Sunday, June 28, 2009

Module 6

Learning about the First Wave of the Women's Rights movement through primary sources gave interesting and useful insight and perspective to the social milieu of the time, as well as strategies that activists used, and the reasoning behind them. I thought Elizabeth Cady Stanton's parallel of the Declaration of Independence in her "Declaration of Sentiments" was a clever appeal to make an implicit comparison of the power relations between men and women to that of Great Britain and the colonies, pre-independence.

The reading on "Racism in the Women's Suffrage Movement" by Angela Davis was also interesting. I was a little surprised at the racism some of the suffragettes displayed, although I guess in retrospect it isn't that surprising, given its prevalence at the time. Nevertheless, it was disappointing to realize that some of these women's rights advocates, who are well-known and admired today, were prone to racist thought. Davis' observation that these individuals seemed "determined to prevent further progress for black people if it meant that white women might not enjoy the immediate benefits of that progress" reminded me of Barbara Smith's quote from the first module's reading of definitions of feminism:

The reason racism is a feminist issue is easily explained by the inherent definition of feminism. Feminism is the political theory and practice to free all women: women of color, working-class women, poor women, physically challenged women, lesbians, old women - as well as white economically privileged heterosexual women. Anything less than this is not feminism, but merely female self-aggrandizement.

I think that combining the suffrage movements for women and for black people could have been a potentially powerful move, but it seems that some parties or constituents were more concerned with furthering their own self-interests, rather than a true alignment of the causes working to mutually support and benefit each other. The causes were further divided by political parties acting to serve their own interests as well.

I think that suffrage isn't an issue that is "on the radar" for many young people today because it isn't salient. While it is true that there are places in the world where suffrage is an important and relevant issue, it is not a concern in most places. Moreover, when suffrage is discussed in politics or the media today, it is more commonly referred to as "voting rights," which could be a cause of some of the confusion - that, regrettably, people do not know what 'suffrage' is. Also, suffrage may not be so much of an issue as government corruption or the ability to exercise one's right to vote.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Module 5

The two articles we read for Module 5 regarding the Minneapolis Pornography Ordinance gave interesting insight to the legislative process, particularly pertaining to feminist activism and changing public policy. It highlighted various factors that could contribute to or prevent the passage of legislation, in this case the vague definition the ordinance used for 'pornography,' and concern that the ordinance would have unintended and/or undesirable consequences. It also was a great example of how seemingly unrelated groups and and issues can be very much affected by actions and policies that do not directly pertain to them. This was demonstrated by Tim Campbell, the "gay activist who [...] argued that the ordinance was a significant threat to an important expression of sexuality for gay men." The unlikely alignment of the far 'left' and 'right' ends of the political spectrum on this issue was remarkable as well, despite the fact that each group arrived at its conviction through different arguments, and that the conservative population was much less vocal and visibly supportive of the ordinance than the liberal portion.

There are many elements that contribute to the state's maintenance of social inequality, the most prominent of which entail a group's privelege or dominance in society. To tie this in to pop culture, I came across an interesting analysis of the domestic abuse case involving Chris Brown and Rihanna. The author, critiquing a prosecutor's assessment of the situation, points out the acknowledgment that transgressors will receive a lighter sentence if they are young, a first-time offender, and affluent. In this case, celebrity came into play too. Of course, race is another determinant that could work for or against an individual. Despite the claim that Brown is being treated like any other defendant, evidence shows that "felony domestic violence sentences in L.A. quite often involve a minimum of three months in jail in addition to the fines, counseling and community service that offenders are expected to perform," whereas Brown received five years probation and 180 days of community service, as well as participation in a 52-week domestic violence class. The (soon-to-be-former) President of NOW, Kim Gandy, remarked that "I was very surprised that he will get no jail time. Paris Hilton got jail time for heaven's sake. This man beat Rihanna to a bloody pulp and he's not going to spend a day in jail." This comment helped to give me some perspective on the situation, and it seems a little outrageous that he's not getting a more serious sentence. As Gandy went on to say, "It really tells you about the way that judges look at violence against women."

http://jezebel.com/5301157/prosecutor-argues-she-would-have-let-rihannas-abuser-off-easier

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2009/06/exclusive-womens-groups-outraged-over-chris-brown-sentence

Monday, June 22, 2009

Module 4

Before this module, I knew that there were many different types of feminists, who vary in their arguments as to the sources of sexism and oppression and how they should be addressed, but I had not really thought about organizing them into separate categories, nor did I realize that they could vary so widely in scope. But this is an important issue for feminism, because of the popular conceptions people have of what is 'feminist' and how those conceptions might affect their decisions and attitudes regarding feminism. Also, if people - in particular those who identify as feminists themselves - cannot agree on what constitutes feminism, it might have poor implications for the movement as a whole. But inability to come to a consensus on specifics is not necessarily a bad thing, because after all, isn't feminism supposed to be a valuation and celebration of diversity?

Moreover, although the individual goals of each brand of feminism do vary, most of the differences stem from their assessment of what is causing sexism and oppression in society, and how to remedy the situation. I feel fairly confident in saying that a Marxist feminist would probably be happier in a 'Radical Feminist' world than in one run by capitalism and/or patriarchy. In other words, these schools of thought likely have more basic goals in common than they have differences, and might agree on more than one would assume.

That being said, each variety of feminism seems to have its own strengths and weaknesses. Liberal feminism seems to be the most reasonable or acceptable brand of feminism, as it does not call for drastic revolution, instead advocating change within the existing system. This is a good approach to begin with, but IMHO society needs to make more deep-seated changes in its basic attitudes, as well as in the construction and organization of institutions. In this way, I suppose I would be more of a 'Socialist' feminist.

I found it very intriguing that Radical Feminism advocates maintaining the gender binary system rather than adopting Fausto-Sterling's argument for a five-or-more-sex system. I understand how this position fits with their assertion that the differences between the two sexes are used to maintain existing power structures, but it would seem to me that the two points of view are entirely reconcilable - if, as they assert, the biological differences between men and women are used to oppress women, the acknowledgment of additional sex categories would entail a restructuring of these systems of power, ideally resulting in a more egalitarian social organization (which is what radical feminists call for - a "radical alteration of existing systems," or a "whole new pie!").

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Module 3

As discussed in the readings and lecture, culture and socialization play a huge role in our conceptions of gender, as well as our gender identities and (arguably) our sexual identities. I thought it was an important point in the lecture that "nothing is essential, intrinsic, or static about femininity or masculinity," because so much of our society operates, or even depends on this faulty assumption! Advertisements targeting a certain sex are a great example of this.

In the essay by Kathleen Trigiani, "Masculinity and Femininity: Society's Difference Divided," I found the discussion of Sex-Role Theory interesting, in that it has several shortcomings that one would seem to be able to recognize, without any in-depth analysis. One example of this is its characterization of men as "aggressive, rational, dominant, objective" and women as "passive, intuitive, submissive, subjective" - while claiming that "our culture values the characteristics of each sex equally and that they complement each other in a balanced way." If by 'complement' they mean "operate in contrast to," that could be true, but not in the sense that these traits complete each other, because it is so clear that one set is subordinate to the other. It is certainly not balanced. If something is 'dominant', then by definition it is holding and/or exerting power over something else; in this case, men over women. Additionally, the description of men as "rational" implies that women, by contrast, are irrational, and adding insult to injury, serves to dehumanize women. Because if humans are rational beings, and women aren't rational, well then...

This brings me to my discussion of men as an 'unmarked' category. Basically, what this means is that while men are the norm, women are "others", or the 'marked' category. This applies to other aspects as well: 'white' is the unmarked category of race, 'heterosexual' is the unmarked category of sexuality, etc. This is evident in Theory of Hegemonic Masculinity as well, as Trigiani notes that "femininity is constructed around adaptation to male power" (emphasis added). It is also relevant to her musings on whether androgyny is necessary to "attain gender justice." Well, no, it shouldn't be; as discussed before, one of the goals of feminism is supposed to be a valuation of sexual difference. She quotes Robert W. Connell as saying that "Pursuing social justice does not mean pursuing uniformity...", but notes that it (social justice) is all the more difficult to obtain because of the patriarchal, masculine hegemony in which it occurs, "where the '"male is the norm," or the masculine is authoritative." Breaking down marked and unmarked categories, and recognizing those which have traditionally been marginalized or ignored are two important steps on the road to a more egalitarian society.

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Module 2

Only relatively recently have I come to consider myself a feminist. Certainly, I have always identified with feminist values and balked at the idea of inequality and discrimination, but I think that I may have refrained from labeling myself as 'feminist' due to the negative stereotypes that are often associated with feminism, which were addressed in both the readings and the lecture. As Professor Davis noted in the lecture, there are far more people who believe in equality than there are who identify as 'feminist.' I have since settled my reservations, and have no qualms calling myself (or being referred to as) a feminist. While some of the stereotypes can be rather incensing, it's actually pretty easy to dismiss them because most of them are incapable of withstanding the slightest criticism or investigation. Indeed, a fair portion of the feminist population revels in the absurdity of some of these stereotypes, referring to themselves as "Jezebels" and "feminazis," among other terms.

As for a definition of feminism, I do not think that there is any one, certain definition of it. As the page of definitions at the Feminist Resource Website showed, people's conceptions of feminism vary greatly. The definitions ranged from detailing 'feminism' as a quality, a form of advocacy or even "enthusiasm," or a belief, to name a few. I particularly enjoyed the quote from Rebecca West, admitting that "I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute." This ties in to the idea of agency that was mentioned in the lecture.

Another idea that is integral to feminism is that it is inextricably connected with other forms of discrimination, including but not limited to: racism, sexism, ageism, class-ism, heterosexism, size-ism, etc. This theme of interconnected-ness is further expressed in Charlotte Bunch's assertion that "...everything is a woman's issue."

I was impressed with the date of Millicent Fawcett's quote - 1878! - stating that the goal of feminism is to "give every woman 'the opportunity of becoming the best that her natural faculties make her capable of.'" This also struck me as interesting because it could be construed to imply that women are inherently weaker than men - but not necessarily. It also reminded me of Mia's perpetual quest for 'self-actualization' in The Princess Diaries (yes, I read it - years ago!).

In the GLBTQ reading, I thought it was a very important point that the Women's Studies discipline does not typically focus on or even address issues pertaining to these demographics, instead taking a "feminist and/or female-centered approach." Our society ascribes wholeheartedly to the a gender dichotomy of 'male' and 'female', and not much in between. I think this issue is addressed in the next module, so that's all I'll say for now.