September 2009 Archives

While Ostrander and Patillo-McCoy did both study the groups the wrote about, they had very different methods of study. Ostrander used interviews to show the subjects' perspectives on their own lives. I found this to be very interesting, mostly because they did not say the things I expected them to say. For what she was studying, I think this method was effective. However, I did have a problem with the way she sometimes summarized the responses. She often said things like 'Mrs. so-and-so then implied...'. I guess I'd like to know what Mrs. so-and-so actually said. The reader really has to trust the author's generalizations, and I don't know if that's the best way to present this type of data.

Oullette was successful with her media approach. She was looking at one magazine's influence on a much larger group of women. For this the media data is relevant. But the article I found most successful was the Patillo-McCoy. This used both statistics and interviews as well as discussing the mainstream coverage of poorer African-Americans. I felt like this gave us the most varied sources to support the author's conclusions.

All three approaches seem to be fairly effective, yet all three could be improved upon.

Patillio-McCoy conducted her own research because she was displeased with the lack of research and media attention given to middle-class African Americans. In conducting her own research, she created a slight bias, leaving the reader wondering how much to believe. She also lacked statistical data. Patillio-McCoy brought up some good points, but her arguments could have been made stronger had she analyzed multiple different black communities.

Similar to Patillio-McCoy, Ostrander lacked concrete data to back up her findings, but performed her own research, which I think is necessary when focusing on such under-researched populations because the misconceptions/stereotypes produced by the media may leave very little factual information regarding those populations. I think first-hand accounts are very valuable to the early stages of research.

Ouellette research was great because she used a wide range of sources. We have all been taught that the best research stems from a variety of resources.  It gives perspective and helps solidify facts. However, she focused most of her research on one person; Helen Gurley Brown. This limits her findings in the same way that Patillio-McCoy and Ostrander's findings are limited.

All three researchers focused most of their attention on one person or population of people. Further research is necessary in all three cases.

Of the three studies of class identity, I felt Patill-McCoys methodological approach to be the most successful. Her argument that class identity is more than just economically derived is backed up by her own comprehensive research within a black middle class community. The experiences that she shares with the reader highlight socially created restraints of class, in addition to income levels.

While Ostranda's piece surprised me a bit, in that the women she interviewed attained their class more to their lineages than their nuclear family's income levels, we can't be sure that the small group of upper class women that she interviewed is representative of all women in the upper crust. Still, her interviews seem to be a good starting point for building ideas for further and more detailed research into upper class women.

The methodology of Oulette's article seemed to me the least methodological approach in that she used just one source to explore the attitudes towards class identity of the "pink collar" workers of the 60s and 70s. Because the  "Cosmopolitan" magazine has been so successful, there is an implied agreement of its statements among its readers, but by Outlette's own admission she did not explore the true feelings of the readers, or other young women non-readers for that matter.

Given the two methodological approaches, I think that Ostrander and Patillo-McCoy's approach was more successful. Each of their articles was easier to read and understand. Ostrander gave specific quotes and interactions that she witnessed from her interviews with the people that lived the lives. For example, on page 33 Ostrander writes about what some of the women were telling her about Mrs. Appleton, that she "was not very serious about her volunteer work." In Patillo- McCoy's article, she also follows a specific group of people to analyze their various experiences. She writes that at the end of her research, she has seen students graduate from high school and go on to college or live with a drug dealer who would eventually be killed. These authors' arguments are strengthened by the reality of the lives they studied.

All three authors take different approaches to evaluating women of different classes. I think Ostrander's approach of interviewing women of the upper class was an effective approach. So often we only get to see the viewpoint of the party, which we believe to be the most oppressed. Getting a viewpoint from the "privileged" party, is the first step to understanding why people are or aren't oppressed. " As evidenced from these responses, upper-class women see themselves and their class as 'outstanding leaders' in the community, and deserving of the special regard in which they are held and of the rewards that follow." (25). These women feel that by being of a higher class, they deserve to be seen as better than others.

Ouellette used Cosmopolitan magazine to explore women and class. What she uncovered is basically that the way society define femininity was by how much a woman had. The more make-up, dresses, and fine cuisine a girl acquired, the more feminine and desirable she would be to men of the upper class.  The idea of Cosmopolitan was to teach girls of lower classes how to fake being a part of the upper crust. While I think that this article was conducive to the idea of women and class identity (media has a major impact on people in our society), it still leaves out how race is tied in.

I think a more effective article would include both the perspectives of Ostrander and Ouellette, along with a credible source that evaluates the whole spectrum of women of different, races and classes. 

I believe Susan Ostrander, Laurie Ouellette and Mary Pattillo-McCoy all had strong arguments through their methodologies on how to define "class." Ostrander and Pattillo-McCoy's arguments are legitimate, mostly because of their use of actual people in their interviews. I believe they both chose to use research and real examples in interviews because it's a first hand "response." It gives the reader a very clear picture on what the subjects actually feel about the topic.

Ostrander claims that "upper class and upper-class women, in particular, to be the most class-conscious segment of the American population" (21). Although she claims studies have proven this to be true, it's really not a clear picture of all the views of class through people in the United States. She interviewed ignorant women who even claimed they've never had to work for anything.

Pattillo-McCoy had a convincing argument about Black middle class, but I feel the argument was narrow because she only focuses on one specific group to define class. She talks about the inequality of the housing markets and describes how "African Americans have long attempted to translate socioeconomic success into residential mobility, making them similar to other ethnic groups" (141). I feel this can be applied to many, if not all, ethnic groups that are non-native to an area: they want to be associated with the community. This is not just specific to the black population.

I found Ouellette's approach to define class through pop. culture and media to be the most convincing. Although a lot of the focus is on "changing identity," it captures the reader's attention because it's specific to today's issues and beliefs on women's identity and association to class. Another reason I feel her argument is the most compelling because the media is very specific to what's relevant today. Ouellette says "identity [is] something that could always be reworked improved upon and even dramatically changed" (366). I agree with the fact that one's identity is always be changing, because the world is always changing.

All these three articles examine class identity, and each uses a different research methodology to do so.  There is no such thing as a perfect research design and so each article has it's flaws as well as strengths.  The Patillo-Mccoy article used alot of statistics which I find to be more useful in painting the picture of the advantages and disadvantages for the black middle class.  She also had first had accounts and interviews in her article.  The combination of these two research designs (statistics and first hand accounts) came off to me as the best way to study class identity.  You get a more uniformed and well rounded information on the subject.  I thought that Oustander's one on one interviews with upper class white women also did a good job of getting a more in depth and qualitative look at class from within it's subjects.  Although the point of this study was to get the advantages and disadvantages of being a upper class female from their own personal viewpoint, I thought that this methodology lacks any objectiveness which the Patillo-Mccoy gained through the use of statistics in her research. 
The Oulette article I feel had the poorest research design in that it was simply a critique of past literature.  She did a good job on gathering information and quotes from the 60's and 70's, and used specific evidence to back up her claim that brown's discourse legitimized sexism and capital expoiltation of women's labor, I feel that her lack of actualy interviews or any first hand accounts weaken her research as she is only getting her information through hers and previous reviews of literature.  I think that in order to understand a problem research is looking at, multiple designs of research should be used and I feel the Patillo-Mccoy did the best job of utulizing this.

Each of the three articles we read for this week use different research techniques and styles to display the different ways people view identity. Susan Orstrander conducted a study where she interviewed a number of wealthy upper class women to get their perception on what it means to be upper class. Her technique provided the reader with a true feel for the attitudes of these women, " My family was never hard up. We have more fun because we don't have to spend time worrying about things, and spend time doing things like cleaning the stove."(Pg. 27). These direct quotes show the superiority these women feel simply because of their "family names".

            Laurie Outlette took a different approach in her Cosmo girl article, by supporting her arguments with quotes from previous publications like Guardian Weekly and Cosmopolitan. These quotes support Browns goal of attempting to change the economic and sexual roles of women, while still emphasizing the importance of forming your own identity as a "working girl".

            The final technique used was as study where Mary Pattillo-McCoy spent a significant amount of time living in Groveland, observing the residence and surrounding communities. She gathered statistics that supported her argument of the problems facing middle-class African Americans.

            Over all I thought the most useful technique was the interviewing technique. I liked seeing first hand how the "other half" views themselves and others around them, and reading direct quotes from the women she interviewed provided me with that insight. 

I believe the Patill-McCoy article is the most successful engaging clearly with class identity and problems.  Oullette offers historical identifiers of class through media which is problematic because all people have a personal relationship with media. They may retain  preconceived notions or rationalize while viewing through a lens that they relate to.  Susan Ostrander allowed her subjects to speak for themselves about their identities within their class; this breeds a certain distrust in me, we cannot see ourselves objectively.  While I think studying statistics and charts provides the least convoluted study by Patill-McCoy, it brings up the question 'who has the privilege to speak for whom?'  I wonder if I accept this mode because I will allow people of a different class to be studied and reported back to me by someone of my own.  While not the most political, I think Ostrander allowing facts to be drawn from within a class rather than observing them is the most "representationally" sound mode of study.   

My understanding of the articles for this week was that the three author's main argument was to specify what people were actually dealing with in their everyday life. The methods such as the interviews and studies of the population made Ostrander's and Patillo-McCoy's argument strong which was to look at both the advantages and disadvantages of the women's everyday life. One of the women that Ostrander interviewed was Mrs. Ames and she said "Perhaps the most difficult thing I had to deal with was whether I could have made it if I hadn't had anything." Oullette based her argument on the magazines and the media which focuses more on what people want to see or what they assume or expect is going to happen.

These arguments from the readings had their own way of portraying the ideal life or ideal person that people wanted to live or become and the methods the authors used were all successful. Ostrander and Patillo-McCoy, and Oullette were all getting information that was either possible or impossible to achieve from the societies expectations, which is challenging both ways and you have to look at it from all perspectives.

When reading Susan's Ostrander article, Women of the Upper Class, the upper- class women define their class position by their ancestry, heritage, and breeding- of "being from an old line family." (p.23) This article interviewed women who believed they were born into the upper class. The article was based on interviews and conversations with the author that provided insights into the concepts and experiences of everyday life for those in the upper- class. Using names like Mrs. Bennett, Mrs. Cooper, Do not seem to be a reliable or creditable because this study picked women at random who explained the advantages and disadvantages of the Upper class. I feel like this study was the least effective because they spoke with women from the same area all falling in the upper class category. Mary Pattillo- McCoy had a similar method as Ostrander of how they used a study as a way to help readers empathize with the issues of class status. It was hard to have a good observation because we can only observe from the outsider appearance on these issues.

            Media, Culture and Society by Laurie Ouellette used quotes and facts from magazines and books to analyze female identity.  By using specific examples from Cosmopolitan and the history of magazines gives more credibility to support Ouellette. On page 336 "Brown's credo required an understanding of identity as something that could always be reworked, improved upon and even dramatically changed."

All three approaches are different methods and ways to get you thinking about identity. Each article was unique in the ways they posed their arguments to persuade you that their opinion/ theory was correct. I found Laurie Oullettes article the most effective method of research.

Each articles for this week reading gave different methodological approaches. However, Ostrander and  Pattillo-MacCoy's article was effective because they uses resources that comes from real people base upon their different views and perspective of dealing their own situations and how it's like to be in the situation. For Ostrander, she interviewed upper class women about their advantage and disadvantages. As for Pattilot-MacCoy, she wrote about the privilege and threat Black Middle class faces. Both author included the good and the bad of the different classes. If other viewers read the articles and didn't have an ideal idea of what it is like to really be in their position, then they don't know how to relate or understand their point of view.

I prefer the methodological approach by both Ostrander and Patillo-McCoy because things become more concrete when you use the experiences of others. While Oullette's study was very informative and factual, it lacked the everyday perspective given by the other two articles. These two ways are also how anthropologists study, either by doing fieldwork or by doing studies based off other people's writings. As an anthropology major, I've always been more inclined to the fieldwork based studies than what is called "arm chair philosophizing". By actually getting involved in everyday experiences I feel you learn a lot more and it becomes more personal.  By hearing how Mrs. Haines felt about her privilege is a whole lot different than hearing how Ostrander or another outsider perceives it. Or for example, how Helen Gurley Brown  sees the Cosmo girl, she doesn't necessarily know what they're lives are like, but she presents her assumptions and then every Cosmo girl is a wide-eyed go-getter.

Ostrander's research approach was to speak to upper class women in a city and interview them about "the meaning of upper-class".  The women spoke of how being upper-class shaped their lives.  "When the spontaneously spoke of themselves or others as members of the upper class and in relation to the community, they rarely spoke of income, education, or their husbands' occupations" (page 22).  Laurie Ouellette's research article touches on how Cosmopolitan and the editor Helen Gurley Brown's "role in party subverting patriarchal sexual ideologies..."  Patillo-McCoy's "Black Picket Fences" provides a description of her study on a predominantly African American neighborhood (Groveland) and how it compares to other predominantly white neighborhoods in the Chicago area.  The research was conducted for three years.   Also the article speaks of the "middle-class African American". 

I find that all the articles are touching on different aspects of identity.  For example, women identity, upper-class women identity, and middle class African American's identity.  But Patillo-McCoy is the more successful research article because it has a more in depth approach in discovering the differences among the classes.  "The fact that a neighborhood's racial makeup is frequently a proxy for the things that really count-quality of schools, security, appreciation of property values, political clout, and availability of desirable amenities-attests to the ways in which larger processes of discrimination penalize blacks at the neighborhood level."   Patillo-McCoy also conducted her study over a three period.  Her results seem to be more conclusive on the ideology of class identity and how it affects certain groups.   The gaps in the arguments come from the different research methodologies.  Also they are each covering similar but mostly different topics.    

Initially, I would gravitate toward believing that Ostrander and McCoy used a stronger methodological approach to their research, however, I think I experience this initial reaction mostly because I found their writing more enjoyable to read. The point of these articles should not be based on entertainment for the reader though, rather, it is about creating a solid research piece regarding the aspects of female identities. Because of this, I believe Oullette's exploration is most successful. Oullette provides factual information including quotes from multiple sources of media to support her argument. Ostrander on the other hand focuses completely on the biased ideas of the upper-class women through interviews and McCoy focuses the majority of her research on the observation of only one community. Oullette uses historical facts and survey to clearly support her research, showing the idea of shaping the female identity which leaves the least amount of room for gaps.

In Qullette's article she has an advantage in the fact that she focuses on the media and popularized part of class identity.  There is a wide variety and range of sources and examples along with history to back up the idea that class identity "could always be reworked, improved, improved upon, and even dramatically changed" (366).  The major disadvantage in Qullette's approach is the fact that there are no personal first hand opinions, interviews or comments from women that are interactive in this issue. Without that personal aspect the whole analysis is strictly text based.

Ostrtander uses opinions directly from upper class women, the results are interesting along with being typical. They normality of the results comes as an disadvantage to Ostrtander . She states "Mrs. Hall , had recently recognized her own "class snobbery" and was determined to rid her of moral superiority that she had been taught since birth" (26). "if we want something we get it" (27). The comments they make are genuine and real but create a closer look at the mentality that these upper class women have, but there  too obvious as well. Of course they think there more superior than lower class people, and of course they know they have a perfect life with everything they want handed to them. So When Ostrander tries to use this as a way for these women to gives themselves an identity, they might as well consider their identity handed to them. If everything these women use to identify themselves with was handed to them and just because of their birthright, then there identity was just an added factor to the package.

After reading this week's articles, I found that Ouellette's article is more successful and convincing. She has done the best analyses and research about the women identity. The article provides a broader view of how people see female identity as she has a wider range of evidence as she uses books, magazines and media. Although she is not doing a firsthand research, the research she has done is valid and more comprehensive in terms of the data she got and gathered. She used strong evidences to show how Cosmo has been an influential factor of shaping women identity. She said that ,"[I] wish to show how Brown's advice spoke to major changes in women's economic and sexual roles, while also suggested social identity for her "working girl" readers" (360). Her argument is convincingly strong and objective as she doesn't limit her evident to only one type.

To me, Ostrander and Patillo-McCoy's articles are more objective and limited. In Ostrander's article about upper class women, she provides numerous in-person evidences to show how the upper class women define "themselves". I feel that the first person interview is a good method of studying her object because she could get the most accurate and personal views. However, I would argue that Ostrander's methodology is not strong enough when comparing to Ouellette's. Ostrander's article is a little bit narrow and objective because she conducts interviews in one city and has already limited her target group. She even points out, "The Women's comments also begin to weave a picture of the upper-class way of life" (35). The answers and responses from the people are predictable. We can only see how upper class women see themselves but not the others. She missed a comprehensive view of women identity when she only focuses her interview on one group of people. Moreover, Patillo-McCoy's research is based on the black middle class. She interviews and observe the black middle class women in a limited area. Although she combines her data with statistical data; again, it still lacks a big picture of the subject that she is looking at.

I think there are gaps in the articles. The methodologies that the writers used vary because their goals and the types of article are different. Ostranders and Patillo-McCoy conduct first hand interview to get real life examples, targets. Ouellette use second hand data because she wants to have more precise views and analyses to shun subjectivity.

I find that studying the population via interviews or in an ethnographic manner a la Ostrander and Patillo-McCoy is more effective than Oullette's primary support of media research.  That isn't to say of course, that media research, and therefore, secondhand research should be ignored. Rather, first-hand research such as observing or interviewing the studied population can provide a more in-depth and personal study on which to base one's argument.

The reasons that the authors varied on their research methods is quite simple.  The subjects studied by Ostrander and Patillo-McCoy were more established social groups, i.e. in case there was established social class and the other race, which is biologically established, respectively.  Thus, interviews and ethnographical observation was more appropriate.  Oullette's subject, "The Cosmo Girl" is based on a media creation, the persona created by Gurley-Brown and her media vehicle Cosmopolitan.  Considering the media source, it makes perfect sense that research was done primarily through various media.

I feel that that the biggest gap came from Oullette's article.  While the titles from past Cosmos were both interesting to ponder and wonder what the effects were on the American population.  But we were left in the dark as to how effective (or not) "Why I Wear My False Eyelashes to Bed" had on the American female population during the Cosmo Girl era.  It would have been nice to have some interviews from former Cosmo girls or something.  I also feel that some quotations from the citizens of Groveland would have enhanced the piece, "Black Picket Fences." This may be because I enjoyed the candor of the first article and because I feel that quotations better personify a study of an identified group. 

            Ostrander focused on upper-class women, relying on first person interviews.  I feel she used this method because it would provide her with personal knowledge and understanding of these women's lives.  I found this methodological approach limited.       First, I think first person interviews are helpful, I think they can sometimes lack objectivity.  Secondly, while interviews are good for description, for me, they often fail to address an important question for me - which is why this study matters, or what is it really trying to accomplish.  What is Ostrander's point in this study, what is she seeking to change?  Although I know not all research has to have a big social justice style impact, I like the kinds that do much better.  Third, I guess to be blunt and perhaps crude (or ignorant) - I just can't relate to a study of upper-class women.  After reading Ostrander's piece I was left thinking 'why did I just read that... I could have just turned on MTV and watched something much more entertaining that carried the same basic points'.

            The biggest problem I had with her approach was that she only focuses on women in a certain geographical area.  This is limiting because, for example, the women discuss the differences between those who are old and new money.  This might not be the same in other geographical regions (especially with different histories and a higher population).

            Patillo-McCoy also used interviews, but spent many more years gathering her research.  I think Patillo-McCoy used a more in-depth and longer research process because it carries more weight than simple interviews.  I liked Patillo-McCoy's research more than Ostrander's because it seemed more concrete.  She spent more time and seemed to really take into account more facts than Ostrander did.  For example, she had statistical information about income, which is important for her subject of study.  While sometimes she did fail to fully explain or justify her arguments, I personally felt her research was more compelling and had a point.

            Ouellette's methods differed much more from Ostrander and Patillo-McCoy.  She analyzed magazines, books and other media.  She chose this method because she was focusing on a specific point: Brown and Cosmo magazine and how they shaped discourse.  This method seemed pretty appropriate to the aim of the research.  Ouellette presented facts and a sort of historical survey that presented clear support of what she was trying to research: the shaping of female identity. 

All of the articles this week were on different subjects and some were researched differently.  The articles by Ostrander and Pattillo-McCoy used research from studies of different groups, while the Ouellette uses magazines and books as her references.  I think the most successful methodological approach is the study of different groups or populations because it gives examples of everyday life and their effects, instead of just facts.  For instance, the Ostrander article has interviews from conversations the author had with people that are part of the populations.  Pattillo-McCoy observed an entire community for three years, keeping track of the people who live there and gathered information on how people lived.  I think they used this method because it gives real life examples and makes few assumptions.  The article by Ouellette which only gives us the titles of articles, but doesn't give us results of what happened in the article, like when she mentions "Sex and the Single Girl" which says how women should be, but we don't know if anyone took the advice seriously.

Mary Pattillo McCoy's approach to her methodological studies was based on the black middle class. Although she did have some statistics, it was really just based on one neighborhood, the "Groveland Neighborhood", because of this, it lacked support in representing all middle class neighborhoods, and it was not convincing enough. If she had between 5 to 6 neighborhoods that came up with the same statistics, and it showed a frequent pattern, it would have made for a stronger argument. It would have also been a more successful argument had she provided more examples of the facts that she was talking about. For example when she talks about the "discrimination practices of banks, insurance companies" (14). The questions of what discrimination practices, when and where are unanswered because she failed to provide evidentiary support.            

Susan A. Ostrander writes about the upper class in America. Her research is clearly based on interviews and she gets a very personal perspective to the upper middle class life. This approach is very interesting, and it sheds a light on who these people are. But, with interviews alone, it fails to provide factual data. These are more based on opinions and thoughts, verses direct factual questions like "How much does your trips to Europe cost?" to "What is the average income of these old families?"

As for Laurie Oullette, I found her article to be the most convincing and successful. Oullette uses several sources from other media to help support her argument about Helen Gurdy Brown. She provides facts from Cosmo magazines to exact quotes and information that Brown stated in these magazines. Oullette correlates her arguments with the "hows" and "whys" Cosmo has directed its "changes in women roles" (360). From exploitation to sexism, Brown is targeted and criticized. I find Oullette's argument strong because there are clear facts from Cosmo and other sources as well that helps supports her argument.

These different ways of presenting their arguments could have been because of individual goals and perspectives that they were trying to achieve, in the end, I have found that Laurie Oullette has provided the best arguments because she brings in different angles and clear factual evidence to support it. 

I think that Ostranders and Oullettes methodological approaches worked the best by far, even though they were different. Ostrander used the 'study' method as a way of showing us the lives of upper-class women by getting quotes like: "I was brought up in a home where I saw nothing but the best. It gives you a certain standard. You know what perfection is" (p27). These quotes enabled her to get the in-depth evidence that she was looking for in order to get the point across about how these upper-class women within society truly think and feel about their status. I don't think that she would have been able to do this by using the other, more analytical approach because it wouldn't have given her argument the strength it needed. On the other hand, I think that her study lacks some depth because she just focuses on the women of this upper-class division, where as I think that she should have expanded her studies to include the men of these same sectors in order to get the "other side" view of what life is really like in this social class.

Oullette is another author that I think does a very good job of putting forth her argument, even though she uses a different approach. She analyzes and critiques the work done in the media with a very critical eye that most people don't have and as a result, are passively influenced and fed messages that they are unaware of. She gives quotes from Cosmopolitan about how "some girls have it...some don't. But that elusive little quality separating the haves from the nots is within everyone's grasp" (p368), which highlights her main point about how influential media can be on a person's individuality through such oppressive tactics, mainly on women. Another strength to her study was that she used various sources within the media sector in order to reinforce her argument; she didn't just focus on one more than the other.

I think that Patillo-McCoy's article was the least successful out of all of them due to the fact that there were many instances where the ideas that were put forth appeared to be very bias and lacking statistical proof. Throughout the whole article, she uses 'white' instead of 'Anglo-Saxon', but does not refrain from using 'African American' instead of 'black' when putting forth a point in favor of her argument. She also lacks statistical proof in numbers when including statements such as "African Americans are more segregated from whites than any other racial or ethnic group" (p137). I made all of these observations while reading only the first few introductory pages of her article, which made me uneasy at the fact that she set her more factual-based information up with less than credible inferences.

Overall, I think that for any study to be soundly valid, or close to it, I think that you have to use a 'hybrid' of these two ideas; use facts, but also on observational data in order to make your own personal view clear, but trustworthy.    

Ostrander's case study of upper-class women, based primarily on interviews and somewhat on personal observation, provides an excellent example of what informs self-identity within this specific group. Although I am compelled to believe this case study is applicable to upper-class women in other geographic locations, no proof is offered that such extrapolations can be made. This is one weakness in Ostrander's article. Additionally, I find the lack of citations to other pieces of literature about what informs identity for upper-class women another weakness in Ostrander's piece. It does, however, appear to legitimize Collin's argument in Learning from the Outsider Within that women of one class often do not recognize their role in oppressing women of another class.

Ouellette's research provides a good example of how popular media can both inform and uphold discourse on identity. Ouellette's method is based entirely on archival research, which provides us with an excellent example of the fluid nature of identity. However, because Ouellette uses only Brown's publications, and those of her critics, to support her argument, there are limitations to her methods; most notably the single interpretation of Brown's writings.

I believe Pattillo-McCoy's research methods are most effective because she uses all the methods mentioned thus far (interviews, observation, and archival research). Pattillo-McCoy's use of a number of research methods provides layers to her argument not available in Ostrander's or Ouellette's pieces, and her argument demonstrates why it is important to look at the intersection of race and class, instead of examining them separately. Pattillo-McCoy effectively combines historical elements with current social statistics and observations.

I believe Ostrander's and Patillo-McCoy's use of studying subject matter behavior by using interviews and conducting population studies enabled them to immerse themselves in the social context they were studying thereby engaging not only their subjects but also the reader. Their research approaches allowed them to write their articles in a way that engaged the reader and therefore affect their emotions. Both authors, Ostrander's use of personal interviews and accounts and Patillo-McCoy's use of in-depth historical accounts and the portrayal of "Groveland", used a research approach that helped readers to empathize with the issues faced by their subjects. These techniques were a powerful way of engaging the reader to become more aware of the issues the upper-class women deal with when striving to retain their status and thus defining their class status, "The women I interviewed spoke easily and articulately about the upper-class and how if frames their lives" (Ostrander, 21), and the continual equality struggle - economic and race - of the middle-class blacks, "To resolve the quandary it is essential to continuously refer back to the ways in which the black middle class is not equal to the white middle class..." (Patillo-McCoy, 137).

In contrast, Ouellette utilized a less personal approach to explain the cause-and-effect glamour magazines, such as Helen Gurley Brown's Cosmopolitan magazine, have on people's perception of their class identity and how one can affect their own class identity through continual improvement. Ouellette, through her article and research approach, was not as successful in conveying her message as the other two writers because her article focused more on Brown and the feminist confrontation the Cosmopolitan magazine created in the 1960's and 70's than on the influence magazines have on women and their ability to affect class identity than on personal conflicts. "What I am proposing is that the cultural discourse Brown articulated legitimated sexism and the capitalist exploitation of women's labor, while simultaneously expressing hardships and desires in a voice that spoke with credibility to an expanding class of pink-collar women" (Ouellette, 360).

Ouellette's article, I believe, failed to appeal to the reader and to show the cause-and-effect she had intended to identify in the article. The personal interaction used by Ostrander and Patillo-McCoy was far more successful than Ouellette's approach. However, Ostrander and Patillo-McCoy's research approach resulted in a more subjective argument leaving room for arguments regarding objective and factual cause-and-effect.

I found the use of population studies to be more useful than magazine and book studies. I think that to properly understand anything about a group of people, there needs to be firsthand account of some kind, which prizes multiple individual's experiences over massification. So often when using books, magazines and other such media things can be construed and twisted to be more sensational, or promote an agenda. After all, the media exists for consumption or to form a particular way of thought, and accordingly has to be presented in a way that will promote sales. As a result, I find most of printed media to be suspect. The use of documentable media is also hailed as a more "legitimate" type of research, partially I think because it plays on the idea that because something was published, or that it was made out to be the majority viewpoint, that it is true.

However, when there are no longer any means or way to do direct study (for example, unless you have a time machine, you can't go and talk to someone dead, or get a feel of a lost generation by being there) then media becomes one of the few ways to study a certain time or people no longer available. Additionally, when performing a study, I think it is important to take into all factors, including the mass media, to support or provide counterpoint to your research.

Oullette uses the media to support her argument partly because her agreement is based in media, and is appropriate and also because it captured the attitude of the early Cosmo era. It is interesting to note that Ostrander seemed to take into account books and papers on class, but disregarded them in favor of her own interviews. In Ostrander's case, it would have been more beneficial to have more interviews, because she shows a somewhat narrow view of how women of high class view themselves, so while that might have been fine for a specific area study, i.e. one city, it wasn't suited to a larger study like she seemed to be aiming for. Patillo-McCoy was perhaps the most successful of the three, but she could have utilized more statistics, interviews and like books/papers to support her research. Overall, I found all methods of research legitimate for what they were researching, although all could have been improved upon.

The methodological approaches used by Ostrander, Mc-Coy, and Oullette are all valid but in my opinion, the best method was used by Oullette because she presented different mediums to support her argument.  Ostrander and Mc-Coy's studies were successful, however, basing their arguments specifically on interviews is not the best method in conducting research. 

I believe all of the authors used the different research methods to try and gain the most knowledge about what they were presenting.  In the case of Ostrander, she focused on an elite group of upper class women and interviewing them with specific questions allowed her to gather the information she needed to write her passage.  However, I think Ostrander's argument as well as McCoy's could have been stronger with factual data.  For example, instead of just interviewing upper class women Ostrander could have given specific research on how much the "elites" were donating, spending, etc.  Neither of the authors used hard facts.

On the other hand, Oullette discussed the career of Helen Gurley Brown and used quotes and ideas from books and magazines to show what was happening in the media at that point in history.  Without quoting other sources, Oullette would have had a difficult time explaining the ridicule Brown was faced with.  On page 369, Inventing the Cosmo Girl, I quote, "Upscale magazines from Esquire to the New Yorker satirized Brown and her magazine, as did political journals from the left-leaning Ramparts to the conservative National Review."  Many other media soures were tearing Brown apart for her new image of a Cosmopolitan girl.  Quoting the other magazines made Oullette's argument stronger.

In conclusion, the best method of research is using numerous sources, gathering as much information as possible, and clearly supporting your argument.

People who do not identify as either straight nor gay face a dichotomy because they cannot be categorized into a single sexual orientation. Although heterosexuality is the most accepted sexual orientation, our society is slowly accepting homosexuality, or at least understanding it. But when it comes to bisexuality, there really isn't a place for it. A bisexual person must struggle to find their identity amongst both the heterosexual and homosexual world. 

As a whole, our society doesn't know what to think of bisexuals. I have taken a handful of classes pertaining to the GLBT community, yet I have heard very little about the bisexual population.  I remember one of my female peers admitting that she considered herself to be bisexual, and when asked to share some of her thoughts, she responded by saying that to her, being bisexual simply meant that she has the capacity to love anyone of any gender. The person that she finds herself in a relationship with could be either a man or a woman; however it happens to turn out.

So how does a bisexual "come out" to their family? Would coming out have the same kind of effect on both the bisexual and their family as would a gay/lesbian coming out? Would the conservative, heterosexual family try to convince their bisexual loved one to choose a [seemingly] hetero relationship since they do, in fact, mingle with the opposite sex? How does bisexuality shape the identity of a bisexual person? How do bisexuals present themselves to the world and to potential partners? Does this depend upon how a particular bisexual is raised and what race(s) and class they belong to? So many questions...

Alcoff says that "[i]dentities are best understood as ways in which we and others around us represent our material ties to historical events and social structures."  Patricia Hill Collins addresses how Black feminists in particular "possess a unique standpoint... or perspective" due to the "historical and material conditions shaping [their] lives."  We are beginning to look at identities and how they are constituted, operate and how identity and oppression interact. 

            These two articles made me think of my own experience and how my identity has been (and is being) shaped by my experience.  Particularly, I thought of my experience in Catholic school when I was young.  My mother was sixteen when she had me, and I lived with my grandmother for many years.  Although we were Lutheran, I went to Catholic school because my grandmother had been a school teacher and knew administrators at the school who gave my family a huge discount on tuition. 

            The first identity that I remember that I was sort of assigned was that of Lutheran (I was 'othered' because I was not Catholic - I did not fit into the dominant religious/culture of the school).  Although that was not a huge thing that caused me strain with my classmates, it still made me aware that I was different and a minority in terms of religion.  The next thing that I realized was the class and family structure differences between me and my peer's families.  My mother and aunt were both adopted, and my grandmother was a single mother by the 1970s.  My mother was single, sixteen and poor when I was born.  This was much different from the two parent, three child, upper middle class family structures that almost all of my peers had.  Again, my family was poor, and the rest of my classmates came from families with plenty of money (I was 'othered' because of my social class or material conditions).

            When I got to about 5^th grade, the differences between myself and my peers at Catholic school were becoming painfully apparent to me.  While the other kids got mountain bikes, the latest sneakers and what seemed to me anything they wanted, I didn't.  I started to stand out with my hand me down clothes - my family was poor.  I felt uncomfortable and more and more alienated at school.  These were not people I really could relate to.  At the beginning of fifth grade I talked my mother into letting me attend public school because I was so unhappy because I didn't fit in at private school.  When I started at public school my identity as a student from a poor family changed, because I was introduced to people that were most likely poorer than myself.  I felt like I was more accepted and I did not stand out because of my family's economic situation.

     In conclusion, I believe identities can change and are relative to different contexts or situations.  My experience as standing out for being poor at a rich school is something that shaped how I thought about my peers at the time and the world.  When that changed, I had to rethink my identity, and it now that experience has shaped me into a more socially aware person.

After reading both articles, Visible Identities by Linda Alcoff and Learning from the outsiders with in by Patrica Hill Collins we start to see how identities are constituted and how they operate. As Linda Alcoff defines on page 285 "struggles of social identity have been fought against the subtle social contracts by which whole identity groups are denied equality and basic human rights."

This got me thinking of a lady Elena Gonzales, she happens to be a grandmother of my good friend.  Elena moved from Mexico to California in her early thirties. She had a well-established identity living in a reputable neighborhood, working as a doctor and supporting three children. As soon as she moved, people stereotyped her because of her skin color, body shape, and language, which was struggle for Elena to fit in this society.  Historically Hispanics did labor work, at low wages. Elena got a job picking tomatoes in a field working long hours and making barley enough to get by. Her children also went down the wrong path falling into the stereotypical roles Mexican adolescents played in suburban cities of California. Collins says, " enduring the frequent assaults of controlling images requires considerable inner strength", something her children fell victim to. As African American experience sexual exploitation, Elena experienced exploitation by being forced to work for minimal wages despite her real identity as an educated professional. People need to acknowledge the inadequacies of the social structures to end identity- based oppression.

This weeks readings on the relationship between historical and material conditions and social structures made me think of the movie "District 9". In the movie, there is a clear dichotomy between humans and non-humans, or "prawns". The human power is defined in many ways; humans oppress the non-human identity though the inability of the prawn to rise in their social status, the military power of the human social class to evict and relocate the prawns out of the District 9 slum, and the oppression of the non-human social identity through the denial of basic rights such as safety or right to life (defiant prawns are immediately shot at, and their eggs are destroyed).

Wikus, an agent with the private military contractor in charge of the relocation of the prawns out of the District 9 slum, has the unique experience of transforming his visible identity. At first, his social identity is that of a human who wields a considerable about of power over the non-prawns in his eviction rights and weaponry. However, when he becomes sprayed by a liquid belonging to the aliens, he begins to transform physically into a prawn. His duel identity as human in a non-human body cannot be accepted by the strict, socially determined human and non-human identities. As a consequence, Wikus is treated like a prawn and hunted down by the military. Thus, his superficial non-prawn identity oppresses and constrains him because of how others, the humans, see it as a cue for oppressive treatment, regardless of how it inaccurately represents Wikus's nature.

While reading Alcoff and Collins articles, I began thinking about people I knew who encountered the "stranger" phenomenon of which Simmel speaks. It reminds me of a close family friend, Lily, who moved to my largely white, upper-middle class suburban town when I was in elementary school. She had been born in Chile, but went to high school in America, and married a white man from Texas. She quickly became friends with my mother, who had not grown up in such an affluent town, and had a more diverse experience of the world. Lily often spoke about the different hierarchies that seemed to form, even within our neighborhood. The importance of things like Bunco and children's playgroups were taken for granted in my town. 

Lily was immediately marginalized because of the color of her skin, and her accent, even though it was not thick. While she found it difficult to become close with most of the mothers in our neighborhood, she was still friendly and invited to everything. But, as Collins speaks about, she had the unique perspective of being triply oppressed - as a non-white, female of a poor background. It made it easier for her to identify the social structures that largely were invisible to the rest of us.  Lily was an extremely strong female - and I thought of her as Collins discussed the meaning of self-definition and self-valuation, and its importance for African American women. She didn't depend on the images that were stereotypically portrayed for women of color, and she seemed to be constantly aware of herself as a person, and not as the token non-white. She used her background, her multiple social identities and material conditions to shape who she was, and how she presented herself to the world. 

After reading both articles about identity, and how identities affect oppression, I found that Collins most strongly provided an example that I could relate to.  Collins talks about this "outsider within" status that provides individuals with their own standpoint on self, family, and society. Collins also talks about images that are used to dehumanize women, making it easy for men to justify their poor treatment of women.  Collins references an interview with Nancy White who says, men treat black women as if they are mules and white women as if they are dogs, although the white women is closer to the master, he isn't going to treat either one as if they are human. This example is something that I have had personal experience with last year. There was an incident where I was at a party and woke up the next morning in a random apartment with no recollection of what had happened the night before. I went to the hospital to have tests done, and they told me I had been drugged. In this case I was the "other", the dominated group lacking full human subjectivity, as Collins would state. Women must not let these images and stereotypes define who they are, but they must embrace their status as an "outsider within" to help move towards humane treatment and equality for all women.

In ancient Rome, women and slaves were not citizens, as they hadn't been in ancient Greece.  There was a dichotomy of identity between citizen and not, mostly understood by an understanding of inferior minds and the submissive positions in sex occupied by both women and male slaves.  In the play "The Menaechmi" there is allowed to be a slave protagonist and "brain" of the situation, while women remain the submissive and flat action-less characters. It was an unrealistic portrayal of a slaves possible actions, but fitting with the roles of women.  I believe women would have had a very different reaction to it than men.  As their dichotomy was broken for one "other" in the group, they remained static characters in life and in politics for the entire life of the empire. As women viewed representations of themselves and their roles I believe they would have had a unique point of view shaped by personal pasts within their system (historically as explained in the readings) but with an intelligent understanding of the fracturing of the dichotomized identity to which they also belonged but were not yet free to escape, even in storytelling. (denying the space they fit into).  

For my example, I'd like to use Buzz Lightyear of Toy Story as having outsiders within status. Buzz Lightyear is adopted into Andy's collection when he is given as a gift. All the other toys are astonished by him; he's so flashy in comparison to Woody. However, Woody is not impressed and his secure spot as Andy's favorite toy becomes threatened.

Woody tries to belittle Buzz by pointing out that he is a toy, but that is not how Buzz sees himself. He is not a toy, but a space ranger sent to seek out and destroy Emperor Zurg. His confidence and somewhat delusional manner takes over Andy's bedroom and a change starts to occur. Buzz and the other toys fix up his space ship, and he returns by helping the other toys with their problems. Rex develops a meaner roar and Sketch starts drawing buzz instead of having an old fashion duel with Woody. Had Buzz not entered the scene, everything would've changed stayed the same. Later in the movie when Buzz lets Woody's definition of him as a toy settle in, he no longer is Buzz Lightyear. He becomes helpless and downright pitiful.

Buzz lightyear confidence in his role as a space ranger (not a toy) challenged the status quo of the bedroom. By not accepting that he was in fact a toy, he instilled confidence in the other toys to try new things and improve upon their lives.

Reading these articles and then attempting to relate the ideas to situations in my life was not at all difficult. I considered an example of what I explored with a part of my identity a few years ago. When I graduated high school, I headed off to the University of St. Thomas. I had hear about all the stereotypes about the "rich" people that go to St. Thomas but I just brushed all those comments off. I figured since I came from a family that has always lived not in the extreme, but very comfortably, I would fit in just fine. When I got there, I began to realize that in a sense, these comments that people had made were true. I had never even heard of the designer names that girls were dressed in or designer names of the bags that girls were carrying their books in. I began to feel like I didn't fit in. I wanted to stay true to my own identity but also felt jealous and wanted the material things they had. I battled this for awhile but realized that just because all these girls had expensive materials, that didn't mean they were good, kind, friendly people. We had simply been raised in different social institutions. Everyone from their home towns owned those material things because that's what was built into the society that they lived in. I happened to come from a society which these things were not built in. I simply accepted it and made a lot of really great friends because of who they were, rather than worrying about the things they owned.

I remember when I went to stay with my in-laws in Mexico City of this year.  The entire time I was there the family spoke to me (In Spanish) and made me feel as if I was a complete insider...as if I completely belonged to their family.  But as soon as we left the home, it was a completely different story.  Even if I wandered off for more than a minute from the family I literally was swarmed with people asking me for money, people saying rude things they had learned in English, and gave me awful looks.  I feel like Mexican culture is a part of my life...half of my family is Mexican...I eat Mexican food, I celebrate Mexican holidays, everything about it engulfs my life...but out there it was as if no one could get past the color of my skin.  My mother in-law admitted even though she would love for me to move down there that I would always be seen as a dollar sign.  I wanted to fit in as a fluent Spanish speaker-surrounded by the language and culture I am in love with-but it was not like that.  I was the white "gringa" seen as a dollar sign to hit up for money on the streets, and inside the home I was spoken Spanish to and treated like a part of the culture and family. I struggled with my own identity at that time, even if it was only for a short period of time. 

The two articles for this week's reading were of particular interest to me as I feel they intimately pertain to my social situation. As a Korean adopted by a white family I could be classified simultaneously an insider and an outsider. I ostensibly live a middle class, white lifestyle (or at least I have intimate knowledge of this lifestyle) but am denied all the finer benefits of such a lifestyle due to my Korean heritage. So what does this mean? If I ignore my race and its social implications to continue my comfortable but deceptive lifestyle, I support racial ideologies by choosing not to address racial inequalities and therefore remain willfully blind; a privilege reserved only for those with the ability of choice. What is this choice? Though I have been raised within a the cultural dominant and therefore taught that I do have the choice of ignorance (i.e. ignore something that is socially, culturally and historically detrimental (like racism) because it does not affect me), because I am not the cultural dominant, only intimately nurtured and raised into it, I only want to believe I have that choice when I do not. What has this resulted in? I know of a lifestyle I cannot have inner access to because society has made me aware that I am "other". However, I do have access to that life, however limited. As an other, I have an "in". It means that too all appearances I live on the fringes, working between two socially perceived dichotomies; a part of the dominant culture and also apart from it. (I say socially perceived dichotomies because a Korean raised by a white family would seemingly result in a fractured identity, between two separate things, a Korean and an American. This is not the case, as I am a unified identity operating within a fractured society, or a society that support fractures. To paraphrase Alcoff, it is not identity that needs to be transformed, but the structures that identity works within.)

I grew up in a very small rural town with a population of around 200 people.  My entire school (k-12) had less than 100 students.  This is Drake, North Dakota.  In school everybody was accepted, we didn't have certain groups or "clicks" you belonged to.  But I guess that could have stemmed from the fact that we were all middle class white students and didn't really have a choice of who to pick for our friends.  From that you could guess that we had no diversity in our school.  With this kind of social structured environment, your standpoint about others that are "different" from you is probably skewed negatively.  I'm not saying I was racist.  I was just consumed with ignorance as were my fellow students.

In this town there was a way of dichotomous thinking, because either you worked on your family farm after high school or you went to college.  I chose to go to college.  I wanted my new identity to alter my ignorance into understanding others and other cultures.  I wanted diversity.  Patricia Collins article mentioned the "outsider within status".  She says Bell Hooks captured it best when she stated "living as we did-on the edge-we developed a particular way of seeing reality.  We looked both from the outside in and from the inside out...we understood both."     My standpoint has changed over the last few years, and I think that comes from changing my material conditions.  My status has changed.  The historical conditions I was raised in were telling me not to have an open mind.  Now I chose to have an open mind, and the curiosity of learning about others.   

One of the things Alcot discusses in her article is the relation between race and class and how the possession of material things places one in a higher class, thus giving the illusion that that class must some how be better than the others.  In America this has meant white people, and for generations women of color have fallen into ruts of domestic work and other such jobs while simultaneously losing their sense of personal identity as they struggle to become the essential "rich white woman".

My grandmother experienced this struggle first hand. She was Japanese, and when she was 25 she met and married my grandpa when he was stationed in Japan during the Korean War.  Coming to South Dakota was an extreme culture shock for my grandma.  Things were so different to her that she would tell stories years later about how much of an adjustment it has always been. They moved to my grandpa's hometown of Gregory, a town that boasted only just under a thousand people.  Those inhabitants were anything but welcoming to my grandmother.  She was the only Asian woman in the town, and even though she shouldn't have had to, she was forced to conform to the standards and ideals of a white American woman.  For example, her name was Hisaka. However, no one in Gregory called her that.  Instead they gave her the name "Wanda" and referred to her by that. The only job in Gregory she could find was as a seamstress, so she became the one who everyone in town took their clothes to in order to have them fixed or altered. As Alcot states, my grandmother had a whole different set of "personal history, experience, political values, beliefs, and community commitments" that made her an outsider in Gregory.  As Alcot stated, "raced identity permeates multiple aspects of lived experience.  It does not simply involve social status but also involves one's affective, genealogical, and familial relationship to historical events and traumas."  This rings very true for my grandma and the people of Gregory.  For example, my grandma viewed the attack on Pearl Harbor very differently then the rest of the town.  She saw it as only part of the war, they, however, saw my grandma as a member of an evil race that dared to attack America. The difference is history became a dividing factor in the subject of race.  

Historical and material conditions influenced by social structures shape who a person becomes for many reasons, according to Alcoff and Collins. For some people, identity is based more upon the material conditions and social structures, such as in the case of Harry Potter. Historical conditions come into greater play when we look at Collins's work as she discusses Afro-American women and the "outsider within," which also affects Harry as his surrogate family knows that he comes from the "unnatural" wizarding world.

This theme of Star Wars as an example has immediately put Harry Potter into my mind and I can think of nothing else, so I will see what I can come up with for the famous wizard. Harry grew up living in a cupboard under the stairs with muggles (non-wizards), the Dursleys, without knowledge of his true past. This upbringing helped Harry to grow up to be humble, not knowing how famous he was in the wizarding world. The Dursleys knew of Harry's connection to the wizarding world, which led to some of the negative treatment he endured. The Dursleys did not approve of the existance of this "other" lifestyle. When Harry was faced with the reality of his past and how it changed the history of the wizarding world, it greatly affected his sense of wonderment, curiosity, and destiny. Harry was given a way out of the muggle world, into the wizarding world, to accept his true identity and eventually fulfill his destiny. Once Harry discovered that he belonged in the wizarding world, he never wanted to return to the muggle world, but was told he has no choice. Due to the material conditions of how Harry grew up, he knows nothing of the muggle world beyond how the Dursleys have treated him. This experience shaped how he views the muggle world and explains his unhappiness with having to live in the world he grew up in after discovering the world to which he belongs.

Identity can mean so many things to different people and they might not view it the same way as another person, but it's their history and today's social structure that contribute to their identity. Patricia Collins gives an example from Bell Hooks saying "Living as we did on the edge we developed a particular way of seeing reality. We looked both from the outside in and from inside out....we understand both."

An example from me would be as I was growing up in America having the Hmong American identity, I face struggles in middle school that made me feel confused about who I was, either having a Hmong or American identity. My parents were telling me to not become like Americans, I had to be a traditional Hmong girl. I wanted to blend in with both identities because I felt like that made me feel more comfortable and since I grew up in America, it was different for me then my parents who grew up in Laos. Reaching high school years made me realize that my parents were just scared for us to lose our identity as Hmong and I do see that I was becoming more Americanized.

Linda Alcoff argues "that what identities really are (as opposed to what they are sometimes said to be) is nothing to be politically afraid of." The social structure in America was different from Laos and my parents had to realize that they have to see it from my point of view. My parent's history is important to me and I want to keep it as a part of my identity. Growing up in America makes me feel that my life is going to go a different path then my parents. I want to have the Hmong American identity and not just one or the other.

I found this week's reading really interesting and meaningful to myself because as an "outsider" of the foreign country, I experienced the confusion and struggle about "identity" in a foreign country. Alcoff and Collins both discuss on the issue of social identities. Alcoff points out that ,"Identities are best understood as ways in which we and others around us represent our material ties to historical events and social structure"(287). I found it is very true as I experienced it in my life. When I first arrived in the US as an International student, I was so excited about the new foreign life. Due to the large international students population, what I noticed is that most student of the same ethnic group went together and I found international students and local white students tended to have two different community groups. Their self identifications have driven them to stay with people who they are more familiar with. This is because they had their own identities labeled or marked since they were young. This identification of self affects how we see ourselves in the new environment. The standpoint from which I viewed my identity was strongly influenced my culture (historical and material condition) and the traditional Chinese environment (social structure) that I grew up in. Sometimes, I would prefer to stay in the Asian community and Chinese tradition because it makes me feel "home" when I am staying with Chinese people. Sometimes, I would like to stay with "white" people because I think this is the better way for me to explore the world and this is the reason why I am here in the US.

Also, I lived with a white host family and that made me to think about my identity in this new country. I thought about having two identities but it seems to be too ridiculous as my identity has oppressed me from taking another identity. I can say that I had a special standpoint of being the only Chinese girl in an all white family for 2 years. My host parents were so kind and tried to bring me into their white community. I tried to fit into the social structure of the white family and this made me confused. This is because I felt like I was their "Asian" daughter but I knew I am a Chinese. Finally, because of my "material tie to historical events and structure", I tried to incorporate my own Chinese tradition to my new American life instead of forcing myself to fit into the white community.

This weeks' readings by Alcott and Collins explain how identities shaped through historical and material ties "make" a person, whether they actually portray that mold or not. An example for me is when I moved from Northern California to Minnesota. I moved in January of my 6^th grade year, and as soon as people found out I was from California, I was asked the same question repeatedly "Are you a surfer?" Of course I have only surfed 2 times in my life, but was embarrassed to admit this because I wanted to keep my "Californian identity." I felt that if I admitted to my new Minnesotan friends that I've only surfed twice (and one of those times was not in California), I would have already started to lose my identity as a California girl. I kept my image by wearing my favorite surf attire brand, Roxy. I held on to my material Californian appearance as long as I could.

As Alcott states, "our identities can be reshaped, and they absolutely require interpretation" (p. 288).  When I started to embody my new Minnesotan traits, I still felt I could be "Californian" by continuing to remember my history and association to California- memories of going to the beach, mountains, Disneyland, etc.

Another part of moving from California to a traditional conservative Midwestern town was the automatic assumption I was a liberal. I definitely identify myself as a liberal, but as soon as I moved to Minnesota and had conversations with new people, it seemed as if they already knew which side of the argument I would side with. Alcott explains about identities: "[identities]... can be inaccurately represented and mistakenly characterized. And they can in some cases be created as a strategy for oppression" (p. 287).  Of course I didn't think this to be very fair since I gave other people the chance to let them selves speak before judging them, but they seemed to already place me in a "Californian liberal hippie surfer chick" category.

After reading Alcoff and Collins article I was reminded of my high school. When I look back at the years I Was in high school there was a lot of proving who we were as students that took place.  In high school the main goal is to fit in, and there these underlying requirements that no one spoke of but everyone abided by. These requirements were similar if not the same as when Alcoff states "identities are best understood as ways in which we and others around us represent our material ties to historical events and social structures".Identity in this example would be the students social status in school. First your appearance (material ties) are key in determining the hierarchy that your placed in. The nicer and more expensive clothes you wore the more you were recognized and the easier it was fit in. The before the students even speak their status is predetermined just by their appearance.  This is only because of the fact that there's this standard that more "expensive" or name brand clothing is better that has been passes on for generations. This becomes a problem because a lot of students grow up without even option to buy name brand clothes. So without choice students are pushed into categories and labeled.  What really makes this bad is that students who do this don't even realize it, it's just a way of life and a normality. This in turns means that there needs to be a change in the way historical things are viewed and implemented rather there implemented consciously or unconsciously.

According to my interpretation of the readings by Alcoff and Collins, identity can be defined as either: a representation of our relationships to material items, society, and events or a reference or perspective resulting from the conditions listed above.

Since both readings referred to specific social groups, I am choosing to relate the principles of the readings to the identity of the hippies, a group that occurred in revolt of the mainstream middle class culture in 1960s America.  Because of the ideals that they championed such as sexual liberation, drug use, environmental friendliness, freedom, free love, and peace, their identity was one that was unorthodox and liberal. 

However, the hippie counterculture can be explained and analyzed using the principles of both authors' works.  For example, Alcoff says that social identities are "deep features of the self." This is true of the social identity of the hippies, who were dedicated to applying the ideals of their culture to their personal lives through the freedom of dress, eco-friendly commune living, and using art forms to express their beliefs.  This also strongly relates to Alcoff's belief that within identities, a "material tie operates through out our very physical and visible embodiment."

Ideas from Collins' three ideals can also be applied in explaining the hippie identity.  Like the feminists, hippies challenged the "political knowledge validation process."  They saw how oppression was interlocked between race, gender, and class and thus, revolted against mainstream middle-class America.  And finally, they took effort to validate make their culture important.  This was done by promoting themselves through art, protest, and completely devoting themselves to their unorthodox persona.    

The Alcoff writing was shorter in length but for myself more dificult to read.  I actually had to re-read it acouple times to make sure I understood where she was coming from.  One point throughout this article that stuck out was on p. 287 where she states, "It should be clear, then, that identities are not analogous to scripts that we are consigned to play out.  Nor are we boxed in by them, constrained, restricted, or held captive--unless, that is, one thinks that it makes sense to say that we are boxed in by the fact that we have bodies....." 

One other statement, also on p. 287 was, " To say that we have identities, histories, social locations, experiences, cultures, and so on is simply to say that we exist." 

Our own indentities are shaped by what is going on both internally and externally.  Our perception of what our own identity is will most likely be different from another persons when they see or interact with us. 

The Collins article I latched onto much faster. I can see the conflicts that come into play for Black/African American females within society and with the males of their own community.  The statement on p.159 that talks about "the black female being the white man's mule and the white female being his dog" caught my attention. It is the truth, sad to say, even in 2009.   Being a white man in society, there isn't too much more one needs to have power over others.  It shows the oppressive nature of our society.  One's skin color and gender  automatically puts them in a place where they will have to struggle more than a white man does(if he really has to at all) for his position in society. It's my own opinion when I say, it's not right. 

Trying to come up with something as to how I relate the articles to my own life, other readings, films etc. was difficult only because I could think of quite a few examples.  A conversation I had with my father-in-law over the weekend helped me to decide. Very current to say at least.

He asked me about school and how things were going & I was telling him about my classes and the accomodations that I am grateful to have. He told me that he just found out(he's 60 years old) that his grandfather became deaf due to illness as a child and lived within both the deaf community & hearing community. He married a woman(his grandmother) who was deaf from birth & raised 100% in the deaf community.  My father in law recalls seeing them using sign language when he was young.  He said that unlike his grandfather, who could speak and also used sign language to communicate, she used only sign language.  Therefore people, not him personally, often referred to her as being"Deaf and Dumb".  

To say the least, I was shocked to hear this, but then again not really.  I have had my own experiences where, even though I can speak, people tend to think that I am not as intellegent or educated as a "hearing person" may be.  Questions I have been asked(not recently)has also shown me that there are some who doubt the extent of my hearing loss.  I give credit to having really strong lip reading skills which is a good thing and "bluffing" which is not a good thing.  I can relate very well to the Collins writing due to being an "outsider".  I'm stuck in between two cultures. There are pros and cons to each.  Some days I wish I could just be in one or the other.  Most days I am glad to be stuck. 

As indicated by Linda Alcoff "social identities are understood to be the crux of the oppression and the nodal point of the imperialist project" (285). Taking this into consideration, Alcoff and Collins focus on the social construction of identities, and talks about how there is always a struggle with ones identity, due to either material, social, or historical conditions.

 Growing up as a first generation Asian American, I recall having a very low self-esteem as a child due to the idealistic images of the perfect woman, Barbie. She had bright blue eyes to perfect bleach blonde hair, and that was what I thought a woman should be. She had features that I did not. Looking at the social construction of this, I found Asians to be inferior at that time because I did not see Asian dolls being mass-produced, and when there was one, she had extremely chinky eyes, which I do not associate with. As Collins said, "stereotypes represent externally-defined, controlling images" (158)

I also encountered a confusion of identity as a child. I had to speak English, but at home I had to speak Hmong. So being at home, I was never Hmong enough for my parents because I did not fit into the traditional obedient daughter who cooked and clean, and at school I had felt that I was never "American" enough. So as Alcoff would say I had struggle with my identity due to my race, because and identity "is an oppressive from of coercion constraint" (287). 

There are many things that are put into consideration when looking at what shapes a persons' identity. There have been numerous situations in which I, personally, have had to look back at my historical and material conditions and social structures in order to figure out a situation or look at how they contribute to the formation of my identity and standpoint. One of the biggest decisions that I had to work through, based off of what my parents and I had discussed, was when I was figuring out whether or not I wanted to jump into the workforce or go to college. Looking at my material conditions, I really could not afford to go to college without having to take out loans, so it really came down to a dichotomous thought process to figure out my solution (pay to do something to better yourself and be broke, or go into the workforce and not have to pay to do so). Also, my financial standing within society was something that did not and does not help me when it comes to financial aid. This is because I make too much, but yet again not enough to pay the loans off in full before each semester (oppressive part of society). Another aspect that I had to look at was that neither one of my parents or their parents had gone to college (personal historical condition/piece of their identity), so I had no real support system to go off of at home, other than from my friends and counselors (social condition). The solution that I came up with was to go to school full time and work part-time. This would enable me to go to college, while paying parts of the loans off as I go. Instead of choosing to either go to college or to go into the workforce, I ended up choosing both; therefore, claiming my own independent identity by doing something different than that of my family's past. This also made me go against the dichotomous thought process that my parents were set in, due to their historical and material conditions they were raised in.

Reading the articles by Patricia Collins and Linda Alcoff, I very much understood what they meant by talking about social identity.  The example I thought of was in my high school.  I went to a small inner-city private high school where about fifty percent of the student body was considered "ethnic minorities".  The school always encouraged diversity and we often had events where we could present our culture to the school.  However, most kids of the same ethnic group were friends.  It made it especially difficult for kids of mixed races to find a social group because they were only allowed to have one identity.  Collins talks about "self-definition" which was hard at this institution, because right when you got there you were automatically labeled with an identity such as black, white, Mexican, Latino, and Asian.  A friend of mine was put down because he was half black and half white, but he often participated in events campaigning for Civil Rights.  People of both social groups found this confusing and were not sure what identity to give him.  He was unable to self-define his own identity which happened to many kids at the school.  Now that we are all in larger communities in college, I think it is easier to look past identity labels, but still realize that we cannot pretend they are there.

As mentioned in Collins' article, within race, class, and gender there are people who are considered as insiders and outsiders. As I think of examples of what Collins' is referring to, I think about how throughout history, there has been society views and perceptions of rural versus urban life. These views have long influenced behavior and attitudes towards each other. I can't help but think about the perception people have when they hear the terms "city slicker" and "redneck". While unfortunate, these views and attitudes continue yet today.

For example, City slickers are those individuals who have lived in a city their entire life. Their exposure to rural life is what they see on television and in the movies. City slickers are viewed as being conceited, modern, and stylish. They are always in a hurry. They value possessions and compete with others to gain their status recognition. Belonging to the "right" group or club is important to them. Rednecks are perceived to be more laid back; more rudimentary. As a result, Rednecks are viewed to be backwards in their thinking; out-dated, almost ignorant, and crude in their lifestyle. Rednecks value their family and community.  Social status is not of importance.

This week's readings give us different angle of looking at intersectional analyses, and I found that Tesse Liu's article, "Teaching the Differences among Women" is better than the others. Her analyses are more comprehensive in explaining and elaborating the intersectional thinking between race, gender, and class. Her discussion about her struggle of race and gender and her teaching experience is worth to think about. She is not white and she is a woman. These factors have been her limitation of accepting the world. As she said, this happen to most students as most of them think that their own race is a "norm" to others. This is really true because this thinking somehow become the fence of exploring the other side of the world. Also, I learned that people of different race gender are treated differently. her intersectional thinking drives me to think about how racially differed women will be treated.

I am econ major and I notice one interesting fact. There is more female in BA econ major than BS econ major. I think this is part of the gender problem. In the society, we always think that males are better in Math and females are always better in literature. It is like the different of male and female have already stereotyped.

In my major, intersectional thinking definitely applies. Economics study needs a whole picture of the world. We need to consider people in different region and their behavior in relation to their economic classes. Just as Collins said you can't look at things in isolation.

This week we start to look at identity: how identities are constituted, how they operate, and how identity and oppression interact. Linda Alcoff says that "[i]dentities are best understood as ways in which we and others around us represent our material ties to historical events and social structures."  Patricia Hill Collins addresses how Black feminists in particular "possess a unique standpoint... or perspective" due to the "historical and material conditions shaping [their] lives." 

In this week's blog post, I would like you to explore what Alcoff and Collins mean by historical and material conditions and social structures by providing an illustrative example of how these factors contribute to the formation of identity and standpoint. The examples can be from your own life, from literature or film, or drawn from your studies.  

For example, in Star Wars, dichotomous thinking meant that one must either be a Jedi, unambiguously loyal to the "good' side of the force, or go over to the "Dark Side,' like the Sith. The Jedi had considerable power, as demonstrated by the institutions that they created- a governing Council, a training academy, and an organized military force. Anakin sought to escape from the slavery and poverty in which he was raised (material conditions), and the hegemony of Jedi ideology attempted to shape him into a Jedi. However, the inability of dichotomous either/or thinking to account for the multiple identity categories in which Anakin found himself (Jedi, child of a slave, etc) led Anakin to resist the totalizing Jedi identity by searching for his mother and  falling in love. The standpoint from which he viewed the Jedi identity was thus shaped by his experiences with material conditions and social structures.

It may be helpful to refer to some of the definitions that we went over during the first week of class, particularly the definitions of ideology, institution, and system, when thinking of an example.Your example may address either an individual's identity or a larger group identity.

Suggested Length: 200 words

I am still learning about intersectional analysis, and obviously still confused about the exact meaning. But what I got from discussion in class and the readings is that women experience discrimination and oppression differently.  It can be based on their race, class, and age, etc. I believe Tessie Liu discusses intersectional analysis the best, or least it was the easiest for me to understand.  "We are all products of societies that have taught us to hate others or, worse, to be indifferent to their suffering and blind to our own privileges and to those who labor to provide them." The environment and your life experience really ties into the way you view others. 

My major is Psychology and I was thinking the other day I've never came upon intersectional analysis, but then it dawned on me that in the past women were discriminated just based on their gender in psychology.  Women were rarely treated for mental illnesses, and if they were it was because they all had "hysteria" according to men.  Psychologists in that day assumed that men are superior, as did the rest of the general public.  Today in modern psychology I haven't really encountered intersectional analysis, because I've noticed that studies are represented to all races.  Now, people are curious about the differences and similarities among races and their environments.   

Beyond simply the readability of Tessie Liu's, "Teaching the Differences Among Women from a Historical Perspective", this paper also effectively communicates an intersectional analysis on how to incorporate race and gender within the confines of school curriculums. She points out that in most Western Civilization classes, her primary concern, the occasional lecture on a different culture, or focus on women "merely sprinkles color on a white background." Her goal is to restructure curriculums in order to abolish this "either/or" cross-cultural analysis. In order to do so, the courses must be organized such that race and gender are wholly integrated into the material and not side notes.  

This analysis is more successful in that it starts at the beginning - Western Civilization courses, and has the potential to build on to the bigger picture, nationally and internationally. It identifies the problem, makes suggestions for its reconstruction and eventual solution, and identifies the people involved in such a movement. Liu also incorporates both gender and race, understanding that they intersect, they are not always two separate entities and that the additive analysis taught in current courses is a destructive approach.

The article I found most successful in explaining intersectionality was the Liu article.  She describes intersectionality in a historical perspective.  She discusses that class and race have been linked together for a long time; her example is European colonists who created a hierarchy based on skin color.  Women were also important in the hierarchy, because a woman's child would have the same status as her, no matter what the status of the child's father.  Not only does the article show this and other examples of intersectionality, it also is a call to action with actual ideas on how to act.  She recommends we change what is taught in Western history courses so it is more inclusive of women and people of color, referring to the institution we talked about on Thursday.  She also recommends that we communicate with one another about our differences, even though she states that "we can only strive for empathy and mutual understanding" (38).

I currently do not have a major, but have taken several political science courses.  The reason I believe I enjoyed Liu's article was because her take on Western history courses are similar to how my political science courses have been like.  There is always one day where we discuss race, class, and gender all together; however they are not spoken about intersectionally throughout the course.  I don't think that they are taught that way because Western history is built on patriarchal societies.

I would say that Liu's article was most successful. I appreciated how she pondered whether students and instructors were looking for some kind of underlying sameness behind all the variations of women's experiences. She believes that the problem is that we cannot simply look for our similarities. We must deeply consider the differences and then find the connections to one another.

Liu also pointed out that we should really be looking at the basic structure of Western Civilization. She made it clear that many (white, middle class) students think of themselves as the norm, and every other race and class as the deviant. That particular part is so important because it is so true. I remember back in grade school when we would talk about diversity and how we need to "tolerate" people of all backgrounds, and my (white) teachers would talk about cultural diversity in a way that made it seem like Caucasians were superior to all other groups. We were the dominant group, but it was not in good taste for my teachers to refer to other races in relation to whites. Liu mentions that we need to examine ourselves, as painful and difficult as it is.  We cannot lump very different groups of people into one group just because it is easier. That is being naïve and ignorant. As Liu states, "we can only view the world from where we stand" (31).

Surprisingly, in my Family Social Science major, I have encountered very little intersectional thinking. My major is all about relationships and Family Systems Theory, yet I can only think of one or two courses that offer deep intersectional thinking. Perhaps I am just overlooking it, but I am stunned for now.

While this week's readings together gave me an understanding of intersectional analysis as the recognition that women experience discrimination for many different reasons, I found the Sacks reading to offer the most comprehensive explanation in that it conceptualized the interactions of three distinct and central social dimensions: race, gender, and class.

While I agree with Pascoe's argument that the modernist racial ideology is a racial ideology of its own, and that it is appropriate/necessary to acknowledge and study the existence of a socially constructed racial concept, her analysis does not extend into any broader explanation into the relationship between race and gender or class in the way that the Liu and Sacks do .However, Sacks is the only of the three to go into an explanation of why scholars have the tendency to think in dichotomist terms, which was helpful in understanding the phenomenon and how we can transition into educational strategies that include intersectional thinking.

In one of my major fields of study, Political Science, there is very little intersectional thinking. As Liu suggests from her experience in the social sciences field, any integration into the curriculum is thematic. This could not be more true for my studies in Political Science and American Government, in which my classes have yet to learn about minorities in office, and from which I've received just one reading about women in politics, all who were white and upper-class. (It's still worth worth reading, it's called "Handmaid's Tales of Washington Power").

After reading the three articles on the intersectional relationship between race, gender, and class, I found Karen Brodkin Sacks article "Toward a unified theory of class, race, and gender" the most successful in unifying these three concepts in stead of looking at them as separate systems. Sacks focus is on debates over domestic labor and its relationship to class oppression. She uses strong examples that both capitalism and patriarchy share responsibility in women's oppression. Sacks also related race to gender and class by showing how both colored and white women were doing domestic labor both waged and unwaged labor yet still being oppressed by the white male. The working- class men benefit from the women's domestic subordination.  It is also clear that capitalism has recruited workers on the basis of race, and gender and family relations within an ethnic community.  We need to realize that women's gender identities are not analytically separable from their racial and class identities and class emerges as a relation to the means of production that is collective rather than individual. 

Of the readings for Tuesday's class, I think that Liu has a more successful analysis. Her piece is more focused and to the point concerning race, class, and gender in view of Western civilization courses. Liu's argument for the need to recreate the curriculum of Western civilization courses is easy to follow and I agree that without it, the privileged white male, and sometimes female, is the center of the story. When Liu brings up the subject of race and its definition, it brought a new perspective to the term for me. It is also important that Liu makes connections between the racial and biological metaphors, not creating and additive or "double" oppression discussed in our readings from last week. In one of the other articles by Sacks, her argument became repetitive and difficult to follow for me. I understood some of her main points about the working-class and shop-floor issues and battles, but as her paper went, I had a difficult time finding her main argument. I found too much detail in her specific descriptions of the varying primary reasons for the oppression of women.

            I am double majoring in History and Gender, Women, and Sexuality Studies with a minor in Political Science. In almost every course that I have taken, the idea of intersectionality has cropped up. For example, in one of my history courses last semester we discussed the position of white and black women and men alike during the Teamsters' Strike in Minnesota. In a political science class I took, we discussed how race, class and gender are viewed in Brazil and its comparison with the United States. We also discussed the notion of passing after reading Larsen's novel Passing. I enjoy being able to bring in the knowledge I have learned in my GWSS classes into my other courses.

Blog Assignment 2

Based on my understanding of intersectional analysis, I find that authors who write in this way are more successful just because it provides a more coherent argument. For example, Patricia Collins talks about the dichotomies and how it is irrelevant because Collins says that you can never really divide things from one another. By looking at the intersections, it provides a stronger base. She uses herself as an example. Being a black women, she can't separate from being a women or being black. It is a matter of looking at both, and dealing with how it affects her. Categories build upon each other, so with intersectional analysis, it provides a 360 degree view. If my understading of Intersectional analysis is correct, then I have encountered this in many of my cultural studies courses. Looking at "The Culture Industry" by Adorno, he focuses on how culture is built, but he brings into play other aspects that shape culture as well. From its history of industrialization, to focusing on the individual that works in these industries, to class, and to race. I believe that with intersectional analysis, it does provide for a better argument and case. 

I find Liu's description of intersectional analysis to be the most informative and elaborate of the three articles.  She describes the dichotomous thinking we discussed in class, the constant battle she has lived, being an immigrant born in Taiwan yet her learning has been completely encompassed by Western civilization.  She has lived as an insider and an outsider her entire life.  Because of the classes she has taught and the knowledge she has gained, she describes that in order to move forward we must understand difference in "social structural terms," meaning we must understand the experiences of women through power relationships.  To fully study women's connections we must all understand why some of us are privileged and why some of us are not.  Liu describes race as tying to gender discussions as it began from European descent. She demonstrates that race is defined as something inherited, either you were born the "right" race or you were not. From there we can see that women may have been the right race, but were neither treated with ultimate respect, nor ultimate disrespect, they simply lied somewhere in the middle as long as the white men had control and could use women as they so chose.  She provided the history of racism and sexism as a way to interpret for us that we must see all categories as not merely one versus the other but that they are all underlying and can be consequential of one another.

I am a psych major and I have noticed that the white-upper class male dominates the vast majority of professors, scholars, the basis of where and when psychology began, the books we read and study, the list goes on and on. Women's viewpoints in the world of psychology were not recorded or studied until recent history, and are still being studied today for lack of information.

Hi everyone, my name is Sin Cheng, Annie.  I post this assignment so late because I registered for this class late. I am an internation student from Hong Kong. I was born in Hong Kong and decided to go to college in the US after my high school graduation. This is my thrid year in the US! I went to college in San Fransico and then transfer here! I just arrived one month ago and I am really excited about the big campus and the new environment in Minnesota. My major is Economics and I have never taken other Women's Studies courses. So I am really excited about this class and hope to share a great time with you!

               Like most other students, I found the analysis by Liu to be the most successful for me.  I feel Liu lays down an easy to understand argument for integrating race, class, and gender.  Liu stresses the intersectional nature of race, class, and gender and also stresses the importance of history.

               I am a GWSS major, and have encountered intersectional thinking in most of my GWSS classes.  I took a class about Hip Hop Feminism, and for me, the intersectionality of race, class and gender were made very clear.

               However, I did take a class titled "The History of Western Feminism," which I felt totally trivialized and neglected feminism that were not white.  That class was problematic for many reasons, but what stood out to me was the total lack of acknowledgement or appreciation for women of color outside of the academic realm.  I liked Liu's point, when she calls for understandings of race, class, and gender to be grounded in history.

I think that Karen Sack's analysis is the most successful in trying to find a way towards a unified theory of class, race, and gender. In her analysis she carefully explains many theories and where they fall short in terms of intersectionality. I like how she wants to maintain the Marxist view of class, but to modify it to be a "gendered and racially specific concept" because "racial, class, and gender oppression are part of a single, specifiable, and historically created system" like capitalism and patriarchy.  By defining different theories of class, race, and gender and pointing out their weaknesses, we can go forth and find the commonalities between them to make a stronger unifying theory. She starts to do that by redefining the working class "in which membership is not determinable on an individual basis, but rather as membership in a community that is dependent upon waged labor, but that is unable to subsist or reproduce by such labor alone." By taking on this definition of the working class, one starts to broaden the struggle finally taking into account such things as unwaged domestic labor and involvement in the community which in turns will bring in broader layers of the oppressed because it does not alienate as much as a stricter definition.

I am currently a cultural anthropology major and while we have yet to talk about intersectionality in the few courses I have taken, I am currently in a class called Cultural Diversity and the World System, a course based in and around Capitalism and the rise of Globalization. I look forward to seeing if intersectional analysis is applied and applying it myself to the coursework.  

I have several differing on the three articles. I found Pascoe's analysis the most interesting out of the three. Her use of miscegenation court cases clearly showed examples of intersectional oppression, particularly how Intersectionality is woven into the political system. Additionally, her analysis was the most engaging to read and I found her description of racial definition the most comprehensive. However, her piece did not address class or gender, nor did it provide insight outside of America. Pascoe's analysis is very focused on America and the 20^th Century and therefore does not cover Intersectionality to the fullest extent.

            Sacks' analysis is perhaps the most comprehensive of the three. She covers class, gender, race, as well as contextualizes them. It provides a good basis for intersectionality and the interrelationship between oppression. Her focus on labor as a unifying element and point of oppression is a good, but I'm hesitant to apply it to everyone, as Sacks seems to do. Her article was also only briefly touches upon sexuality, and for an article that seems to cover a lot, this seems like an obvious and strange omission. Sacks also assumes a knowledge of Marxist theory, which not everyone has.

            The Liu piece provided an excellent description of intersectional oppression, however I found her labeling essentially flawed. To me, Intersectionality is a systematic form of oppression that does not value one over the other and instead sees all isms as oppression. Liu's gendering of racism and classism to make racism and classism more relatable seems bizarre to me and unnecessary to me. If you want to show that all the isms are essentially the same, why the need to contextualize them by gender? However, I did  like that Liu stated that the first step to undoing oppression is to look inside oneself and identify how you support or promote oppression. That, I think, is one of the most important things a person can do the begin undoing oppression and I am glad that Liu addressed that.

In this week's readings I found Sacks article on a unified theory of class, race, and gender to provide the most successful analysis of the three articles. Sacks provides valuable insight into how gender,  race and class oppression are related in the discussion of unwaged work amongst white women ( such as childbearing and rearing)  and waged work amongst blacks, Latinas, and Asians.  She argues that women's subordination in society is rooted in the unwaged white women and the waged blacks, Latinas and Asians.  Sacks also mentions "patriarchy," a term we discussed last week when explaining that women's subordination lay in the interaction of the "duel systems theory".  The fact that women had to support a family and refused to work for low wages made women less reliable, and more exploitable, causing them to become dependent on men and subordinate in the family according to Sacks.  At the beginning of her article she asks "Does race and gender 'reduce' to class?" After reading Sacks analysis,   I would say she provides detailed evidence supporting the argument that race, gender and class are all intersectional.

Of the three articles, I would say that I agree with Tessie Liu's analysis the most.  On page 30, Liu speaks of her students, who are primarily white and middle class showing an ability to have sympathy while maintaining their distance and acceptance of how they may be affected by racism, sexism, poverty etc. 

Reading of the several definitions of race was interesting.  There were some that I would not have thought of and I honestly have not looked up the definition on my own.  As the dictionary has several ways of defining race so do we as individual people, which was shown in the Pacsoe article right from the beginning.  While we as individuals have our own reasons and/or beliefs in why we identify ourselves as we do, others have thier own reasons or methods which they use. 

I had a long struggle choosing my major until I took a Intro to GLBT Studies class at Century College while I was completing my liberal arts requirements before transferring here to the University of MN.  Although this class covered more material relating to the GLBT movement, it was not difficult to see how GWSS fit in right along with the class, which contained quite a bit of intersectional analyzing.  This class is what helped me to decide on GWSS being my major.  I have also taken InterCultural  Communications, which I feel also requires one to learn how to accept that we are different in some ways but also the same in others.  Our differences are not to be seen as a negative as our similarities may not always be a positive aspect of things either. 

Michele Hauwiller

Blog #2 GWSS 3002-01

I found Liu's article very successful in expanding upon intersectional thinking. Liu focuses primarily on women in history and it was interesting to me how she examined the difference in referring to white women as "women" and anyone else as "women of color".  Clearly society has placed certain distinctions between women of difference races while appearing to appear politically correct. Liu focuses on how history tends to place the role of women as either insignificant, as a threat to society (prostitutes, etc.), or as all the same.  According to Liu, by assuming that all women's struggles to be considered equals in society as the same, the plight of feminism is hindered.  She feels that the diversity of every woman's experience is critical in better understanding feminism. Liu takes a look back in history to show that race was linked to class, and from these class distinctions gender acquired certain traits that were considered socially acceptable and desirable.

As a Journalism major, intersectional thinking is something I personally feel the industry tries to stay away from. Instead, to me it seems like writers and the media are constantly trying to find a certain focus group or an audience to appeal to instead of making messages appealing to people of every race or gender.  Target audiences are a constant topic in many of the Journalism classes I have taken.  We are constantly being taught how to make our writing or reporting appealing to women only or to a certain race of people. Clearly the field's stance on equality is that it would be too hard to communicate with everyone, so instead we are taught that we should continue to keep up the barriers of race and gender by stereotyping our audience. 

            I believe Tesse Liu's "Teaching the Differences Among Women" essay to be the most successful in explaining intersectional analysis. She makes it clear that "we can view the world only from where we stand" (p. 31), meaning that in order to understand women's oppression around the globe, we must take on an empathetic role. I agree with Liu in the fact that we must ask ourselves "who is doing the comparing?" (p. 31). It matters which viewpoint is being used in area of intersectional analyses, mostly because oppression takes on different meanings depending on who you are, where you are, who you talk to, etc. We must understand that although oppression takes a different meaning everywhere, the only way to progress with "getting out of institutionalized thinking" is to make connections on why women are oppressed in these ways in the first place, and work together to make a change. Liu directly states: "difference is not opposed to sameness. Rather, recognizing the differences among women should lead us to ask how our different lives and experiences are connected" (p. 32). I feel that using Liu's example of realizing how we are connected rather than oppressed in different ways is a good start to getting out of oppressed, institutionalized thinking.

            Last semester I took a globalization class that really opened my eyes towards thoughts of race/racism, gender/sex, etc. It's amazing how much I didn't know about the world and the history of women's past. I also realized that by knowing this history, I can piece together why I am the way I am today.

Each of the three articles provides a useful way to examine gender, race, and class and their relationships to each other. However, they also each highlight the difficulty in finding a "unified theory" and the ways in which intersectionality may convolute and further fragment theories of gender, class, and race relations. In many ways, the piece by Pascoe creates the kind of dichotomy that Collins warns against by emphasizing the shift from the biological to the cultural. Pascoe examines shifts in racial thinking through historical judicial cases and, in creating a biological-cultural dichotomy, the economic and political shifts occurring in the United States during that time are almost entirely absent from her analysis (most notably, the lack of a mention of the civil rights movement). Sacks demonstrates how the political and economic conditions created under capitalism, which are largely absent from Pascoe's argument, can and do create and perpetuate gender, race, and class identity. Through her explanation of how second-wave socialist feminists root their theories in a gendered division of waged and unwaged labor, she more effectively speaks to the notion of culturally based theories of social stratification than Pascoe. Although I find Sacks' article extremely appealing academically, Liu's article, for me, is a more holistic approach to gender, race and class analysis than either Sacks or Pascoe. Liu asks us not to just understand conditions and discourses that created subjugation, or even, as Collins suggests, to empathize with others, but to understand how our personal experiences inform our own beliefs about ourselves and (those elusive) "others."Like Sacks', Liu's article is extremely strong academically, but the personal narrative approach invites all of us to contribute to the discussion of gender, race, and class relations. In her discussion of personal conflict with some of these issues, Liu makes a short but profound statement which informs the notion of rectifying the personal and the academic ("public") for a holistic vision of gender, race, and class studies: "I have lived with the contradictions of being simultaneously and insider and an outsider all of my life." The different emphasis each of these authors takes are all valid ways of examining gender, race, and class identities, which is why I feel the pursuit of a unified theory is not only a nearly impossible task, but an individual exercise.

By the nature of geography, my area of study, intersectionality is a necessity, since almost any subject matter can (and is) studied spatially. Everything from economics to biology is studied geographically. However, as with many fields which use humans as their "subject matter" (so, basically any social science), the personal is often left behind, which is why I think we see such compartmentalized studies without the kind of unity the authors we've read thus far are trying to establish. It is something that has frustrated me over the years and something that may reflect exactly some of the issues we will cover in this course (the dichotomy of the "rational" and the "emotional" and their masculine/feminine associations, as well as the fact that academia has largely been developed through patriarchal institutions, etc.).  

After taking an in depth look at the readings assigned for this week, I found Grant and Sleeter's writings to be most successful. As a Human Resource Development Major, the topics of Women's Studies, feminism, etc. are all fairly new to me consisting of a great deal of vocabulary that I am a bit of a stranger to. This article felt like a breath of fresh air for me as I worked through these articles trying to switch gears to this type of literature. The argument stated in the article "Race, Class, and Gender in Education Research: An Argument for Integrative Analysis" was very clear. They explained that "all people are members of not just one status group, but of all three, and these simultaneous memberships influence perception and actions (196)." I absolutely agree that these items are inextricably related. The article explained that most of the literature in the sample treated race, social class, and gender separately which in turn oversimplifies equity issues and further may perpetuate biases by failing to integrate them.

I find that Sacks has a successful analysis in her ability to effectively and interestingly combine the elements of race, class, and gender in her three arguments.  These arguments regard women's domestic and community experiences linked with class struggle as well as her views on the ways that women have experienced the "idea" of class differently than their male counterparts. Then of course, she examines how working class women's experiences and issues vary (and likewise, how they are similar) between class. 

I have never read anything like this article before.  Thus, it stuck out among the other race/gender/class themed readings we had for this week. I was also intrigued by the ways that she took different aspects of jobs over the course history (top of p. 542).

As far as my own education experiences as a History minor go, I have read many documents regarding race, gender, and class.  This was particularly true in my classes: Women in Early America and U.S. History 1900-1945.  For example, in one of the readings we discussed last Thursday, Collins addressed the four African American female stereotypes (the mammy, the matriarch, the mule, and the whore).  This was something that was extremely prevalent and within these courses we discussed and addressed how important it is to think beyond outside of just the stereotypes, because just as we uncovered on Thursday's discussion, one cannot be labeled by merely their race, class, or gender. One's experiences vary on the combination of their race, class, and gender, and cannot be counted upon to be the same. Collins' comparison of the college peer with the sweaters and the Appalachian family is a prime example of this. 

Recent class discussions and readings have resulted in a new awareness for me. "Feminism" was a word I have heard many times without really understanding the meaning. "Feminism" held a negative connotation - that is until I read Hooks' analysis on Feminism. While the readings by Collins, McIntosh and Glenn all provided insight into their views on Feminism, I found Hooks' article a more descriptive view on Feminism. It outlined the misconceptions of Feminism and described the differing views held by others. Likewise, the word "racism" can result in varying interpretations and views. Again, for me, the word "racism" holds a negative connotation. Pascoe's easy-to-understand analysis and interpretation of the miscegenation law provided a deeper understanding of the meaning of racism. It brought the trials and difficulties of racism in the justice system alive in the reading. The Engineering profession is a "mans profession" or so it's believed. Our society portrays males as the stronger leaders, "deeper thinkers," and engineers. Women are viewed as passive, "the listeners," and the caregivers. Males are the majority of new admissions into Engineering programs at Universities, even though females are being recruited and attracted into the programs. The Biomedical Engineering (BME) profession is one such profession experiencing a shift to female professionals while the Mechanical, Electrical and Aerospace Engineering disciplines continue to be perceived a "male" profession.  

I think that Hooks and Collins have the most success at putting forth the best intersectional analysis. Collins mentions that she is not a fan of dichotomies (the either/or concept) and that as a whole we should move past this in order to start "new patterns of thought and action". She also points out that by looking at the effects of race, class, and gender on all of us, not just by one 'group' to the next, that we will be able to make more concrete and effective ways of change. Through this connectional thought of ideas from institutions and oppression, she displays a well in-depth intersectional analysis. Hooks is also able to give a good overall view and analysis. She defines and applies the broad term feminism to various disciplines that affect and shape the everyday lives of people. Her main focus is on oppression, sexism, and patriarchy and how they intertwine and play off of each other in institutional settings. Like Collins, she calls for people to come together as a means to end these forms of oppression, rather than just through individual acts. Within my own major, I have defiantly encountered intersectional analysis and thinking, in fact, it is almost required. I am majoring in psychology and the basis of its existence relies on the systematic melding of theories from past and present psychologists. My main area of interest is within the field of personality psychology, which takes into account all of the internal vs. external factors and how they interact to make or break the person.

Hello Everyone, my name is Erica Yang and I am a Cultural Studies and Comparative Literature major, and I am also currently looking into a GWSS minor. I hope to graduate this spring, but I do plan on going back to school to get my generals done for Optometry since it is my new passion!  Yes, it is a completely different field of work from what I have been studying, but I feel that it is the right direction for me.

Hello everyone, my name is Sara Gomoll. I am (finally) a senior at the U, and plan to graduate with my psychology degree in the spring. I am a Gender, Women, Sexuality Studies minor, and I'm really excited that most of my classes this semester are requirements for GWSS. My freshman year I went to Boston University, and transferred here my sophomore year. I hope to live in Boston or Chicago after I graduate, but first have to figure out what kind of real world job I want. I was born in Denver, Colorado but lived in Pewaukee, Wisconsin from the time I was 4 until I left for college. This year marks the first year that I am excited to live where I am living. I reside in a house in the Como neighborhood with my boyfriend, my best friend, and a Norwegian foreign exchange student named Thomas. In my free time you will usually find me loitering at Espresso Royale or working downtown as a server at The Local. I am hopelessly addicted to Lost and Arrested Development (if it is possible to be addicted to a show that ended years ago and only has 2.5 seasons worth of episodes). In the future I would like to get my Ph.D. in clinical psychology, but I would like to take a few years off to travel and work before I sell my soul to five years of graduate school.

Hello! My name is Carly Sletten and I am a junior Journalism major. I am from Rapid City, South Dakota so I am pretty far from home. I have a younger brother who is a freshman at the U this fall. I currently live in St. Paul and as of right now am trying to find a job. I enjoy playing the piano and the saxophone as well as writing, cooking, and knitting in my spare time. I am very excited about this course and hope to have a fun time during the semester!

Hello, my name is desarae (dezee) walker and I'm currently starting my third year here at the university. I am a cultural anthropology major with a minor in art. I live in uptown, but will be moving to midtown here within a month. I moved to Minneapolis two years ago and grew up in Cambridge, Minnesota - which is exactly an hour north. I've been working at the Wedge Community Co-op for a year now and love every second of it. In my free time I like to read books by Marx, Meridel le Sueur, and so forth. Marxist theory is a big hobby of mine. I'm looking forward to class discussion in the future, see you tomorrow.

Hi everyone, my name is Emily Brunner.  I am a senior and will be graduating in December with a major in Strategic Communication and a minor in History.  I was born in New York, but moved to Minnesota as a very young girl, so I consider Burnsville, MN my hometown.  In addition to studying and taking this class, I work part-time at Campus Pizza and intern a couple of days a week at the Ramsey County Bar Association, where I am an Event Planning/Communications intern. I enjoy reading, shopping, and hanging out with friends. 

I am excited to meet you all and equally excited to see how this class overlaps with and relates to the Gender/Race/Class courses I am taking/have taken in the Sociology, History, and Journalism departments.

See you all tomorrow!   

Hello! My name is Maleenia, and I have lived my entire life in the Twin Cities metro area and I love it more and more with each passing year. I am in my final year as an undergraduate at the University of Minnesota working on B.S. in Geography and I am applying to graduate school in December. I have completed many courses that have covered the issues we will be discussing in this class and I never get tired of the subject. And, may I add I am so happy that Freud, Foucault, or Lecan are not on the course list. All of them have contributed greatly to my understanding of this subject matter, but I am so ready for some new material. Outside of school, I am a mother to two wonderful, beautiful children (Lucy and Noah) who never cease to amaze me and who have taught me more than a formal education ever could.

I look forward to getting to know everyone as the semester progresses!

Hello all, my name is Mara Kapp. I was born in Seoul, Korea, but came to America as an infant. I have lived most of my life in St Paul, but I have spent time living in Brooklyn, New York. I transferred from MCAD to the UoMN 2 years ago. I am now a senior double majoring in Art and Art History. I haven't taken a women's studies course before this, so I am interested in how this will go. Well, I hope!

Hi, my name is Caitlin McDonald. I am 21 year old female, a long time vegetarian, and a full time student here at the U. It is my senior year and I am majoring in Sociology and minoring in Gender and Women's Sexuality Studies. Along with school, I also work full time at a hotel and part time at Lifetime Fitness in their child care center. I commute to the U from Eagan, which sometimes sucks, but I get some time to get some reading and people watching in on the light rail, so it could be worse.  I would like to some day work in the field of women's advocacy or do social work of some type, which is why I continually take GWSS and SOC courses. When I was younger I wanted to grow up to be a rock star, but wasn't born with any sort of musical talent, so I live vicariously through other musicians by frequently attending concerts (mainly classic rock...Eagles, Eric Clapton, Van Morrison, Steely Dan, just to name a few...I also like to dabble in the local alternative/hip hop scene). Aside from school and work, I enjoy doing Bikram yoga, drinking wine, and hanging out with my friends, family, and boyfriend.  Here's to a fantastic semester with all of you!

Hello my fellow peers! My name is Drue Lee and I am a sophomore, with an undecided major. However, I am interested in majoring in Family Social Science, along with Youth Studies. But as of right now, I'm still undecided. I was born and raised in Minneapolis, Minnesota, with five brothers and five sisters. As a total, there are 11 of us, including me being the fourth oldest. I am a commuter, living with both my parents. I love to sing just for fun and do my nails. So if you guys see an Asian girl with crazy looking nails, then it's me!  I don't know what to add, so I'll end it like this. Lastly, I hope this semester class would be fun and interesting, and that I can get something useful from it and from you guys as well.

Hello, my name is Nicole and I am going to be a sophomore this year. I am from burnsville minnesota and play lacrosse for the U. I am planning to major in biology and attend med school. This is my first GWSS class but I am looking forward to learning something new this semester!

Hey Everyone,

My name is Ka Blia Lor, but I usually go by Kabs since it's shorter and easier to remember. I'm a third year transferred student from the University of Minnesota Duluth. It's been quite a change already and it's only been two days! So far I've realized a couple things that differ from both campuses. At the Twin Cities you get to see the sun and experience the weather. I know it probably doesn't sound like much of big deal but the buildings in Duluth are all connected so there's no need to go outside to get to one building. The only time that a person is outside is when they're waiting for the bus or going somewhere. So you can only imagine how many people are wearing shorts and skirts during the winter when it's below zero. Another thing that I noticed is that everyone at the Twin Cities Campus walks so fast! I feel extremely awkward and embarrassed about my walking pace because in Duluth everyone lazily walks to class. However, I'm learning to like the Twin Cities campus and I'm excited to meet new people.

Hi. My name is Pamela Myhre and I'm in my sixth year at the University of Minnesota.  I just recently finished my Psych major and in the process of doing so decided I wanted a Spanish major as well...so here I am! This past spring I visited Mexico City where the family of my boyfriend live and I hope to one day move down there and teach English--it was a truly lifechanging experience! I also visited Argentina and Uruguay in the Study Abroad program--it was amazing (even though I couldn't understand anything because the Spanish was so incredibly different!) I've taken a Women's Lit course before and discovered I have a passion for women's studies...I also took a Sexuality and Culture class, a Chicano Studies class and all this led me to understand that I have a wierd passion for learning :) and gender studies is my next area to study and learn about. This semester is going to be rough but after I had some difficulty being able to afford school and finally working through it, I've learned (EVEN MORE SO) to appreciate school and what education does for individuals...hence I've been here for 6 years and besides for getting loans paid off with a real job, I would LOVE to stay in school for a lot longer...pretty sure I'm the lone soul out there who loves school :)

My name is Xee Nyia Vue and I am a sophomore this year at the U of M. I am undecided about my major, but I am thinking about family social science as one of my choices. I am really excited to start class and hopefully get to know a few of you, if not everyone.

 Hi, I'm Thanh Le, I'm 2nd semester sophomore majoring in computer science and Genetics + Cell development. I am really excited about getting to know the class and also all of you. To be honest, I didn't expect to be one of the only two guys in class :D but I hope this class would be a nice experience for all of us.

Hello my name is Amanda Martin.  I grew up mostly in Drake, ND.  I'm a junior.  My major is Psychology, but unfortunately I am not quite sure what area I want to focus on.  I am really excited for this class! I transfered to the U of M from the College of St. Catherine's in St. Paul and I have taken similar classes and loved them.  I can't wait to meet all of you and I wish you a great semester.

Hello, my name is Anna. I come from Fargo, ND. I'm a senior majoring in Linguistics and German. The U of M is my third school, and I'm looking forward to actually getting a degree from this one. This is my first Women's Studies course, and I'm very excited about it.

Hi! My name is Sam Kam. Yes, it rhymes and no, my parents did NOT plan it that way. I was born and raised in Blaine, MN. My major is Psychology with a focus on Forensic Psychology and I'm thinking about minoring in Sociology. I have taken two other Women's Studies Courses: Politics of Sex and an Intro to Women's Studies (up at UMD). Other than that, I love to just hang out on my free time (which is few and rare) up on my 40 acres or cuddled up with some good tea, a great movie, and even better company...

Hello! My name is Annie and I am originally from Pleasant Hill, California, but currently am a resident of Edina, Minnesota. I'm a junior (possibly) majoring in English. I have not taken any Women's Studies classes before, but my interest in this course stems from a class that briefly brushed up on feminist theory and thought. I'm very excited to learn a lot from Rebecca and my peers.  

Hey! I'm Cari, a sophomore, and majoring in Biomedical Engineering. I grew up in rural Nebraska and graduated with a class of 38 people. So you could say that it has been an adjustment for me by moving to the U of M. I chose UMN because it offers one of the best Biomedical Engineering programs in the Midwest. And I also like the cold. Hopefully the winters won't get too bad while I'm in school up here. J I'm looking forward to this class. It will definitely break up all the science and math that I am taking through my IT classes.