How SWMS influenced my values

Before I never thought how this class could influence me, and I thought the "change my life" review on Rate My Professor must be exaggerating...But now I sit here and agree to the idea that this gender issue class is really life changing. I don't know how much I can still remember about the books, since I haven't  started to prepare for the exam; but there are definitely some ideas rooted in my head and affecting my daily life.

 For an example, I was unaware that gender is actually socially constructed, and what I learned from this is that never categorizing individuals into  class, sexual orientation, or even gender. Categorizing or stereotyping might be helpful when you want to study a group of people with some similarities, but when it comes to an individual, you have to look at the differences in order to really understand this person. We all fit in a different spot in a spectrum of life, and only when you try to understand a person at his/her unique and specific standing, can you get a more objective point of view without bias and discrimination.

Raise your hand Campaign

National Domestic Workers Movement(NDWM) started the raise your hand campaign in Jan 2011in India to urge the citizens for the rights of domestic workers especially children.
It is true, until citizens take an initiative to stand up for their rights nothing can really be achieved. Many children at a very young age waste their childhood by working in homes, for a meagre amount of money, instead of going to school.

National Domestic Workers Movement has been active since the past 25 years yet it has been unable to save young kids from ruining their childhood because of working in houses. Raise your hand campaign seems to be a very innovative and challenging concept in terms of the involvement of the employers who recruit these young kids to work in their houses.

Success of this campaign cannot be predicted because of the low laying aspect of the movement but if this campaign gains momentum, it will be a change for many young kids who waste their childhood working when they should really be playing or going to school.

Can Porn Be Feminist?

I read an interesting article this week that initially opened with praising the Toronto Feminist Porn Awards and quickly changed its tone to a more critical one, asking the question: "Can porn ever truly be feminist?"There are some interesting criteria for how some classify feminist porn such as, a woman must have played s significant role in either acting, directing, writing, or production, and the film must challenge stereotypes that exist in mainstream porn. In addition to this, feminist porn usually depicts a variety of women, not simply thin, white, large-breasted women but women who look more like the average woman walking down the street.

While seemingly well intentioned, feminist porn is still critiqued for having things such as BDSM films that portray a submissive woman dominated by men. Critics may see these types of films as confirmation that women continue to be sexually objectified even within "feminist porn" so can this truly be considered feminist at all? Feminist porn proponents say allowing actors in their film to do what they want, even if that includes women who like to be dominated, is to be feminist and open to a diversity of sexual acts. Mainstream porn does not care about the actor/actresses' likes and dislikes, they are essentially paid to perform acts that they might not personally like or agree with.

Yet critics still don't buy into feminist porn, after all how can people who use bodies, especially women's bodies as raw material for profit, really have the right to call themselves feminist? At least that is what the critics believe. Its a tricky topic overall and I'm not sure if there's a right or wrong answer. I personally think that society should not shame people for watching any type of porn, (in fact it reminds me of Gayle Rubin's ideological formations about sex, especially benign sexual variation) but I will admit to personally being somewhat disturbed by some of the genres of porn, especially those that have racist undertones and extremely explicit scenes of sadomasochism where women are in a submissive position. However, I don't think I am in any position to judge people who consume or engage in that type of porn/sex.

link: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/21/can-porn-be-feminist.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29

masculinism

Have you heard of masculinism ?  According to Fox news the men’s rights movement or simply the men’s movement goal is to have “a gender-neutral approach to social problems such as broken families, domestic violence and reproduction. For example, in approaching domestic violence it demands that the police, court system and social networks cease to pre-define victims as female and to recognize that men are often victims of domestic violence as well.” I would have to agree with that last point about domestic violence. In the rare occasion that a man is being abused by a women he should be able to seek refuge within the court system and it should be taken seriously but that’s about all I agree with. After reading this article this movement really just seemed like they could care less about women, it was strictly from the point of view of men. Many supporters talked about how much they despised the feminist movement because those feminist are the ones that have been keeping the man down. The creation of this movement just seems odd to me seeing as so many things are already tilted in men’s favor. Below is a link to the article if you want to take a look.

 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88400,00.html#ixzz1tT5DDStX

Men's Definition of Masculinity in the Context of the Second Shift

Arlie Russell Hochschild, the author of The Second Shift, saids that men and women come into marriage with implicit “gender ideologies”, which are formed from expectations about traditionally appropriate marital roles for themselves and their mates. During her research on family relations, Hochschild conducted a case study on a family – consists of Evan, the husband and a furniture salesman, Nancy, the wife and a social worker, and their son, Joey. After multiple bargains on equal sharing of domestic life, the couple agrees that Nancy is responsible for “upstairs” and Evan for “downstairs”. The deal sounds fair until one discovers that “upstairs” includes shopping, cooking, cleaning, paying the bills, doing the laundry, and caring for the children, while “downstairs” only consists of dealing with the car, the garage, Evan’s hobby workshop, and the family dog. Yet, as Hochschild notes, “the two have convinced themselves that this arrangement is fair.” In another research that uses data from 18 countries called Understanding Men’s Housework in the Cultural Context of Paid Work, men who earn approximately the same income as their spouses have been found to perform more housework than men who are primary breadwinners; however, when men are dependent on their wives, they do not perform proportionately more housework than men who are not. Surprisingly, in some cases, men who are especially dependent on their wives do even less housework than when they are the primary breadwinners. Although men who are dual-earners do more housework than they would if they were sole breadwinners, they do not raise it enough to engender parity or to undo the traditional gender division of labor. Thus, although men have increasing agreed to division of domestic work, they still perceive it as a role of a woman, not a man.
              
The role of a man as a breadwinner in the family has traditionally been the central aspect of hegemonic masculinity in diverse cultural contexts. This link between masculinity and gender role is especially emphasized in capitalist societies despite the rise in women’s paid employment and flexible labor markets. Men’s identity in terms of masculinity continues to be the underlying reason for men with employed wives to feel an obligation to become the main providers. In cases where women’s income is about the same as her husband’s, the wife, as well as her husband, tends to interpret his employment as the main source of supply for essential family needs, while hers is, no more or less, a “supplement”. Likewise, when the wife provides the main source of income, her spouse makes up for his shortcoming by considering his work as more important than hers. Despite the variation in circumstance, women typically do the majority of the housework due to the sturdy link between gender roles and masculinity; because housework is symbolically “women’s work” and masculinity is defined in opposition to masculinity, men in counter-normative situations reinforce their masculinity by not engaging in feminine activities, i.e. house chores and childcare.

Video Clip in Discussion Session

The video clip, shown in the last discussion for the Tuesday 5:00pm session, was quite interesting and I thought that the sexualization of kids and the objectification of women have a lot to do with the sexualization of sex itself. What I mean by the sexualization of sex is that we constrain ourselves of sex in general in spite of the fact that sex is an intrinsic desire for us. A guy in the clip said, "sex sells." But, it is not the actual sex, of course, that we are buying. It's like a fractured form of supply to our demand. Yeah, sex sells because the situation is like this: a real meat-eater eating veggie patties for meal knowing that s/he really wants to eat a 2lb medium rare Kobe beef steak for dinner.

Moral Dilemma in Bread and Roses

In Bread and Roses, I saw a few interesting moral dilemma that are actually existent in our society. First is the issue of immigration. While, as for the rule of law, it would seem to undermine the law itself if the government did not to do anything about illegal immigration But, we also need to think about well-being of illegal immigrants at the same time as well because they are already here; they moved here because the needed to; and, perhaps more importantly, they are human beings as well.

Second is whether or not to be vocal and fight for one's own labor rights. If you were an illegal immigrant, you would be easily taken advantage of by your employer due to your legal status. Simply put, if you were hired by an employer who knows your status, you would basically be "indebted." Now, if you became vocal and criticized the employer because of exploitation the employer put you through, you could be fired automatically and you would not be able to support yourself or family anymore. It's definitely tough situation and the movie, I think, depicted it pretty well.

Third is the conflict of interests between an individual and an organization. An activist may want to go further and deeper to fight for labor rights, but if you were running a labor rights organization, you would also have to think about the well being of the organization itself to provide, systematize, and sustain your service, and secure the well being of your employees as well.

I thought these dilemmas were quite interesting so just wanted to bring them up!

Marriage

           The majority of people in the American society view marriage as a very important life goal. This goal that people strive to obtain, typically in their 20's, is something that our society puts a great emphasis on at young age. When children are young, they constantly watch television programs and movies that show families that consist of a man, his wife and their children. Many toys are also family based, such as Barbie and Ken, and infant dolls. Young girls are constantly bombarded with movies that show a young woman or a princesse who falls in love with a "handsome" man, and who then has a large wedding. People usually feel that there is an age limit to marriage and that there is a time when a person may be too young to marry, as in the teenager years, and also the age that could be too old to marry, which is usually late 30's and 40's. Because there is an age restriction that society has placed on individuals, people tend to feel like they have to rush marriage and may even place searching for a companion at a higher rank, rather than their own personal success and fulfillment. Society also places different restrictions on both men and women, and this is also seen in different cultures. Women who tend to not marry in their twenties or early thirties are looked down upon by society because some people feel that it is not normal for a woman to want to pursue her own life without establishing a family first. This is a different case with men because when men do not marry, they are seen as "bachelors" who are looking for a suitable mate and companion. Because of these stereotypes of marriage, many people in their twenties constantly search for someone who they feel they can marry and start a family with. This does not always end well because because there is a time limit set upon by society's values, marriage may be rushed and may happen not with the right person which can lead to divorce. 

            Not only is the concept of marriage highly pressured among people growing up, but also the marriage ceremony is sometimes placed with a higher emphasis than the marriage itself. This value of tradition that has been taking place for centuries could now be seen in some instances as the main part of marriage and courtship. We see this in many different forms of pop culture with the huge royal wedding between Prince William and Kate Middleton, the Kim Kardashian wedding, and many others. This tradition of having a large ceremony to publicly show that two people made the commitment to get married has become part of a social status. This makes women want to have a large wedding in order to make themselves known within family and friends that she is furthering her life by becoming a bride. What many people fail to realize is that because so many people put such an emphasis on the marriage ceremony and making it perfect, they usually forget why they are getting married in the first place and half of all marriages end up in a divorce, as in the 72 day Kim Kardashian marriage. If half of these marriages are ending in divorce, then there must be something wrong with the values that govern marriage, and these values have to be redefined in order for more marriages to prosper. If people are getting married because they feel like it is a tradition that they have to follow and that their religion prefers marriage before sexual intercourse, then these divorce rates will continue to be high. If marriage is changed into being something that requires companionship and commitment, and also individual success and not only one person's success out of the couple, then people will start placing a greater importance on making marriages last and accomplish more with their lives. If these values are changes, marriage and the ceremony that accompanies it will not be seen as a merely a social goal that people need to experience and achieve, but a couple's bond that takes time and should not be rushed. 

Mike, Allison, Rachel and Zach The Princess

Mike, Allison, Rachel and Zach Heterophobia

Netta Rotstein

SWMS Media Assignment Netta Rotstein

More PowerPoint presentations from Netta Rotstein

Why do Gays get Bullied?

Why do Gays get Bullied?

This is a short film explaining RW Connell's theory of hegemonic masculinity, subordination of other masculinities, and the concept of complicit action among men of nonhegemonic masculinities. 

Most importantly, my aim in this film was to make such theoretical concepts more accessible towards the common viewer who may not have taken a gender studies class. The knowledge learned in SWMS-210 can be used to create significant societal impact, after all, if phrased correctly. 

Thus, this film is a call to action - telling a story of a gay student in school getting bullied for his nonhegemonic masculinity expression, searching on Google for explanations, and finally asking the fundamental question of why do gays get bullied.

Finally, after the explanation of the reason behind the bullying, the importance of this topic is explained, as well as calling the viewer to action, giving the power of changing society's hierarchy and definition of masculinities to the viewer. 

Girly Girl Culture Worldwide

An important point that was brought up when reading Cinderella Ate My Daughter was the fact that perhaps the parents support dolls because it keeps their daughters innocent. The innocence of the child is kept by indulging them to the innocent and youthful color pink, dolls, and Disney princesses. This way the parents can inhibit their daughter’s coming of age. Immediately after reading this I was reminded of my heritage. Not only is this belief engrained in American culture but also in others.

            In Mexico and many Hispanic cultures, girls have Quinceaneras. This is like a coming of age ceremony in which the girl, or now woman, is given her last doll. This identification of last doll, thus introduces her to maturity and adulthood. In addition, the teens in these ceremonies wear poofy dresses and a tiara meant to make her look like a princess. And to top it off, it has been a tradition in the previous years to have the dress pink. These traditions only serve to reinstate Peggy Orenstein’s point and to further illustrate that this is a worldwide concept and not just a national one.

Bread and Roses

Breads and Roses was a touching and effective movie. It accomplished its motive of reaching out to the masses about the troubles of immigrant domestic laborers. The movie was true to some extent about the invisibility of these domestic laborers to the higher class. They were ignorant or chose to be ignorant about the problems and difficulties of these laborers until they faced problems in their daily routines.

Their struggle for a better life and the way they stay united throughout the movement is great to watch.

SUPERMOM!

It isn’t having it all or doing it all, but many women of the modern society think they can and should. Over the past few decades, our culture has constantly idealized an unrealistic image of a “supermom”; “a chic woman easily balancing her children, husband, and work all while looking fabulous”. At the first glance, it seems like a cool praise; in fact, the name alludes to “superman”. However, as superb as it may sound, the ultimate message behind it all is: women must fulfill all her roles in both the public and the private spheres, while living up to the high expectations of the society. Yet in reality, dominance in the household is not a result from pure willingness, but a consequence of being forced to adapt to the everyday needs. Many women need help to fulfill all their duties, yet most families cannot afford to hire others to clean their homes. Machines might play a role but they do not help much in terms of time-saving. And although division of labor in the household is critical, it is largely missing in the modern imagery of working moms. The label Supermom also implies that when women work outside the home, motherhood should still be their primary duty. Consequently, many working mothers confirm to this unrealistic standards to retaliate the risk of being perceived or labeled as a bad mother by society, her peers and strangers alike. The pressure from the public is also amplified by the media, which uses fear, celebrity mom profiles, and guilt tactics, to instigate the modern mother’s need for continual perfection. Unfortunately, this need for perfection cripples a mother’s agency and confines her to a realm of mothering that is unattainable and rigorous. Hence, working moms carry extra burdens on their shoulders while having a lack of support from the public and their partners. The idealized conception of Supermom in today’s demanding world gives the public, and men in particular, the idea that women should accept these standards and believe that they must measure up to. While some scholars contend that working mothers are the most guilty of propagating this mothering ideology, women who attempt to combine employment and good mothering are more vulnerable to feelings of failure, anxiety, isolation, and impotency. The collective result women’s effort to pursue this idealized conception of mothering is heavy burden, at “best”, and destruction of self-image and self-esteem, at worst, when they feel that they cannot match up to their expectations. The Supermom mentality also put women in a race to be recognized as a “mother”, in its entirety. But unfortunately, the competition creates an anxiety that causes women to be even more skeptical of other women around them. Hence, the concept of Supermom serves to pit women against each other, rather than join them against the structures that have created the idealization. The image of Supermom is, indeed, a cultural cover up that is built upon traditional ideology to perpetuate itself in the modern society. Women are trapped by being a part of this tyrannical scheme: in order to live up to the image of supermom, women perpetuate the ideology that oppresses them in the first place.

Uganda's Anti-Gay Law

Uganda passed an anti-homosexuality bill often called (“Kill the Gays Bill” in the media). This bill is a legislative proposal that would broaden the criminalization of same-sex by dividing homosexual behavior into two-categories:  “Aggravated homosexuality” in which the offender would receive a death penalty or the “offence of homosexuality” which would mean life imprisonment. "Aggravated homosexuality" is defined to include homosexual acts committed by a person who is HIV- positive, is a parent or authority figure, or who administers intoxicating substances, homosexual acts committed on minors or people with disabilities, and repeat offenders. "The offense of homosexuality" is defined to include same-sex sexual acts, involvement in same-sex marriage, or an attempt to commit aggravated homosexuality. It further includes provisions for Ugandans who engage in same-sex relations outside of Uganda, asserting that they may be extradited for punishment back to Uganda, and includes penalties for individuals, companies, media organisations, or non-governmental rights that know of gay people or support LGBT rights.

 Although there have been several efforts by the people of Uganda to remove this bill and legalize gay marriage their efforts have gone in vain. People in Uganda are brainwashed by their leaders to support the anti-gay bill and discriminate against the homosexuals. USA president Barack Obama tried to make a difference to the people of Uganda by extending his help and providing his opinion about the legality of same-sex marriages and homosexuality. However, his efforts have also gone in vain as the leaders of Uganda themselves support the anti-gay bill and consider homosexuality to be “as bad as the devil”.

Same Sex Marriages

Same-sex marriage is marriage or an alliance between two persons of the same biological sex or gender identity. Supporters of legal recognition of same-sex marriage, typically refer to such recognition as marriage equality. The introduction of same-sex marriage has varied by jurisdiction, resulting from legislative changes to marriage laws or a combination of the two. The recognition of such marriages is a civil rights, political, social, moral and religious issue in many nations. Conflicts arise over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to enter into marriage, be required to use a different status or not have any of these rights. Denying same-sex couples legal access to marriage and all its attendant benefits represents discrimination based on sexual orientation. The assertion that financial, psychological and physical well being are enhanced by marriage and children of same sex couples benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally recognized union supported by society’s institutions. Same-sex marriages are regarded as a universal human rights issue, mental and physical health concerns, equality before the law and the goal of normalizing LGBT relationships. Several authors attribute opposition to same-sex marriage as coming from homophobia or heterosexism and liken prohibitions on same-sex marriages to past prohibitions on inter-racial marriages.

Female Professor Placed on Leave After Showing Porn Critique

I recently read an article on a tenured professor that was placed on leave for showing a film that critiqued the porn industry called The Price of Pleasure (link here: http://chronicle.com/article/Tenured-Professor-Is-Placedon/131607/?key=Tmh6JAI7NyAXYSpnZjdBZDoAOiM4YR17YH9Nbnl/blFQFA%3D%3D). I found this a bit alarming at first, because only a few weeks ago did I see this film in one of my classes here at USC. Fortunately, it was not my professor that was placed on leave but a woman named Jammie Price at Appalachian State University. The article states that she showed the film to her introductory sociology class and afterwards many students made complaints to administrators claiming that the content of the film was inappropriate and extremely explicit. In addition to complaints against the film viewing in class, students also stated that she made inappropriate comments on her personal life, political views, and disparaging remarks on the university.

Having watched the film in question, I think that the professor (Price) was at fault if she did in fact fail to warn the students of the potentially disturbing content in the film, which the article claims she did not do. My professor warned our class about two weeks in advance about the content and repeatedly sent us emails before he showed the film, making a point to allow anyone who might be disturbed by the material to make up the class in some other way. I was not entirely shocked by the content, but there were points in the film where I was a bit disturbed and uncomfortable, however, I can see the connections between the film and the class content. In fact, after viewing the film, my professor had the class critique the film and give feedback on the message and content of the film, which I found very helpful.

Perhaps Price should not have shown the film in an introductory course. That would be my only other critique of her situation. Even so, her reasoning as to why she believes she was correct in showing the film seems valid, she says that part of the learning process for some may be to learn how to move past the disturbing material and make connections to the class. It makes sense to me. The article also describes that Price may have been placed on leave because she has spoken out against other university matter including the university’s all-male poker club which includes administrators and faculty. I think it goes without saying that as a female faculty member she has certainly undergone more scrutiny than a male faculty member would have received. The circumstances around her placement on leave are a bit unclear and the university should make things transparent about the real reasons she was placed on leave and stop making it about the showing of the film. 

Unnatural Stereotypes

The process of men versus women’s time necessary to get ready has long been comedic fodder—women are portrayed as taking forever, while men simply have to play around with their hair a bit and they’re good to go. However, the reason it typically takes women so long is that they have to apply layers of makeup to make them “presentable” or “attractive,” the latter in hopes of attracting a mate. But as a science major who has had to study animal mating patterns as well, this process of females having to be the ones to attract males is completely backwards from what occurs in nature. In many animal species, it is often the male who has elaborate courtship rituals or adornments to attract the female. Thus, female animals are the ones who have the choice of whether to propagate the male animal’s familial line. With humans, it seems to be the opposite: women decorate themselves and parade around with the hope of attracting male attention, even though it is the female who determines the male’s reproductive fitness. This reflects the system of male domination in place in human society. Men control the resources, thus forcing women to vie for their attention.  

But I can change him !

 In Cinderella ate my daughter Peggy Orenstein takes a look at the girly girl culture that has captured so young girls .She talks about the Disney princesses, the stories of these princesses like belle  from the beauty and the beast tend to teach young girls the wrong lessons.  Like how the “right” women can turn a beast into a man. Many girls pick up on these messages and keep them throughout their lives. I personally know many women say “ But I can change him”. The whole but I can change him thing has become somewhat of joke put into many sitcoms and “chick flicks”.

  It is unhealthy for young girls to receive messages like this, because it tends to stick with her throughout her journey to adult hood. I think more parents need to really look at the movies and television shows they allow their children to watch. And make sure the shows are giving their children  message’s they are okay with.  

Is This the World that We Want to Live?

It becomes harder and harder to believe if there is ever non-exploitative means of labor when we start thinking about exploitation of labor. It is not just a maid or domestic worker who is subject to exploitation of labor: so are we. We get a degree, and then work for a corporation, for example; yes, we dedicate time and energy for the organization and the stockholders or owners of the company to make more profit. If we ever work for someone else's company, that is what happens. Hey, then, we should all start up our own companies; yes, we would still get taxed by the government, and not all of us would become billionaires, which means we would be very much likely to be subject to further exploitation by investors, banks, and whoever is helping us out with money issue and looking at you from one step higher.

Okay, that may be extreme. Why don't we think of ourselves as billionaires? All right, let's say we became free from being exploited with abundance of wealth through business. But, now, we have to exploit others to maintain our business going, which is inevitable and unavoidable because we do not want ourselves or families to be exploited by others if we have a choice. Does this mean that life is either we exploit or be exploited; nonetheless, that's how the world works, right?

After watching the movie yesterday, it remember me the time I first get a part time job in this country. As an international student, it is hard to find a part time job outside of the campus. The situation of harsh on job hunting is not only from law but also from the society.
 When I searching for a job, they ask for my SSN; if I don't have one they will not offer me a job. When, I went to request for a SSN at the office, the officer told me I could not get a SSN unless I have a job. However, I do know most of the place I visited for job hunting have worker that are not authorized to work in the U.S. When I finally got a job at a restaurant, the situation I was facing was very similar with Maya. The owner refuse to pay me hourly wages, and they said what I got from tips is already above the minimum payment that the state requires, so the owner don't need to pay me a penny for working. Although I quit from working there soon, but the situation is there are many workers are working under similar condition. The races are working places are constants there, and it is even worse to illegal immigrants. There is no way for illegal immigrants to form a union or do anything else, so it is just a grey area that no one cares about.

Human Trafficking

Human trafficking is the illegal trade of human beings for the purpose of reproductive slavery, commercial sexual exploitation, forced labor or a modern-day form of slavery. Women are exploited to such trafficking from a young age itself. They are raped continuously by the men of the village and are forced into the acts of prostitution. They are threatened, beaten and tortured and instructed how to live their lives. They have no right to freedom and are unable to live their lives independently. Several efforts have been made to reduce this human trafficking in India to save the women and children from being exploited in this manner but many of these efforts and initiatives taken by the more privileged people have gone in vain. However, one person who has made a positive change in the lives of such exploited women and children is Anuradha Koirala, founder of the organization Maiti Nepal, that works towards promoting the welfare of women by preventing them from being sold across the Indo-Nepalese border. Anuradha Koirala, the 2010 CNN here of the year, has been fighting to end this sex trafficking for nearly two decades. Since 1993, she and her organization Maiti Nepal have helped rescue and rehabilitate more than 12,000 women and girls by raiding brothels, patrolling the India-Nepal border and providing safe shelter and support services. Koirala’s own abusive history, led her into this crusade.