Chicana/o-Latina/o Gender & Sexuality

I must admit that I do like the story of rags to riches. That being said, there are many aspects of the movie that I believe are problematic. First, there is the beautiful Latina maid who is a single mother. She is portrayed as a hard working woman but she is too self conscious to advance in life. Unlike the typical cinderella, the Latina maid has a child. This to me seems to send the message of the importance of motherhood for Latinas. Then, we have the Prince charming, who is a white male. He of course is secure, powerful and rich. The one thing that bothers me the most with stories like this one is the importance that is placed in physical beauty. From this movie we can see the typical gender roles being played out. Women must be beautiful and men in return must be powerful and rich. The message this movie sends out to me is that the most important aspect in a woman is her beauty. There is also the message that people should be in a heterosexual relationship. Before taking this class I really enjoyed the movie and didn't find anything wrong with it. However, now that I have taken this class, I see the ways the media influences and reinforces our gender roles.

Posted by pati0025 at 9:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I hope you all are finding some ways to relax and be productive over this long holiday weekend. I just watched the lovely Jennifer Lopez in "Maid in Manhattan" and was thinking about the following questions that I promised to post as you watch her rags to riches story. So here they are - feel free to answer which questions move you to think the most or leave a comment on something I didn't mention here.

1. How does the movie represent/portray "the Latina woman"?

2. What type of relationship do we see between Marisa and Ty (her son). What is the message about Latina motherhood that the audience sees while watching the film?

3. How does the viewer see the relationship between Marisa and Stephanie (her friend) versus the relationship we see between Chris (the politician) and Jerry (his handler)? What are these differences saying about gender and class?

4. Would you say that Marisa experiences racism in her life? How/when do you think it occurs? Would you also say that she is exoticized? How does she deal with this?

5. What do you think (overall) about this rags (maid) to riches story? How did the movie play off your emotions to make you feel/believe certain social norms that we are expected to uphold? After recognizing this how did that make you feel?

We can have a lively discussion of these questions in class on Monday as well, but I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts on the movie!!

Posted by Kandace Creel Falcón at 5:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I really enjoyed our class disscussion on masculinity. For one it was nice to swtich gears away from our talk about feminism, but it also helps to put thoes things into perspective. It really enforces that social norms within this culture can really mandatory instead of an option. Not just for women but especially nor men. Men are expected to act macho from the start of their lives. They are to have such a tough exterior, and they are to be the protectors of the females of their lives. The issue that I have never given a second thought to was the fact that some men in this culture may have desires to stray from these norms. straying from these norms seem so forgien because they are never disucssed. It is treated as though the concept does not even exist.
The discussion of gay men in Latino culture is something that i have never really known much about, but it became very real to me when we watched thoes Youtube videos in class. Even though it was just a few sneak peaks into their day to day lifestyle, it was insighful. Before this video i had completely underestimated just how tough it would be to be a latino gay male. The pressures they are under to be macho is exteme and their silence is almost inevitable. I cannot imagine how hard that would be. The fear they must endure everyday. I really feel it is important for the majority to familiarize themselves with the minoirty in order to begin to accept other lifestyles. Education is the bridge to understanding. I am happy we discussed this topic, like I am with many other topics, because all it does is open my eyes. I hope that my vocie will be helpful to someday rid thoes who suffer in their silence.

Posted by mens0052 at 7:09 PM | Permalink

There were a couple of things in particular from Ugly Betty that I wanted to relay back to previous class texts/discussions. The first is an episode in season one where Betty's boss is helping her sister Hilda, nephew Justin, father Ignacio, and Hilda's ex and Justin's father Santos. After decorating the tree for hours, we watch Justin tell Daniel about the ornament he fashioned out of chenille. Daniel asks him where he got the chenille and he says he got it at the fabric store. It is at this point that Santos feels that he needs to step in and tells Justin that they should go play football outside. After Justin says that they need to continue decorating the tree Santos says "Give the glitter a rest, come outside and be a normal kid for an hour." Hilda takes him aside and tells him that he has no right to come back into the family after previously deserting them and judge people, and Santos replies, "You want me to come here and watch him play with chenille and not say anything?" This reminded me a lot of the central conflict in "Boots" where Jito's father is outraged that he would play with Mari's batons, something he considers the exclusive domain of females. After he gets rid of the batons, he urges Jito's brother Junior once again to teach him how to fight, in an attempt to put him in the arena of masculinity. Likewise, Santos tries to substitute what he considers to be a feminine activity (decorating) for a masculine one (football/contact sports).

Another plot point in the series that reminded me of something we discussed in class was the transgendered character Alexis Meade (formerly Alexander Meade) played by Rebecca Romijn. The fact that there is any transgendered character on a mainstream hit television show, owned by Disney even, is kind of amazing. However, the only reason that this is the case is because the character is white, extravagantly wealthy, and especially because she has super model good looks. It is this last part that reminds me of the video that we watched about Latina m-t-f transgendered women who were competing in that pageant, and the one woman in particular who said that it is pivotal that transwomen show that they can be just as beautiful and glamorous as female-bodied women.

Posted by nowak039 at 8:46 PM | Permalink

In thinking about the creation of TNMS it’s interesting to consider the idea of decentralizing a particular component of one’s identity. Through the acknowledgment that these are all aspects of one’s identity, and masculinity and femininity both influence one another as obviously we noted when making our list in class of traditional hetero representations of them. I agree that it is problematic that some of the men advocating for such a study view it as a means of reclaiming the importance of the masculine identity, when the masculine identity has already been dominating academia in our patriarchal society. It is also complicated to consider the role that women play in such a field of study, as traditionally we discussed men’s discussion of feminism is not widely accepted in the field as it is viewed as a topic that they can never fully understand. Conversely, considering women’s say in TNMS then using this line of thinking it would have to be conceded that they are the ones experiencing all of those factors that play into the formation of their masculine identity and women cannot necessarily contribute to the discussion. So where do the two fields begin a productive conversation then? Though it is complicated I think the having such studies as TNMS and providing a space in which men can begin to process the development of masculinity and how such aspects of their identity formation interact with the world around them would be more productive than damaging.

Posted by jrfta at 11:43 AM | Permalink

I am posting this under "continuing class discussion" because, although we have not talked about it explicitly in class, I think all of you can relate to this in some way. Last week in one of my classes, my professor was making some horribly ignorant remarks, and it got me thinking about how the rest of society would react to the things we are learning in this class. The professor of my other class was (for some reason) talking about her experience on an airplane, and how the flight attendant was either extremely masculine or transgender. She exclaimed, "I was soooo freaked out!! It was seriously frightening" and I just put down what I was working on and stared at her gape-mouthed. To some extent I expect that kind of ignorance and intolerance from students, but this was a professor that I admired and who continuously encouraged us to "challenge everything" and "examine deeper". Yet here she was making a blatantly ignorant and offensive statement, and getting laughs about it from the class.

I just find it really hard to accept how easy it is for people to slip into hypocrisy. I know I am guilty of it myself from time to time, but how can a person train themselves to always think before they speak? So the question I have for the class is, where do we go from here? Do we set an example by how we live and treat others, or do we consciously go out looking for people to challenge? And what can we do about people who are unnecessarily fearful of things they don't understand? I'm uncomfortable with outright telling people "YOU'RE WRONG!!" because then I am guilty of the same things that bother me. Anyone have thoughts on this or similar experiences?

Posted by Eos at 6:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I absolutely feel that there is a need for what Mirande encourages, a new study of Chicano/Latino masculinity. I think that our lists at the start of class on Monday regarding the "traditional" concepts of masculinity and femininity prove this need. The list which we created for men was in fact longer than the one we created for females. That is not to say that in reality males have more expectations than females do, but it is interesting and important to note that we could come up with so many "essentialized"notions of masculinity. I feel that this is a prime example of why a larger space for scholarship should exist, attention should be paid to how males also have to negotiate daily life within given "norms" of who they must be. I do not feel that this would overshadow women's studies or take away power from women. In fact, like we are doing in this class, it may be very useful to have studies of both genders laid out next to each other to see how one may affect the other and visa versa. I believe that when we find comminalities between people (for example both genders having to negotiate certain norms) there is the potential for change. When men view their experience through a critical engagement like a Chicano/Latino Men's Studies movement the ability to relate to the Women's studies movement will increase and I believe this could work both ways. I do not think that this is specific to just the Chicano/a Latino/a community, but in many communities throughout the world.

Posted by snide040 at 10:02 AM | Permalink

As we've been reading scholarship on machismo, masculinities and the development of The New Men's Studes, I would like to know your thoughts on the role these conversations have within the fields of Chicana/o-Latina/o studies and Gender, Women & Sexuality Studies.

Alfredo Mirande states that one of the controversies regarding the development of TNMS, "has centered around the assertion that TNMS and the call for more generic gender studies programs are simply insidious tactics designed to weaken and co-opt feminist studies" (1997, 121). Do you agree or disagree with this charge made by feminists? And within the context of Chicana/Latina feminist scholarship we've read this semester do you think they would agree with this? How do our understandings of femininity develop as we focus on issues of masculinity? And where does machismo fit into all of this?

You don't need to answer all of these questions, they are simply here to get your thoughts going about these issues.

Posted by Kandace Creel Falcón at 11:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

November 20th at 7pm

The Red Queen by Lorena Duarte, Directed by Brian Columbus
An episodic play made up of a collection of stories centered on the experiences of women, expressing the tenderness, the ardor, the life-and-death dance that women - and particularly immigrant women - must do.
Performed by Katrina Hawley, Marie Williams and Katherine Kupiecki

WHERE: The Lowry Lab, 350 St Peter St, St Paul, 55102

TICKETS: ONLY $6 EACH!!! Reservations are the only way to guarantee availability and can be made at: 651-225-8106 or tickets@teatrodelpueblo.org

INFO: www.teatrodelpueblo.org, 651-224-8806 or info@teatrodelpueblo.org

Posted by Kandace Creel Falcón at 11:21 AM | Permalink

I come from a stereotypical midwestern Norwegian family where silence is prevalent. Like Zavella discusses in her article, my family's issues - even those of great significance - are not discussed openly. I personally heard even less about various familial experiences because I am the youngest child (my closest sister is five years older than me). It seems to me that health, sexuality and mental well-being are three subjects that are rarely (if ever) discussed. For example, when I was away at Girl Scout camp for a week, my eldest sister had a nervous breakdown and was brought into psychiatric care for 48 hours. I did not hear anything about this incident when I returned home, and I found out about it almost a year later when my mother mentioned something about it in passing. As far as sexuality is concerned, only one aunt/uncle combination has no children. I have always wondered if this was a personal choice or a biological issue, but it would be considered disrespectful if I were to ever ask about it. I was well into my teenage years when my mother shared with me the fact that my maternal grandparents used to be severe alcoholics, and she and her siblings had to live with my great-grandparents for a year while they got their lives back together. As far as mental health is concerned, I personally went through a very rough period in my teenage years. To this day, I don't know who in my extended family knows the extent of it. And since it occurred, I haven't spoken to my father about it, and have discussed it with my mother only a handful of times. Normally, my sisters are the only ones I feel comfortable sharing thoughts with.

It's not like my the members of my family do not care about one another, but I can't shake the sense that I don't really know any of them. In this case, I believe that our silence is constructed so as to protect some sense of dignity or privacy. In some ways I really wish that we would open up to each other as I feel a family aught to be able to, but then I challenge my own wish by considering whether I want to see all of the skeletons in the closet. It is a fine line to walk.

Posted by Eos at 10:28 PM | Permalink

I was fortunate enough to be brought up in an atmosphere where silence was not encouraged. My mother was very open with me, and encouraged me to be open with her; but there were boundaries on what we talked about. I never went into detail about sexual or personal experiences I had, not because she wouldn't alow it, but because I just wasn't comfortable talking about all of it. No matter how open I am encouraged to be, I continue to have my limits, and I think it is because of the big deal society in the US puts on talking about sexuality. I would never feel comfortable opening up to a new friend about something sexual. With the friends I am able to talk to about that stuff, it was almost like an unspoken code, like; "I kind of want to talk to you about something that happened, is that okay with you?" Once we know that we can talk to each other about those things we aren't afraid to open up but I certainly have friends that aren't comfortable about it. When I traveled to Europe the friends I made were generally much more comfortable about talking about sex; it just wasn't made into such a big deal. Women weren't expected to behave a certain way and men weren't the only ones who were forward. It was refreshing to meet people who didn't worry so much about what people said about sex, and also who didn't worry about what people would think.

Posted by mccr0146 at 9:03 PM | Permalink

I know this is a (very) delayed blog entry considering we read this a while ago, but something happened at work recently made me think about this. I work at a restaurant and have friends from Ecuador and Mexico that work in the kitchen. There was a recent situation where the men cooks were making the women cooks do some jobs that they were supposed to do. They were things like washing dishes and cleaning (the two jobs that the cooks hate to do the most because it is dirty, uncomfortable and miserably hot). Understandably the girls resented this and were upset with the men. I asked them why the men felt that the women should be responsible for it and my friend said it was a "womans job" and that they weren't women so they didn't have to do "that shit". I was really angry with him for saying that because I can't understand why women should have to do the jobs that are undesirable to men, just because they feel like they shouldn't have to do it. When I told him this, he said that he feels sorry for my boyfriend. Ha. When asking a few other men at work who are not cooks I got mixed responses. A few of them agreed that it was more of a "womans job" to do the dishes and to clean. This whole experience made me think about how life at home is for them and what is expected of the women. Lets just say I took it out on my boyfriend and made him do the dishes that night. He still doesn't know why I came home so angry, but it felt kinda good to do that.

Posted by mccr0146 at 2:52 PM | Permalink

As we come to a close on our studying about sexual roles, identities, and sexual expression i feel as though we have learned quite a bit. One significant discussion sticks out in my head. When we watched the segments on latino transexual and transgender individuals. I was really taken aback by the whole lifestyle because i have never really had an exposure to it. I found it all so interesting. The fact that they go through a lot of disscrimnation is not suprise considering that we live in such a unaccepting world, but it was a bit shocking that latino transgenders received more discrimination than others. But after class, as i thought about it more, there is a hierarchy of disscrimination in all aspects of life, so why would this situation be any different?
For example, even though men are considered superior, within men-white men are seen as better and then it goes down from there race by race.

When we were watching the clips i enjoyed being exposed to a lifestyle that is not always shown in a real light. They discussed dating issues. Like one of the people in the documentary discussed dating issues. whether or not her partner had informed his family that she was a transgender. That is a such a difficult issue to have to discuss but obviously a reality in their lives. One of the many tough realities. My hope someday is that more and more people become educated on the lifestyle so there will be more broad acceptance. This is my hope with alot of things, but hopefully once it starts somwhere it will be a snowball effect of acceptance.

Posted by mens0052 at 12:07 AM | Permalink

I just read Elaine Tyler Mae's "Homeward Bound" for the second time. In this essay she critiques the oppression of gender and sexuality in "white" culture of the 1950s. In beginning her argument, she references Vice President Nixon's "kitchen debate" where he argues the existence of universal gender and sexual roles for women (although he is clearly referencing the white, suburban, wife). As I would agree with many of Juarez and Kerl's critiques of outlined scholarship, I feel many examples are assuming an essentialized sexuality while not ALWAYS referencing "white" sexuality. This conversation has me in very murky waters. I am thinking of the film Mona Lisa Smile for some reason right now. I think this film argues against the right (White) way to be sexual and at the same time argues that a white oppression of sexuality does exist. I haven't seen it since the theater, but I think I remember a scene where Julia Styles is choosing to stay in the home and Julia Roberts (??) can't really grasp why she would want to subscribe to these roles when she has the chance to break free. At this point, both gain agency in the structures surrounding sexuality.

In another arena entirely, I can't get over Juarez and Kern's theme of "old world/new world" and "traditional" sexuality. I feel what this work, as well as much of the work that is being critiqued within it, is missing intersectionality. This argument that Chicana/o is given such sexual definitions and "white" should be recognized as just as oppressive seems to miss all complexities. What about historical contexts? Religion? Catholicism influence? Protestant influence? La Chingada/La Virgen? I think the best take home message here is essentialism regarding sexuality.

I didn't follow the parameters of the prompt completely, but isn't essentialism essentially parameters in itself?

Posted by rusco001 at 3:03 PM | Permalink

It was interesting to read this weeks article about Proyecto ContraSIDA Por Vida as I am also taking a class on Public Health, and though very general in the topics it covers, we recently studied a case study about Cultural Competence as it relates to successful public health initiatives. The idea of Cultural Competence is that an understanding of a specific populations patterns of communication, relationships, family structure, learning styles, food preparation and consumption, patterns of physical activity, and beliefs about illness and health. This approach to public health coincides with population based approaches, which when put into the context of Rodriguez’s article could be viewed as problematic with respect to public health initiatives addressing sexual health. In defining these specific boundaries of a community public health would thus be limiting itself in its efforts to organize around the health of a “community�. According to the approach we read about in the article, it can be more productive to focus on a specific health goal in many cases, such as with people at risk of or living with AIDS, and rallying around the common cause of sexual liberation. Of course it’s not useless for public health initiatives to focus on defining a population in order to work with that population and its specific needs, but as Rodriguez points out such identity naming can cause problems in its exclusionary nature, and clearly initiatives with a focus on activism and goals have can be extremely successful in creating a community that moves beyond the necessity of defining identities in order to achieve success.

Posted by jrfta at 8:30 PM | Permalink

I have strong feelings about this topic, although my personal experience with it is as unusual as it is specific. As a sex educator and seller of sex toys for the Smitten Kitten, Minneapolis' feminist own/run sex toy store, I have helped hundreds and hundreds of people pick out their sex toys, and have heard many tales of sexuality along the way. While I have helped people of all gender identifications, sexual orientations, ages, lifestyles, and races, since Minnesota is predominantly white, the majority of customers who come into the store (we ship online to places all over, especially where sex toys are hard to come by, places like the deep south amongst others) are white. And I have encountered a great many white women who are repressed in one or several ways, and it is not hard to see how U.S. culture has helped to foster that repression. Even Bill Clinton, who was arguably the most socially progressive President that America has known, fired Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders for suggesting that masturbation is something that should be taught to teenagers to prevent pregnancy, STIs, and AIDS specifically. Sexual education in this country (what little there is) is far from comprehensive (even the sex ed that isn't abstinence only), is not engaging for young people, and leaves them mystified about their own bodies and what outcomes, both positive and negative, can come from leading a sexually active life. For many people walking into a sex toy store, even one that is clean, bright, and woman friendly, is a big step, but once they realize that the people who work there are trained to educate them, they feel substantially less nervous and gradually become more comfortable. Juarez and Kerl's article didn't really change my mind, however I never saw Latina/o culture as being inherently more repressive towards women's sexuality than white culture in the first place. But in considering that question, I basically reaffirmed my belief that all it takes to be sexually "liberated" is to receive comprehensive sex education and to have the belief that sex is not inherently wrong or sinful.

Posted by nowak039 at 7:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Let me just start by saying, I agree completely that there is repression of female sexuality within the dominant white culture in the United States. I could rattle off so many examples but I will stick to one. My friend had sex with someone after they had been broken up. Now, it turns out that this man had an STD and did not tell her, and proceeded to have sex with her without a condemn. When he confessed this to her a year later she basically ran to the doctor, and thankfully was clean of this STD. This friend of mine felt completely comfortable talking to her mom about this to explain why she did not want this ex-boyfriend in her life anymore. But, her father could never know. She said that her father could not know because he would become so angry and disappointed in her that she had sex outside of a relationship. So they had to come up with some other excuse as to why she wont speak to her ex to tell her father. I feel as though this unfortunate story says two possible things about the male view of female sexuality within white culture. The first having to do with the ex-boyfriend, it is clear that he felt her sexuality was something for him to own. It seems as though it did not matter if she retracted this highly contagious disease because if she has it then her options of who she will have sex with get boiled down to him (that is if she does not want to spread it around). The second thing I feel is important is the clear need to portray something about her sexuality to her father that is not true. The hiddenness of her situation is not because she could have gotten the disease, it is because she had sex outside of a relationship. If her father knew she was a sexual person outside of what is considered socially respectable then their relationship would change completely. I find this situation to be very repressive for that woman because 1) this disrespectful situation even exists and 2) she must lie about her sex life to be seen as the same person she was seen as when she was not sexually active.

Posted by snide040 at 10:21 AM | Permalink

I have experienced this repression before in a previous relationship I had. I was dating a guy that assumed that if him and I were together when I finished school I would take care of the house, have kids, and take care of him. The reading by Juarez and Kerl states that, "It is assumed that men go out to work and provide economic support in return for housekeeping, child-rearing and sexual availability and they are active and dominant, while women are relatively passive and submissive, having been led to expect men to know best how to satisfy them." (pg.10) The fact that he thought this way made it really hard for me to imagine myself with him; why am I going to school if my job will be taking care of him? What if I don't want to do what he expects of me? He also was very selfish while having sex; it was only important for him to enjoy it and he was surprised and upset when I confronted him about it. These issues have definitely affected me, but I am also fortunate because I have not been brought up with a family with similar views. While some of culture agrees with the "traditional" view of women's roles, not all do. Obviously, the relationship didn't work out, and this was the main reason for the breakup. I just couldn't go on with the relationship knowing that our views on what our "ideal future" would be like were so different. (Along with the fact that he was an ass).

Posted by mccr0146 at 12:26 PM | Permalink

**Post Response under Category 4**

Juarez and Kerl seem to be arguing that Anglo/white culture is also repressive toward women's sexuality but it is just not categorized as such. How have you experienced this to be TRUE? Why is there such a lack of recognition of the "traditional" for Anglo/white women to have to adhere? Does Juarez and Kerl's article make you reconsider your own thoughts on Latina/o cultures as inherently repressive toward women's sexuality? Include any examples from life or readings you see as relevant.

Posted by Kandace Creel Falcón at 11:06 AM | Permalink