them and what they can do to improve their physical appearance, instead of just being happy with the body they already have.  Because the pressure of acceptance from males is what many females think about, we are always worrying about what we should look like rather than feeling good in our own skin. Life is more enjoyable if a person accepts themselves as they are without being self-conscious about their outer appearance, especially to the opposite sex.  If a woman or teen feels good about their body that they inhabit should be the only thing that matters, and not looking at themselves and wondering if they are the “ideal woman” that a man would want. A feminist point of view should be strongly considered within society because it would benefit everyone by making women feel good about their own body.

           

Caster Semenya: Male or Female?

             Caster Semenya started to run almost as soon as she could walk. She played soccer with the boys in her rural village. At school races, she'd lap the other girls -- sometimes twice or more. Even then, according to friends quoted by South African news reports, girls teased her about looking like a boy. Semenya shrugged it off and kept on running. But after she exploded onto the athletic stage  in the 2009 World Championships in Berlin, beating her nearest rival in the women's 800-meter race by a whopping 2.45 seconds, the question was back: Is she really a she?
          The IAAF's handling of the case spurred many negative reactions. A number of athletes, including retired sprinter Michael Johnson, criticized the organization for its response to the incident. Prominent South African civic leaders, commentators, politicians, and activists characterized the controversy as racist, as well as an affront to Semenya's privacy and human rights. The IAAF said it only made the test public after it had already been reported in the media, denying charges of racism and expressing regret about "the allegations being made about the reasons for which these tests are being conducted."The federation also explained that the motivation for the test was not suspected cheating but a desire to determine whether she had a "rare medical condition" giving her an unfair competitive advantage. The president of the IAAF stated that the case could have been handled with more sensitivity.In an interview with South African magazine YOU Semenya stated, "God made me the way I am and I accept myself."
         I feel that the IAAF's enquiry should not have been publicized as it was a breach of Semenya's human rights and was indeed very racist on their part. She was put under investigation only after she won the World Championship and was banned for two years before being allowed to run again. That was very unfair on the part of the federation. She should have been allowed to run until there was evidence to prove that she was not female. Semenya lived her entire life as a female and although she was said to be a tomboy as a child she was still female. She was put through a lot of unnecessary stress and embarrassment by the IAFF. Her gender is a private matter and all the information regarding her gender should have been kept private.However, in 2010 she was given some hope and cleared to race again and her gender test results were not released for privacy reasons.

Society and Neutrality

After doing a brief search for "gender" in recent news, it appears to me that a new trend is cropping up among a few parents of a newer generation: keeping the gender of their children a secret from the rest of the world in hopes that they can have a choice on how they live their lives. Several couples all over the world have either already announced their children genderless or raised them to take their pick between the girls' and boys' sections of clothing and toy stores without judgment on the part of the parents.

As someone who tends to reject societal guidelines when it comes to acting according to my gender, I have in fact imagined that if I were ever to have my own children, I would like to decrease environmental influence so they might have a choice in the matter. After all, some people inevitably make that choice on their own when they grow up to find a dissonance between society's expectations and their personal identity. I believe that giving them the choice early on could settle a lot of eventual angst earlier on.

The question is, why are people making such a big deal out of this? How parents chooses to raise their children is really their own business, though the rest of the world likes to stick their nose in it anyway. Communities and fellow parents voice their concern for the well-being of the child and ethicality of such treatment, citing bullying from other children and uncertainties about how well-adjusted the child could possibly grow up to be as the major possible issues with such a radical way of raising a child. However, these issues are entirely based on social prejudice. If these parents believe that it is not their right to indoctrinate their children with who or what they "should" become, why do complete strangers presume themselves to have a say? This circuitous sequence of pressure is the exact reason these parents decided to raise their children the way they do.

This does raise another problem, however. If their lack of social gender gives cause for bullying and limits their social interaction as a result, is it really worth it to completely cut them off from any kind of association with social definitions of male or female? A moderate amount of gender neutrality is acceptable, and even desirable, in certain locations and situations, but what if this attempt at allowing children to truly be themselves gives them a disadvantage in social interaction and, therefore, in being a productive member of society? After all, no matter how much we try to change things up, this society is the one we must live in, and it always favors the middle ground and shuns extremes.

Jay-Z and the use of the B-word

Jay-Z, one of the most influential rappers of our generation, has recently made an announcement; he will no longer be using the b-word in his music. This announcement comes after the birth of his daughter Blue Ivy with Beyoncé.  While his intentions may seem honorable, is his statement really to be taken seriously and will it influence others to stop the use of the b-word? After reading an article titled “The B-word-whose is it, anyway?” by Zosia Bielski (link here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/news-and-views/the-b-word---whose-is-it-anyway/article2308538/page1/ ), I got to thinking about the implications of the b-word in rap music culture.

I consider myself to have a diverse musical taste, including some rap/hip-hop music. Since being exposed to feminism I have become increasingly aware of the misogynistic lyrics in what seems to be the majority of rap/hip-hop music. That’s nothing new, however I find it difficult as a feminist to truly enjoy the music for what it is, without cringing at some of the horrible lyrics. The use of the b-word is so flagrant in music that I believe that most people have become desensitized to the word. This is a problem, especially when the b-word in most music is used in a negative and derogatory manner to generalize women. According to the article, the use of the b-word is, “…inherently gendered.” This not only applies to describing women in rap/hip-hop music but has a reached other arenas such as describing female politicians (“You don’t hear female politicians being called ‘jerks’ or ‘a-holes’.”). The article questions why doing something that has absolutely nothing to do with gender has to gendered because people don’t agree or like it. This reveals the different standards for male and female behaviors.

The article also points out that while many women have begun to reappropriate the word, in our society, it will be incredibly difficult to change the current misogynistic culture. Rappers like Jay-Z will continue to sell the b-word, no matter what his recent claims are. 

Clean outside, dirty inside?

During the past two weeks, I learned a lot about gender, race, and class. I was surprised to find out, not that I was completely unaware of, that gender and race are closely related; the two terms intersect in many different ways in many different occasions. After reading the statement by Combahee River Collective, it came to me that minorities struggle a lot for their rights, more than I have ever imagined. According to the statement, members of the Combahee River Collective, African-American lesbians, were struggling more than any other groups of minorities, as they were the most different from American political system, which is mainly comprised of white males.

World War II is commonly referred to as the turning point of African-Americans in the United States. The textbook (which I believe isn't 100% true all the time) mentions many feats by African-Americans, including the Civil Rights. Since then, African-Americans gained access to education, medication, voting rights, public facilities, and what not. Even though it sounds as if all African-Americans gained freedom and rights, such wasn't the case for African-American lesbians. The textbooks are covering dirty truths under positively-sounding generalizations: those that seem to apply to all, when they really don't. African-American lesbians were still outcasted and ignored by the society. As for Combahee River Collective, forming coalitions with other similar groups wasn't easy either, as their interests and goals differed to the extent that they had to call off the coalitions. They are struggling for their rights even today without much money or resources. People around the world should take initiatives about this issue for the betterment of the world.

Where Does a Gender Neutral Ideology Fall Between a Male and Female World?

                Before college, I never thought deeply about sex and gender. It was simply something that was there, embedded in society, something construed for years that could not be ignored. While surfing Yahoo news however, I came upon an article titled, “Couple Finally Reveals Child's Gender, Five Years After Birth”. In an attempt to give freedom to their child, a homosexual couple decided to hide the gender of their child from the world for the past 5 years. They wanted to attempt to get rid of the stereotypes that are created by the categorization of people into the groups male or female. This, however, is not the only couple that had tried this. A heterosexual couple in Sweden has raised three children to be gender neutral. This movement and ideology may sound promising in order to push forward to a life without prejudice or stereotypes that only hurt individuals and confine them to a world they do not want to live. So if this idea may give the new generation of children a chance to choose how they want to act and dress, then why decide to do away with it?

                Now I see that although some of us see that a new era of freedom may be ideal to do away with the prejudice, it can never be attained due to the way our society works. Because sex and gender, like religion, is a sensitive gender, there will always be debates about what it means to be a woman and what it means to be a man. Although these parents made an attempt to give their children the freedom of choice in what color they wore and how they acted without giving their choices a label, they may become more confused when stepping out of their dream and into reality when entering school. The homosexual parents in the article decided to declare the gender of their child before the world because they acknowledged that this would be something that would have to be known before letting their child enter school. Then it would be the detrimental teasing and constant name calling that the parents would regret. The Sweden family also decided to declare the gender of their eldest child due to the same reason. Their child begged them to declare his gender on school papers in order to stop the name calling at school. All of this made me think. If some of us want a world that liberates people from certain roles in society, then why do we insist on going back to those that are engrained in society? Are we that afraid of change that once we commit to a gender neutral ideology we turn back to conform to society?

Michael Jackson: Black or White?

Michael Jackson, one of the greatest musicians of all times, was more in the news for his controversies than for his music. One of the controversies included the rapid change in the skin tone. He was a light brown color in his early youth and his sudden lightening of the skin created a sense of anger and shock amongst his fans, family and friends. His own father resented this change. All of them believed that he was bleaching skin because he resented being a black.

Nobody tried to inquire what actually happened rather there were allegations that MJ was lightening his skin, but the truth was that he was suffering from a skin disease called vitiligo, which caused depigmentation of the skin.  He could not stop this skin change.

But the treatment he received raised a lot of questions: Why does this resentment exist? Why is there a difference in the treatment because of the skin color? We all are human beings, why can’t everyone be treated equally?

I understand there are grudges from the past. But the past is gone and we have a future to look forward to, which can be improved by treating everyone equally. Black, brown or white, after all, we all are human beings. Judging any person based on color can get no one harmony.