I would like to comment on Banks's article Hair Still Matters, because I think it's a topic people don't know as much about and it contained a lot of important information. Black women's hair has been a big issue in assimilation with white culture for a long time; I recently watched an excellent documentary entitled "Black Women's Hair" that showed how black women would take great pains trying to get rid of their "nappy" hair, including chemical treatments and extensions (which are also very expensive, and therefore bring in class struggles as well.)
I also really liked that Banks included the issue of femininity for black women. Since having short hair supposedly makes you socially unfeminine, yet having extensions or treated hair means you're masking your blackness, then how can a black woman be socially acceptable as a black woman yet still be beautiful according to the social norm? This is a really important issue and I think it is an example of white supremacy and how black people are both expected to act in conjunction with white expectations and expected to maintain their blackness.
The article by Thompson put a different spin on a familiar topic. Most of the time when you hear the word “eating disorder” you automatically think of bulimia and anorexia, or other forms of slimming down. This article consistently discussed “binging”…and I was left waiting for the word “purging”. I liked that it acknowledged the other spectrum of eating, one that has probably been noted more often in recent years due to the obesity epidemic in America. In that sense, I felt that the article was dated. I’m sure most of you have learned about eating disorders since middle or even elementary school. Most people our age know one or more people that are suffering from an eating disorder, and the fact that it has to do more with control than thinness. I didn’t feel like the article was presenting new information. I assume that anyone can have an eating disorder…even men (which failed to be mentioned)! Eating can be a coping mechanism, or an area in life that is controllable. Last year in my freshmen dorm, I noticed the large amounts of peers who had problems with eating. I am going to assume this was because they were freshmen in college, under a lot of stress, and new unfamiliar territory in life. Eating disorders are due to a combination of culture, upbringing, and personal circumstances…and shouldn’t be generalized.
I found the article, Globalization of Beauty Makes Slimness Trendy by Norimitsu Onishi very interesting. In this article she talks about the shock that came over Nigeria when Agbani Darego won the miss world pagent. Not only was her win shocking in that she was the first african women to win it but she also was very slim which is not the traditional idea of beauty from here region of Africa. Agbani inspired many young people of Africa to associate with the Western ideals of beauty..i believe unintentionally. I found it very interesting to hear about the ideals of african beauty being fat, and to encourage and require brides to "fatten up", when i am so socialized to idealize the opposite. It is not unusual for engaged women to diet and exercise before their wedding so as to not look fat in there photos. This article just reitorated the power of western ideals, because they described the young people of Africa to idealize with the western ideals, while the older generations still perferring the fatter traditonal idea. I also found it particularly interesting to hear African's talk about thiness being a sign of disease, as in AIDS. While i feel being fat in the America's is looked at as being a disease, obesity anyone? I dont believe either of our "ideals" to be healthy and isnt that strange, that we have yet to read about a culture that prefers the healthy body as opposed to the extremes.
Is anyone else having difficulty opening the page from Eileen? When i open it, I only see the very top left corner of the image from "Before youe read" down to "When you are reading". I can't even see anything to the right of "Before you read". When I prinit it, that's still all I see too. I can't scroll down or anything either. Please help! Anyone who knows what I can do can either email me at mouax044@umn.edu or post a comment to my entry. Thanks so much!
Hey folks, the image below contains some pointers to help you think through the readings and write your papers. The file will probably be clearest if you print it out.
The point of your paper is for you to show that you've read and understood the reading, and that you are able to develop an argument. In order to do this, it is important that you communicate clearly. Therefore, make sure that you pay close attention to grammar, sentence structure, and the structure of your paper.
Although this video was made in the late 80's, much of what it was about is still very relevant today. The only major difference is that the number of little girls becoming anorexic or bulemic has increased. This is pretty sad considering the fact that more and more schools have stepped up in informing students about the dangers of eating disorders and believing false advertisements. In a way it seems that the more one learns about something, the more they want to do it, regardless of the dangers involved. Perhaps the increase in numbers is do to the fact that our socially constructed hegemonic views of women and men have changed a lot. The ideal woman's body has become something almost unattainable without having to put one's life on the line. Even with that knowledge, the media has engrained this false image of the ideal women into little girls heads since childhood so that the knowledge becomes unimportant. Role models and idols that these girls worship, from actresses/singers/athletes of their age to much older, are showing them that it's okay to be anorexic and to a point necessary to be anorexic to be beautiful. How did having some meat on one's body suddenly become ugly? Who has the right to say what is beautiful and what is not? Is beauty really in the eye of the beholder? Why does one have to please others in order to please oneself? Is perfection attainable? Why or why not? If not then why do we strive so hard to fail?
I really enjoyed watching "Still Killing Us Softly." I was amazed at how many advertisements that were geared toward women in a ways that are offensive. Today in discussion we were asked to think about advertisements that are "demeaning" to women. There is one set of advertisements inparticular that just bug me to the highest degree.
The AXE DEODORENT SPRAY for men comercials!! There was one of their commercials that had women walking around with steering wheels, keys, etc. imprints on their backs meaning that they had sex with the guy wearing axe spray in tons of different areas. Also one that had a guy going to pick up his date and her mom pounced on him because he smelt so fresh. Or their latest commercial of a guy taking a shower with their shower gel and the ladies on the previous floors throbbing onto the shower pipe, as if turned on by his scent.
These commercials by AXE make it apparent that any guy who wears this stuff should think of women as their sex slaves. I absolutly dispuise this company and hope they stop making these obscene commercials.
Anybody else annoyed with this commercial or any others?
Gender. Once again I found myself disagreeing with the absolutism of two articles that we read. Clearly, they are using 'gender' to describe not the physicality of the individual but rather their social interaction. However, "gender cannot be equated with biological and physiological differences between human males and females. The building blocks of gender are socially constructed statuses," seems to imply that gender is only socially constructed which is clearly not true. Even by the given example of the genetic male being raised as a female, it was made clear that this individual acted 'tomboyish.' The nature/nurture debate seems to have been around for quite a while, but it also seems that the clear answer is a little bit of both and I think that at least a not to the alternative possibility would have been sensible.
This article was a little disturbing to me. I never knew that black women's bodies were exploited in such ways. I knew that white masters raped their black women slaves, but I did not know that black women's bodies were put on display. When I read the part about Sarah Bartmann's body and the fascination with it even after death, I was shocked. It is difficult to understand why people in general are always fascinated by what they are forbidden of or what they consider to be inferior to them.
The author was talking about how the chocolate breasts reminded her of black slavery and "mammies", but her white friends did not see the connection or tried to avoid the issue. I suppose the people who have a history of "oppression" or have experienced such always see the racism, but those who are on the oppressor side do not care much for it. I admit that if I saw the chocolate breasts, I would just think they were funny too. And people do try to avoid talking about topics such as racism, sexism, or etc. because the topic makes them uncomfortable. However the only way to end such oppression is by addressing them and getting to the roots of the issue.
I was interested in most of the things Bell Hooks had to say in "Selling Hot Pussy", but a few things struck me as untrue. When she was talking about Diana Ross on the cover of Vanity Fair with the white diaperlike cloth covering her body- representing whiteness dominating black power, i thought that was a little extreme. Although I am not black and cannot say I've ever had to suffer from white oppression at any time in my life, I still thought the over analysis was too much.
Another thing I disagreed with was when Hook shares her observation of how black models always wear their hair long and straight, especially if their features are "blacker" to overcompensate for their afrocentricity. This I felt was not true, it partially is due to the fact that the article is dated. Now, blackness and any type of diversity for that matter is embraced in the fashion world. Black models are often seen with huge afros, and even white models hair are styled into afros.
I liked a lot of points Gimlin made about what women will go through to look like the "ideal" woman, but I thought she missed a very key issue: breast augmentation for women who have undergone mastectomy for breast cancer. Imagine being content with your body and suddenly having your breasts, which in our society are the biggest physical symbol of femininity, taken away from you. Granted, this procedure is still an aesthetic choice for breast cancer survivors, but I think it's worth taking into a new context.
Gimlin's article was great... She gave some true facts about what women will do to look good. She even expressed the sacarifices we will make to look like something we are really not, even if it takes re-financing our home or going without food for a month. It sounds crazy, but true. This society leads us to be that way b/c we are exposed to so many beautiful women that are naturally beauty and some of are not, fashion that some of us can't wear, so we get lipo so we can, and handsome men that will give us the time of day, "only" if we looked liked Barbie... .also even the best places in the world influence women into operation..meaning if your over a certain size...a woman would feel out of place in LA, Paris, Manhattan....the best parts of London and the fashion capital Italy.....Women can't win for losing...so the last option we have is to get that $3,000 operation...that is going to get us the right man, the right job, and we can also wear our new face with those $1000 boots we just bought... afterwards the world is ours...until we find something else wrong!
Although Galler is not talking about the body beautiful, she is taking about the perfect body and how it relates to the disabled body. What I found most interesting about her insert, was within her comparisons of the body beautuful and how it fit within the lives of diabled women. "disabled women share the social stereotype of women in general as being weak and pasive, and in fact are depicted as the epitome of the incompetent female." (pg 109). However, she also points out that the many diabled women are viewed as not women at all and are viewed as "helpless, dependent children in need of protection" (109). I found this article very interresting and touching to me because my grandma has the possiblity of losing her leg. She has been a smoker for years and has lost all circulation of blood to her feet. She has had many extensive and expensive surgeries to try to repair the veins that go to her feet. However many of them have failed and the "last option" has become the removment of her leg entirely. She is under extensive medication and is barely conscious the majority of the day, however they continue to put off taking her leg because it is seen as such a loss that both her and the doctors would rather "wait it out' and see what happens while she continues to grow more dependent on pain killers. To me this is a very sad story because after reading Galler's article I feel that the doctors that are helping her feel that the laseration of her leg would make her helpless because not only is she a woman, but she is an older woman and now she would be an older disabled woman. I think my grandma is a very a stubborn woman and I feel that she is resisting the loss of her leg because of the stereotypical mold she views disabled women to be in. She does not view herself as helpless and she will not be labled helpless.
I was struck by two unique and particular things while reading both of these articles. While reading "Some Groups Matter," I was interested in several mentions of the new "politics of containment" in reference to Black girls and women. On page 80, she references the idea of silencing "loud Black girls" as instituional. It makes senese, in particular, to the expansive notion of institutional/systematic racism, but in a way I had not previously thought of before--especially when Collins claims that these women are "actively negotiate cultural meanings." I had never considered the idea of "loud women" in reference to engaging in cultural conversation or producing cultural menaing--but it makes a lot of sense.
Reading Gimlin, I wasn't so much struck by the actual idea of women and plastic surgery as I was the insane amount of debt these women were willing to accumulate. Some were working three jobs. It seems like consumerism stretched to an unfortunate extreme.
In short, the article about cosmetic surgery by Debra L. Gimlin was very depressing. The beauty ideal for American women is set at an unachievable level. The majority of advertisement images show airbrushed, plastic-looking women, which have subconsciously affected normal women’s self-esteem about their own body image. This was evidenced by almost all of the women’s statements in the article, from Ann Marie’s facelift to Bonnie’s lipo to Marcy’s rhinoplasty. I thought the most disturbing cases were of the women who were attempting to achieve a more Anglo-Saxon look instead of being proud of their ethnicity. I think that says something about the pervasiveness and saturation of media images upon people’s minds. Perhaps the saddest comment was when Marcy exclaimed, “I was having my nose done just before Valentine’s Day. I thought to myself, maybe if I have my nose done for Valentine’s Day, by next Valentine’s Day, I’ll have a Valentine!” Just think about it…
I found Debra L. Gimlin's article fascinating. Out of all the articles we have read so far, I am really drawn to this article. I used to watch constant re-runs of MTV's "I Want a Famous Face" where people get plastic surgery to look like their favorite celebrities. While watching this show, I was amazed at how many plastic surgeons actually perform the operation on people who want to look like a certain celebrity. It made me think negatively on these surgeons because they seemed to be just as crazy as their "patient." But then I read Gimlin's article and grew respect for Dr. John Norris. I believe that his process of picking who really "needs" plastic surgery is well thought out. The way he catagorized some people into fitting the "flighty" catagory was genious. I think that every plastic surgeon should follow this guidline and not perform on people who just want to look like a celebrity. In my opinion, it's crazy.
I myself would love to look like Christina Aguilera (my idol - have you seen my backpack?! *haha) - but would I go under the knife to look like her?
Absolutly not.
I'll write a post on the readings later this week but for now:
I'm doing the Women's Prison Book Project for my service-learning and I was wondering if there was anyone else doing that as well. I'm looking at the bus routes and feel like if I went alone, I'd end up so incredibly lost. So if anyone else is doing that, is there any interest in going together?
I would like to say first and foremost that i felt a mix of emotions while reading Suzanne Kessler's "The Medical Construction of Gender". Although I see why doctors make the parents of the intersex child wait to see what the gender of their child is...it seems outrageous! Can you imagine walking around with your child for months without knowing how to answer strangers questions, like is it a girl or boy, or what's their name? Now as i see it you have a few options as to how to respond to these:
1. to tell you the truth we have yet to figure out what "it" is
2. it's neutral, the doctors havent decided what it is yet, funny huh?
3. engaging in a lengthy conversation with a random person on the street about intersexually, who just out of politeness asked about the baby's name.
None of these seem like very good ways to handle the situation, because lets face it you can't just avoid the questions, it would be very weird to ignore peoples polite questions about your new bundle of joy. Besides being so alarmed by the doctors relaxed look on the manner in which these 'gender tests' should be done, i was also shocked by the comment about the urologists 'like to make boys' while the endocrinologists think 'the easiest route is to raise the child female'. Are these not train professionals? What the heck is going on in the medical world when doctors are just taking the easiest way out with no regard to the child's genetic make up. Whether you believe in essentialism or social constructionism... i think it makes life easier when the body you live in reflects the gendered personality you are supposed be. In my opinion gender is a mix of both genetics and society, the need for the two to match ranks very highly in my book. Perhaps doctors should put as much effort into finding the actual biological gender as they do planning and creating a intersex childs gender.
I found that the essay by Steven P. Schacht to be very interesting. Reading about how men recieve more privieges than women in our society always gets my mind turning around to start thinking about what if it was the opposite way around? I often find my mind wondering what it would be like to be a man in our society, or if the roles were reversed and women were the dominant sex in our culture. I found so many of his examples on his over privileges aggravating for me, being a woman. So many times when I read articles like this I become frustrated because so many of these times I just cant comprehend why both men and women can't be treated equal.
After reading Fyre's article, I found that I - like others - responded to her opinions with a raised eyebrow. To be offended when a man opens the door for you? It reminded me of one of my friends who doesn't like Confucious in any way because he regarded females as unequal. I've never been able to understand her point of view because I don't think I could ever be offended by someone who lived in a time so different from mine.
I agree with many of you that Marilyn Frye's article about oppression is important. However, there is another notion of oppression in the Taylor, Whittier and Peak article that I found really interesting. On page 516, they analyze women's oppresion in Third World countries as more of a 'constellation' model of oppression. For these women, oppression is not simply an issue of gender difference, but also of "colonization, immigration, racism and imperialism." I think this can be appiled to Western women as well, speaking to issues of race, class and sexuality. This is really highlighted in Audre Lorde's article as well as Paula Gunn Allen. Not tosay that Frye is not applicable, but it is something to think about.
I whole-heartily agree with the message of Audre Lorde in “The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House.” Through my liberal arts education at the U, I have learned to notice that specific groups (the poor, non-white, GLBT) are often overlooked in studies, history, and society in general. I can’t believe that the conference at NYU, a very prestigious and liberal-seeming American university, had such a narrow representation of black and lesbian feminists. But in turn, I enjoyed how the author changed the capitalization of American, black, color, etc in a way to challenge the perceptions and beliefs of her audience. Perhaps the next conference at NYU will include Lorde’s article in its analysis of American women.
In Steven P. Schacht's, "Teaching About Being an Oppressor", he addresses many conditions in the male (over) priveledged society that men can get away with. All of his "observations" seem so farfetched when written down, yet almost every one of them is so true. #10 on his list- the fact that he can rape a woman and the basis of the trial will be to first determine if the woman is even "worthy of being named his 'victim'" is eyeopening. Its amazing how much a man in todays society can still get away with.
Some of the points on his list I found to be untrue though. For example (#12) a man cannot kill his wife and be reasonably assured that he will not be accountable for his actions. It may be more unlikely to find a woman who beats and then kills her husband, but a man will still be held responible if he KILLS his wife!
Also, contrary to the point made in #15, (a man can expose himself to a woman and masturbate in front of her to further reinforce is masculinity without getting caught or punished). This is definetly not true because this is illegal.
Kim Loper
I agree with many points that Marilyn Frye made in her entry titled "Oppression." I agree that women are oppressed and often don't see it. I found that many of her examples of oppression are true. The given responses to a woman getting raped that could be used as a defense are constantly used in the legal system. Or she mentioned that girls are labeled based on their sexual experience or lack there-of, which goes hand in hand.
However, I find that the idea of having a man open the door for a woman is some sign of disrespect, is absolutly insane. Even though Frye had clearly tried to express what she meant by that, I find that it was quite un-neccessary on her part. She gives examples of rape being subjected upon women to represent types of oppression. Once she gives many fine examples which deserve respect, she throws in how men opening up doors for women is oppression. Rape can not be compared to a man opening a door for a woman. To compare the two just seems immature to me. I'm sure she had the best intentions, but she shouldn't have mentioned it in this article.
Steven P Schacht's article seemed to vastly over simplify the problems given as examples. The oppression of women is a complex problem and summing up any part of it in a few pages is very difficult. However, it does little good to repeatedly skew the facts to one side. I view several of Steven's arguments to be quite valid (differences in views of female versus male sexual interaction, lack of female role models, portrayal of women in the media, etc) but claims that it is socially acceptable for men to expose themselves to women, that the police protect women from physical assault by men less then they do for men by men, or that courts go easy on rapists seems to be really pushing to create more of a pattern then exists. Clearly there is, or in some cases was, validity to all these claims, but in this sense, I think the essay devalues itself.
I really appreciated the American Indian perspective on the social roles of women. It truly must be a culturally staggering move to change from such an otherwise egalitarian society to the religiously supported patriarchy of the western colonists.
Also, I'd just like to say, no kidding to the damage done by the 'nuclear family'. The act of taking women who can afford to out of the commercial workforce not only cost this society uncounted productivity and advancement but left it scarred with an underestimated and under-resourced role for women that's taken decades to roll back. And worse yet, that 'nuclear family' is still a rallying cry of so many within our society and an unquestioned norm in others.
-CS
whoever left a pink umbrella in section on monday can have it back from me in class tomorrow. you'll probably need it!
I felt Marilyn Frye's article "Opression" used great examples. many times I get so caught up in trying to understand what point the author is trying to demonstrate that it distracts from the reading, but i found the examples in "Opression" were common issues that I could fully relate to. I particularly liked the example about the lose- lose situation of a girl being heterosexaully active or not. I could relate to this situation because in the highschool i attended i observed similar situations. There was always a junior girl that would be invited to all of the senior parties because she was "easy" and there was also a few very masculine, sexually inactive girls that were falsely labeled lesbians. I also liked Fyre's disscussion about a man opening the door for a women. I have heard the debate about this gesture over and over and never quite got what all the fuss was about. Frye described the reasons why this gesture was so contraversal in that it suggests that a women is incapable or incapacitated. I finally get it! Although i understand the argument, being a romantic myself i doubt i will object the next time the door is opened for me.
This is the blog for Wost 1001: Introduction to Women's Studies, section 2. Here you will be posting comments on readings throughout the term. Feel free to also post other comments or information that you think is relevant to our class.