I thought that the discussion on pornography in today’s class discussion was pretty interesting. In one of our previous class discussion when we were talking about popular culture and the media we brought up the subject matter that the media have the potential to cause sexual harassment and unwanted behaviors between the opposite sex. I was just questioning that if the media can cause these conflicts then does pornography have the potential to cause rape?
The question as to why some people "desire" to be in the pornography industry is complicated. I agree that some want to be in it just for the money - and then there are those that do it just so that they can feel desirable - and then there a thousand other reasons why.
But nobody in lecture today brought up as to why men get into the pornography industry. There are those that "control" the industry - simply because they want money. But what about the men who are the "actors" in the porno films? Do they do this because of the money also - or are they simply just wanting to be desired just like the women in the porn industry? I recall a article in our Feminest Frontiers book called "In Hiding and On Display" that does make reference to the "pressure" that male porno actors are given just to ejaculate on key. I think it is something to think about.
Back to the question as to why people do it in comparison to a doctor and to be in porn - What is to be said about those that desire to be a plastic surgeon? It's a doctor and can (not always) be brought into the spectrum of being in the porn industry in some form. How many women in porn have fake boobs? Also something to think about.
To argue about why people (see - not just women) get involved in porn could go on forever? The question is rhetorical. Being in porn can very much be a way to have agency. In my opinion, to say that women cannot be in porn is to say that they are not allowed to express their own sexuality - which may be the case for a lot of them. This is of course not speaking in terms of those women who are intoxicated, forced, etc.
Some of the behaviors of doctors in Nsiah-Jefferson’s article agitated me so much I was writing swearwords in the margins. I was really appalled at some of the treatment of women described in the reading. It’s hard to believe that some doctors would remove women’s reproductive organs because they “...percieve [a woman] as having too many children, or to provide interns and residents with experience.” (p. 368) First of all, I don’t think it is a doctor’s place to determine how many children a woman can have. If she wants lots of kids, it’s her business. If she’s having lots of kids for other reasons (tied to things like cultural practices and contraceptive availability), then I still don’t think it’s the doctor’s right to determine her ability to have kids. And secondly, in order to treat women as experiments/experience for interns, they have to view these women as non-/sub-human; that their lives, their autonomy/agency/rights/plans/dreams have no importance. I find that horridly frightening.
Although I thought Laurie Nsiah-Jefferson did a good job in explaining why women of color and low-income women have little information about their reproductive health and other basic health care needs, I found the essay to carry some flaws. I liked what she put in about black women in Southern states not having transportation to urban health clinics, and Native American women having to deal with abortions while on reservations. She also brought up a lot of good points about adoption in lower-income communities compared to adoption catering to white middle class. But I didn't understand her justifying non-white women not being able to recieve information about early abortions or not having the financial staus to recieve early abortions. What difference does it make money wise? For me, in the urban community I grew up in, health clinics like Planned Parenthood gave lots of information about abortions and other sexual health needs. I think the article was a bit dated too, because I find there being much better sexual health information available in poorer communities than say, even five years ago. Another reason minority women CHOOSE not to have abortions, which I think Nsiah-Jefferson should have breeched upon, is because of their religious or moral beliefs. Many black Baptists, or Hispanic Catholics feel very strongly against the morality behind abortions. I am definetly not speaking for all minority groups, especially because I am white myself, but I think religion also plays a big factor into the desicion making process of women of color during pregnancy.
In the article discussing the woman's experience wth the Gynecologist ( I am sorry I do not have the book right now) I feel the author is sharing a personal experience in hopes of connecting with other women whom share the same uncomfortable and disturbing experiences that take place inside the doctors office. For me it was relieving to read on paper someone who absoloutely hates going to the gynocologist and feels disturbed and violated after she leaves. Its good to feel that someone eles shares some of the same feelings and you are not just feeling paranoid. As women we are expected to accept what ever treatment we recieve inside the gynocologist office because it is made to feel that there is no other options for us. As a society we rely so much on doctors to "cure" us or determine what is wrong. We expect the doctor ot give us all the infomation and the information to be truthful. We assume that doctors are only touching us in appropriate and neccessary ways. In our society, doctors become less human and become more god like. I think this article is extremely important , becuase it recognizes that doctors are human they make mistakes, some can be be bad natured, and some may withhold information from their patients. I find that by sharing her personal experience the author may have perhaps shed some light on the discomfort that many women feel inside the doctors office. The scariest part of of women's health (perhaps not only women's health but health in general) is that we have lost such connection to our own bodies. So many women assume that the information is all factual and the services provided are the only way in which to help us live happy lives. However, something is wrong. Something is wrong when we as women can connect on a common ground of feeling the discomfort and the embarassment of our bodies in a space in which should be safe a secure. This topic i feel should be discussed much more and questioned because if we just assume that we are safe and what exists out there for research and solutions to medical problems is all that there is to be, as women we are jepordizing our helath and our saftey inside the doctors office.
I really liked Laurel Richardson's essay, "Gender Stereotyping in the English Language"; although it didn't have any information in it that I hadn't already thought about, it did make me feel validated knowing that I wasn't the only person who had felt frustrated and left out because of someone's language. I have noticed frequently that, as women's issues have come into the mainstream consciousness, there has been a backlash among both women and men who feel that it is obnoxious to feel that they have to be "politically correct." This angers me because political correctness is not just some trend that came about to annoy people, it is about justice and equality in language. I had one old friend tell me that he didn't like talking to me anymore because he hated feeling like he always had to be "politically correct"; similarly, when I raised my hand in a science class once to tell the teacher I would prefer for him to replace the term "mankind" with one that is more inclusive toward women, he interrupted me mid-sentence to tell me he wasn't interested in "political correctness." People just do not realize the harm they do when they shut someone out by not including their gender in their language; I believe this doesn't pertain only to women, as men in helping professions like nursing or social services are always assumed to be female until their name is announced, which Richardson also addresses in her essay. I wish that people would stop seeing equal language as a nuisance and realize its necessity in our changing society.
Any discussion pertaining to abortion is often uncomfortable to talk about. I could not imagine to be faced with the situation that many women face when it comes to whether or not abortion may be a resort that must persue.
When reading the article by Laurie Nsiah-Jefferson, I found myself thinking that she had not gone about the right way to discuss the issue. I personally felt that Laurie had not completely laid out her arguments because of the constant ...'s that were throughout the entire article. It almost felt as if she had not felt strongly enough about the topic and that she was still perhaps confused about the situation that many women have to face in relation to work and being pregnant.
I would have hoped to read an article pertaining to this topic that did not seem so scattered.
Today in lecture we talked about being prochoice or prolife. I did not give my opinion in class, but I will do it here. I don't really know which side I support because I have not been put in the situation where I would have to choose. I think that it is important to look at the pros and cons of having an abortion in each situation. I know that we cannot set rules or regulations on what is "good" enough to get an abortion or what is not, but it is important to look at one's culture and tradtions. In my culture, if you are not married and become preganant, then you risk being ostracized by your community and even your own family. It is one of the worst ways to degrade your family name especially your father's. Some of you might say that no one should be influenced by what others say they should or should not do in such a case, but I think that when someone grows up with such beliefs, they can only make their decisions based on those beliefs. The double bind in this is that in my culture, abortion is looked down upon because many believe that the child may be our ancestors being born into life again. This leaves the pregnant women without a husband with a lose lose situation because if she has an abortion then she is "killing" her own ancestors, but if she keeps the child then she is shunned by her community. It is important to look at individual circumstances and their individual beliefs before making the decision to abort a "creature" or to not. I understand that it is difficult to look at every situation independently which then makes the debate between pro choice and pro life even more complicated. There is a variety of beliefs clashing so I'm not sure there is a right or wrong to this debate or if it will ever reach an end. I suppose the most important thing to do now is to educate younger children about sexuality and the options that they have if they ever are pregnant. However, it is also necessary for them to look at the person's beliefs and how that factors into their decision making process. My thoughts are a little scattered now so I think I will end my blog here.
I found our discussion on monday Nov. 21 very interesting in regards to Jennifer Hargreaves article "The Muslim Female Heroic: Shorts or Veils". I really liked to hear how peoples opinions differed on the subject because as far as I know, no one in our section is muslim and we didnt have that point of view. For me i found it really difficult to decifer what was good and what was bad because i am not informed about the culture enough but i did struggle with the comment that veils are just a part of their culture, and we should just leave that alone, because i am assuming that not every muslim women has the option of wearing the veil or not. Where do you draw the line of what is culture and what is oppression? I don't know if their is a write answer. anyways, kudos for a good discussion section 2
I think some people really miss the point of why it's important to talk about menstruation, especially because, although as Lauren said, "it's just a fact of life," it really has never been treated as such. Women have been oppressed horribly throught history, and still are, because of their menses. A large part of the feminist movement has been an attempt to dispel the negative connotations attached to menstruation and menopause. It isn't just a biological process, it is so much more- a symbol of womanhood and the embrace of the female body, a venue for oppression or liberation, and a source of humiliation or pride. Anyone who has ever had someone say "yuck" to their period knows that nobody thinks it is just a biological process but a socially difficult process for women and girls. The very fact that women menstruate and are oppressed while men do not and are the oppressors, even when menstruation is not the vehicle used to oppress, makes it an important feminist debate. Furthermore, because of the taboos around menstruation, most women have never been taught how to care for their menstrual cycle properly or had access to healthy options for care during their periods. This is why most American women are still using tampons and other "sanitary" or "hygiene" products that are very harmful for their vaginas! Isn't that a problem?! Ok sorry for ranting, but I think it is a problem.
In Sterling's article she argues that PMS is much more complicated then what science and health experts have deemened it to be. She argues for the increasing of research on what PMS is and it's severity nad it's affects on different women. We struggle to understand PMS becasuse as a society we have learned to just accept it for what it is. She argues that PMS and menopause are not understood enough and are just labeled as somehting a woman goes through. However it is often used as an excuse to oppress and deprive women of equal opportunity. BY using PMS and Menopause Sterling is addressingt the lack of research and attention that is put into women's bodies in medicne. I think her argument is extremely important since we rely so much on doctors, research, and medicine in our society. Therefore, it is important that women's bodies recieve the same ammount but seperate attention then that of the research collected from and for the male body. Our bodies are made up differently and they need to be given the same respect and attention in research. Because of the lack of information and research of women's bodies, women are taught to fear their bodies adn fear if they feel anything wrong. However this can also work in the opposite way. Women often assum nothing is wrong when they feel sick, nauseated or emotionally unstable because they are just labeled as having pms or going through menopause. Therefore many women miss the warning signs of things that could have been prevented if research would have given the female body the smae respected attention that the male body has recieved in medicine.
So while I was reading the piece on Muslim women and athletics, I was thinking about globalization and everything that needs to be considered in this situation. I really think the author did a good job addressing the many interconnected issues, but what I was concerned about was this idea of globalization being led by western culture, specifically U.S. culture. We are considered the world hegemon, which I think is a big part of our vast foreign intervention, but I was looking at that group, Atlanta Plus, of which 2 of the founders were French. Okay, I'm a little scatter-brained right now, but I know that there is a statement in the Olympic charter that says "Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, sex or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement." So I can completely understand wanting to eliminate gender discrimination, and am completely for it. They said they wanted to ban certain countries from the games on this stance, which I agree, if they are going to (rightfully) ban nations on the grounds of racism, they need to ban them for sexism and sexual abuses as well...as long as that's what these people want. I can't imagine anyone wants to be abused, but there are so many things about Islamic culture that I don't understand, because I haven't studied it. And it is so much different from Western culture, that I think there may be things that a lot of us don't understand, either. I think this makes any kind of intervention touchy. Okay, the French women who started Atlanta Plus: I found this interesting in regard to globalization, Western influence, gender discrimination, etc. I read an article just after I read this about the riots in France, specifically how women in these areas have to deal with sexism and violence within the Muslim community, but also how the French state has actually banned veils from schools to uphold the country's secular principles! I guess this is where I question the intervention, or at least the methods mentioned in the article. There are so many conflicts surrounding this issue...though I'm not sure I'm even talking about only one issue. Religion is so contraversial, espcially when it comes to international differences. It's hard for Western powers to know where and to what extent to intervene. I think there is so much people need to learn about cultural and relgious differences before they intervene in any situation, and I think this is so complex that the understanding has to start at the political level. Anyway, if that made any sense, and if anyone made it this far, here's the address for the article I was talking about. It's really interesting to read about the female standpoint behind the rioting. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10089543/
I have just finished reading the articles by Steinem and Fausto-Sterling about menstration. Steinem's article was very funny and pointed out some very valid points about our society but didnt conclude anything and Fausto-Sterling was alot of wrting that didnt discuss anything new...we all learned about the menstrual cycle in health education and biology... the article only discussed unfounded conclusions that PMS is a disease and menopause is bad. Seriously what was the point of even reading that. Menstration is just a fact of life for females...point. It has pros (reproduction) and cons (PMS and menopause) and there is nothing you can do about it. and again why are we debating this simple biological process...we cant change it.
Blanche Among The Talented Tenth was an easy read, and I thought incorporated the realizations of race nicely into the book. Even though I liked reading the book, agreeing with the girl who spoke about Blanche in class, I thought Blanche was irritating. Yes, she was a strong character who did posses obvious weaknesses, but I felt like she thought she knew everything. Everytime a problem arose in the story, Blanche was always there to throw in her little advice because she was oh-so-wise.. and whether or not the character Blanche was "helping" agreed with her advice, I felt like Barbara Neely wanted the readers to feel she was right. And by "ignorant" characters not agreeing with Blanche, I think it was suppose to serve as some form of reverse pyschology over-empowering Blanches character. Just my opinion on a character in the book...
I thought the Steinem piece was hilarious! The idea of bragging about the length and severity of your period made me laugh out loud…that and “I’m a three-pad man.” Anyway, I thought she made the situation seem very plausible…especially with regard to religion. I definitely have my own opinions on organized religion, but I really think that, if the menstrual situation were reversed, (Christian) religious figures WOULD see it as a way of giving blood for their sins…therefore making women impure. I would hope women wouldn’t feel like it was necessary to wound themselves monthly, because this is certainly not the perception as it is today…naturally. At least we don’t have to worry about the situation happening. It’s just interesting to look at how power plays out…you can create superiority out of anything! Ha! Maybe women should play out some of these hypotheticals in favor of themselves…they’d likely be considered crazy, but it’d be interesting.
This is an important topic to as seeing as I am Asian and I experience a lot of the stereotypes listed on the white board yesterday. When one of the girsl in class, sorry I forget the name, said that people think all asians eat cats and dogs and Amy said that she had never heard that before, but it must exist in order for someone to bring it up.... that reminded me of a time when this little white boy next door to our house was sitting on the fence watching me steam rice outside, asked if we ate cats and dogs and why. I was extremely offended that he would even ask such a question, but I answered him kindly and said no and taht it was only a stereotype. I admit that perhaps there may be some asians who eat cats and dogs, but in the Hmong culture, we do not. Besides that, just because something is not a part of the everyday white diet, does not make it unnatural. Who comes up with this idea of the "norm" anyways because it is different everywhere in teh world; it jsut depends on where you live and waht culture you follow.
There was also this one time back in my junior year where one of my friends recieved an email from this random white guy who was emaililng it to a number of asian people saying how much he hated asians and that they should all go back to Asia. Some specifics of the email said that Hmong people kills animals and dries their hides and meat out on the sidewalks. This really got me angry because that is not true at all... he said that he did not like the smell of the drying hide and meat, but there are none. There are no Hmong people who do anything like he said. Then he complained about how Hmong elders pretend to be poor so they can live off welfare and use that money to buy their kids extremely nice racing cars. This guy is so incredibly ignorant because we work our butts off to earn enough money to pay for our cars and our own car insurance. The tiny tiny amount of welfare money is barely enough to put food on the table... he does not get what it takes to keep a large family a float. the worst part about his guy is that he is this middle aged guy who is from the suburbs... he signed his name at the bottom of the email and wrote teh city in which he was from. I'm not sure what my friend ever did to the email or if he emailed the guy back, but it sure caused a lot anger among my friends.
This is an important topic to as seeing as I am Asian and I experience a lot of the stereotypes listed on the white board yesterday. When one of the girsl in class, sorry I forget the name, said that people think all asians eat cats and dogs and Amy said that she had never heard that before, but it must exist in order for someone to bring it up.... that reminded me of a time when this little white boy next door to our house was sitting on the fence watching me steam rice outside, asked if we ate cats and dogs and why. I was extremely offended that he would even ask such a question, but I answered him kindly and said no and taht it was only a stereotype. I admit that perhaps there may be some asians who eat cats and dogs, but in the Hmong culture, we do not. Besides that, just because something is not a part of the everyday white diet, does not make it unnatural. Who comes up with this idea of the "norm" anyways because it is different everywhere in teh world; it jsut depends on where you live and waht culture you follow.
There was also this one time back in my junior year where one of my friends recieved an email from this random white guy who was emaililng it to a number of asian people saying how much he hated asians and that they should all go back to Asia. Some specifics of the email said that Hmong people kills animals and dries their hides and meat out on the sidewalks. This really got me angry because that is not true at all... he said that he did not like the smell of the drying hide and meat, but there are none. There are no Hmong people who do anything like he said. Then he complained about how Hmong elders pretend to be poor so they can live off welfare and use that money to buy their kids extremely nice racing cars. This guy is so incredibly ignorant because we work our butts off to earn enough money to pay for our cars and our own car insurance. The tiny tiny amount of welfare money is barely enough to put food on the table... he does not get what it takes to keep a large family a float. the worst part about his guy is that he is this middle aged guy who is from the suburbs... he signed his name at the bottom of the email and wrote teh city in which he was from. I'm not sure what my friend ever did to the email or if he emailed the guy back, but it sure caused a lot anger among my friends.
Rape. I remember hearing the stastics of how many women have been raped or sexually assaulted before I cam to college. I remember thinking that while it was clearly presented from resonable sources, there was no realistic way that so many people had been sexually assaultedc in their lives. I live in a society that condemns rape. Nobody in America is walking around talking about how it is ok to rape people. But that was years ago. It was before I heared stories from people I knew who had, people who would otherwise cover these secrets if not for their relationship with me. And before I expirenced the way that partying is ocassioinally treated. I don't drink. I do party. And as much as it creeps some people out, I am that sober guy at the party and I remember the way people really act. And I remember that guy who's holding his drink well enough and hitting so strongly on the girl who's barely lucid. I hear of them, I see them, I see where the stastics are coming from. It's disgusting the way people treat eachother sometimes.
I am going to step away from Barbie for a moment--(although, I really liked that Debbie pointed out an impressive list of business women/female CEO's aside from Ruth Handler!)--and admit to feeling alittle shocked about Blee's article "The Gendered Organization of Hate." I am not so shocked about women being in the Klan, or even the lack of scholarship about female involvment Blee sites (which is probably why I forget about white, female supremacists). However, it is the mobilization of feminist ideologies and the want for gender equality the Klan women employ and demand that is so strange. The entire time I was reading the article I was thinking, "Well, what did you expect ladies? It's the Klan." Maybe that seems reductive, but how do you even start to have a conversation about gender and women's leadership/roles in a racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic atmosphere like the KKK? I appreciate Blee inserting a female voice into the dominant male Klan discourse, to counter the "appeal of far right groups to women"--but can this information be used to prevent women from being recruited/utilized?
watching this "documentary" was really fascinating. i remember when i was younger i used to play with barbie all the time. i don't ever recall a time when i thought to myself that i wanted to be just like barbie - it was simply just a past time for me. my grandma still collects barbies for me - but i'm not as obsessed as some of the women in the documentary.
but later on friday i went to target - and looked at the section where they have all the barbies. i was amazed at how much barbie has changed over the years. i can honestly say that i don't think barbie is really a bad "role model" - if that's a good phrase to use. but then i decided to examine the rest of the toy area and i came across the Bratz dolls ... in my opinion, these dolls are worse then barbie. but the little kid side of me really wants that Bratz doll ...
Becoming 100% Straight-I found the article by Messner to be very interesting because to a certain point it is very true. Becasue of the society that we live in and the communities and family morales or traditions that we are raised in, we tend to suppress certain feelings, thoughts, even sexual orientations to the point where it is as if such a feeling, thought, or sexual desire never existed. We ignore it so much that until we are forced to really think about it, such an incident never existed. Just like how Messner said that he did not think of his "attraction" to Timmy to be sexual until he went back and analyzed it many years later. In addition to this, because of our surroundings, we are expected to dismiss certain feelings, thoughts, or sexual desires because it is out of the norm. To be honest, this makes we question whether or not we are really who we think we are because so much is influenced by our surroundings.
Barbie Nation-This movie was in a way a little creepy. I remember that I used to play with Barbie when I was a little girl, but I never knew that she had or has such a big impact on people's lives. I think that it is scary how something even as small and simple as a toy can have such influences over a person's life. When the video showed the clip about the barbie dolls being fried and slashed, it really creeped me out. To think that something originally created to help a girl develop as an adult has turned into such a huge controversial debate. I was also a little disturbed at the fact that there are people who take barbie to different levels of meaning such as the fetish barbie scene or the suicidal barbie doll covered in blood. I'm disturbed that such a toy created for the enjoyment of little children are being turned into so much more and in some cases creepy. I never knew that so many people live there lives through barbie and ken and all the other doll toys. It really shows the huge influence and connection barbie has to people's lives. It is as though barbie can be connected to just about anything... to the point where sometimes it is as though people are really just tryingn to pick a fight with barbie and start something. Is the creation of barbie an overall positive or negative affect?
Almost more interesting than the movie “Barbie Nation” were my classmates’ reactions. Don’t get me wrong, Barbie’s body proportions and standards of beauty are unachievable for human beings, but let’s not knock on her and Mattel so much. Saying that Barbie is the cause of all evil for females seems like a far-fetched stereotypical feminist reaction. And I don’t think anyone wants to fall into a stereotype! The accomplishments of Ruth Handler are amazing and I for one would like to see more women achieve such a high level of success in the male-dominated business world. Perhaps using a European whore doll was not the best idea, but she found a niche where business could skyrocket, and it did. Also, I am curious how many people in our lecture did not play with Barbies, because I am betting that few didn’t own enough to staff their own little Barbie world. And did we all turn out image-obsessed and unable to navigate through life? No! I would even say that Barbie could be good for girls. The doll provides an outlet for imagination and dreaming. So maybe people should think about the whole picture: Barbie is not THAT terrible that she should be banished. She has some positives and negatives, as does EVERYTHING ELSE in the world!!! The “problems of America” should be looked at holistically…we cannot blame one thing as the root source.
Carolyn Mackler's article, Sex Ed: How Do We Score?, really shocked me because in my hometown i feel like sexual education was of utmost importance and was advertised in bathrooms and such, it just seems crazy that communities think that by with holding information about safe sex it would make kids less likely to have sex. period. I mean please...as we all know sex is advertised everywhere and the curiousity about it is enormous and if children arent taught about the dangers then in my opinion it would mean like why not have sex? because the media says its good and no one else is saying differently. Sexual education is so crucial to teens making responsible choices and maintain healthy bodies that i feel it should be mandatory in every school and in every state, and that includes information about contraception. I mean there is enought confusion about sex by young adults that have had sex ed. i dont want to even think about those who havent.
In Gloria Steinem's piece "Supremacy Crimes", she states that many violent senseless crimes d tanhe more sadistic killings are commited by white middle class men whom claim to be hetereosexual. She claims that these killings are cause by what she calls "the drug of superiortiy. I feel that it is because of the fear of possibly losing ones postion of superitority in society that many white men lash out and kill in order to sustain some sort of complex that they feel that it is only through violence that they can retain or maintain their power in a hierarchial structured society. I feel that the idea presented in Steinem's piece abougt "the drug of superiortiy" is often not recognized becasue American dominant culture often times doesn't recongize white hetereosexual males as been catagorized with having a race, gender of sexual orientation. This is often the result of creating a societal structure that consists of making the previous catagory the norm.
Reading Gloris Steinem's Supremacy Crimes really made me think about the consequences of our ignoring the white, straight male criminal patterns that exist. I have often noticed that race and gender only seem to be made an issue when a crime occurs if the criminal is a woman or a person of color; "this crime was committed by a black man" is so often heard on the news, and then another black person from the neighborhood is interviewed, being expected to say something about how it reflects on the community (aka, on black people), and therefore the criminal is projected on black people.
Compare this to what happens when a white man commits a crime: we hear that "this man has committed whatever crime" and if his whiteness is mentioned at all it is only to express surprise in such a violent crime being committed by such a stand-up citizen.
I really think that allowing the invisibility of the race and gender and sexuality of straight white men who commit crimes is enabling violence as a status marker for white supremacist patriarchy, and this really needs to be addressed more. The issue of the greatly disproportionate number of white and black men and women in prisons is discussed, but we never discuss why in a patriarchal context.
The article by Suzanna Danuta on gay marriage really opened my eyes. It never occured to me that the media tries to press the ideas of homosexuals needing "guidance" from their heterosexual friends. I myself am a huge fan of the show Friends - so when I read the remark Suzanna gave in relation to the show, I was kind of puzzeled. I found the episode including a lesbian couple getting married to be a good way to bring attention to the idea of gay couples getting married. Gay marriage should be accepted which is what I believed this episode to be about. But then I read Suzanne described the episode in how Carol had needed Ross so that she did pursue the marriage, despite how much her family had objected. I never thought of that scene in the way Suzanne described, but I'm glad she mentioned it. I hope that the media stop using the "motif" that gay people need straight people for guidance.
The letter from Claudia Brenner was so emotional for me. I seriously cried when I read it. I could never imagine being in a situtation like that and seeing the one you love die, knowing that you still have to go on.. I can't believe Stephen Roy Carr's lawyer's defense was that Claudia and Rebecca "teased" him with their sexuality. I guess any justification for a hate crime is just bullshit. How can you justify it? I think there is a book about it? Eight bullets or something? Does anyone know anything about it or has read the book?
The article about the Vietnamese marraige really made me think about my own culture and how similar it is to the Vietnamese one. Many of the Hmong men here in the United States, who are not yet married, want to go back to Thailand and marry Hmong women from there because they think that us Hmong women here are too modern and don't know how to respect our husbands. However, the majority of the time, young beautiful women there only marry men from here in order to come to the United States. I know many older relatives in their forties and fifties who have married teenagers from Thailand and was taken advantage of. Most of the girls come over, use the men's money, get educated, then leave him for another younger man. I know that it's sad, but these men are just setting themselves up most of the time. In addition to that, the girls over here have much more modesty and respect for elders/husbands. I see videos of the women from there and I wonder what is happening to the Hmong culture, but that's another story.
Okay, back to the article again. There was another part that really made me think. Minh's status had increased because he was able to send money home to his family so that they can live a comfortable life, but what they didn't realize is that he is living well below the poverty line here in the United States. The people in Vietnam are living off of the relatives over here and they don't stop to think about how difficult it is to make a living here. My family has relatives still in Thailand and Laos to whom we send money. Becasue of our hard work, they are living much more comfortable lives than we are here. They take advantage of the fact that they can rely on us to send money. They have better homes, better clothing, cell phones, and nice cars to drive while we can hardly make ends meet. Sometimes we get calls from them asking why we don't send them money because they want to buy such and such, that we are greedy and don't care for them, but they don't realize that we don't even have the money to buy ourselves such commodities. It really angers me when I think about it sometimes, but I have to accept the fact that they are family and blood is much thicker than water.
Does the U of M really have Little Sisters?? I've never heard of them until I read this article on fraternities and I was curious...the article cited older sources so I wasn't sure if these "Little Sisters" still exist. Someone who's familiar with the Greek system should let me know!!!
Maybe I shouldn't have been, but I was somewhat suprised reading about the subordination of women in greek life. The language itself, BIG Brother, LITTLE Sister, alone are enough to depict the inequality. But add to that the jobs that go along with each position: the Little sister acts as a cheerleader and care-taker for the fraternity members, while the Big Brother assumes the macho role, fixing things, tending to the physical work in sororities. First of all, we read in Paula Gunn Allen's peace that women are capable of doing things like moving furnature, a task that I think most would consider to be quite physical. Secondly, I find it suprising how willing Sororities seem to accept, almost embrace, this. They consider it to be their role, and even cater rush to the schedule of fraternities, so that the frats can have the evening/night for their rush events.
The idea that a group of women can meet without any sense of empowerment is something I saw in the female groups corresponding to the Promise Keepers organization. While, to me, it seems like organizing yourselves in a group entirely composed of females would feel somewhat liberating, these groups seem to be directed toward serving the needs of males. This is especially evident in the religious female groups for wives and such of Promise Keepers. It is truly their belief that women should be subordinate. But in sororities, it is less direct. It isn't brought up (as far as I know) directly that their purpose is to serve their Big Brothers, but it is clearly evident.
As far as the competition among frats: I think the term "scoring" for sleeping with a woman is fitting, to say the least. It is as if, by having sex with one of these desirable women earns a tally in your scorefor your frat in the competition for sex.
The other thing I was wondering about while reading this article was the presence of a group mentality in addition to the feelings of loyalty in the frats. When they say that members will deny a rape in order to protect another member, they attribute it to loyalty. I think this is true, but there is also the idea of the class vote in elementary school. The teacher generally has to students put their heads down, because otherwise they tend to look around and everyone joins the majority. If there is a kid who really does not enjoy kickball, he/she may vote for it anyway after noticing that everyone else in the class has. It is easier to go along with the group. So, in fraternities, if more senior members are covering up for a member, will pledges, who don't necessarily have as much commitment to the frat, still cover it up, risking (I think) the chance of being accused as an accessory after the fact? I can't say for sure, but I think this might also be present in fraternities in cases like this.
Right away, I recognized the story from the insert on page 403…A Letter from Claudia Brenner. A while ago, probably a few years actually, I saw this story on television. I can’t remember if it was on Oprah or a 48 Hours-esque evening news show, but whatever it was they told the background “coming-out” stories of both the women, how their relationship started, and how they went camping/hiking for many years before their attack and Rebecca’s murder. I wish I could remember details of the program, but then again I was younger and didn’t key into all the hidden and subversive messages about homosexuals depicted on those types of shows. Even so, I did enjoy the program (so it must have been somewhat subjective) and the hate crime made me really mad; the same reaction I had to this letter. But one thing I didn’t quite figure out from both tellings of this story was how Stephen Roy Carr discovered it was a lesbian couple. Was he perhaps following them because they were two females alone in the woods? Was he actually thinking of raping them, found out they were lesbians, and became infuriated? My heterosexual female friends and I are affectionate with each other; would he have interpreted any physical contact between two women as lesbianism? Either way, I think that man was probably full of hate and unstable before he entered the woods. I could never imagine murdering someone, and hate crimes seem so ridiculous to me. Why would anyone think that would solve anything??
I was recently watching Dr. Phil, when a similar topic to our discussion on women's ability to express themselves came up. The show was on the effects of having a perfectionist in your life, i found it rather interesting because it almost showed what would happen in the reverse of what we had been talking about in class, by that i mean, if women controlled men to the point that they couldn't express themselves. The show mostly focused on perfectionist women and their relationships with their families. In most cases, their husbands were completely out of ideas on how to loosen up the control and were deciding on divorce (Dr. Phil adviced counseling, as usual) It was particularly interesting to see males choked up about this "opression" because with in the family it is usually females that are subjected to this type of behavior. It just goes to show that any form of stifling free thought can be detrimental to ones mental sanity.