Module 15

The issue of women's work in the home is an interesting one. While women generally perform the bulk of the housework (about 2/3), it is mostly unrecognized, undervalued and unappreciated. This may be due in part to the nature of the housework women typically perform - as discussed in the lecture, these tasks are often more repetitive and banal, requiring less skill and holding less value or status than the type of housework men usually do, which is more seasonal in nature and may require more skill. As such, "women's work" is arguably less fulfilling than that of men.

An interesting point was that men are said to "help out," or "pitch in" with the housework, as opposed to sharing household duties. This phrasing further reinforces the notion of the private home as a predominantly feminine domain, one where men can choose to partake in as much or as little housework as they please. It seems as though no matter how many gains women make in the public sphere, they are still inextricably tied to the private sphere as well, and to the notion of 'domesticity,' as prescribed by the Cult of True Womanhood.

The section on affirmative action was informative and helpful, especially in emphasizing the fact that it aims to "increase the representation of women and people of color in areas of employment, education and government...," encouraging diversification, but not the hiring of unqualified people for the positions in question. There is a lot of misunderstanding (and contention) surrounding the issue of affirmative action, and this reminded me of a story Dr. Michael Kimmel (I know I've referenced him multiple times before, but I just think he's great!) told during his talk here at JMU. He had appeared on an episode of Oprah entitled, "A Black Woman Stole My Job." Four white men were claiming reverse discrimination, arguing that they had been cheated out of jobs and promotions they were qualified for, and should have had. Kimmel asked the men why they were using the word "my" job, instead of "the" job, inquiring what had given them the idea that the job was theirs in the first place. This also ties back in to the issue of privilege, as it demonstrates the strong sense of entitlement these men had. Because of this sense of entitlement, men (or other people in positions of privilege) feel discriminated against when policies such as affirmative action are actually leveling the the playing field. Entitlement is especially invisible.

Module 14

Reading the Gender Stories was definitely eye-opening to women's experiences of oppression around the world, and the hardships and obstacles they encounter as a result of bias and discrimination. The Issue Briefs were also very informative, as they assessed not only commonly-discussed issues such as displacement, elections, health, trafficking, and violence, but also those that might receive less attention, such as landmines or reconstruction, and how these issues intersect. What struck me most as I was reading the Gender Stories and the Issue Briefs was the running theme of inadequate support and insufficient resources for women affected by these issues. Survivors of rape are left to deal with the consequences on their own, often without access to any sort of counseling, and subject to a great amount of shame in certain communities. This was evident in one story of a woman who tried to terminate her pregnancy (that was a result of rape) by injuring herself, because she was too ashamed to admit she had been raped, and didn't know what else to do. Another woman who had been raped by her father-in-law was treated as a criminal herself, sent to jail after being accused of adultery by the man who assaulted her, and as a result was unable to provide for or otherwise take care of her son. Another woman who had been abused said that she "suffers in some way from [it] every day." Society underestimates and ignores the damage abuse inflicts on its victims, making it less visible (like privilege) and thereby invalidating the experiences of those who suffer it. In consequence, there is not much emphasis placed on the need to make support and resources available and accessible to women who have suffered from abuse.

Module 11

In Marilyn Frye's essay on oppression, she makes the point that "people can and do fail to see the oppression of women [and other groups] because they fail to see [...] the various elements of the situation as systematically related in larger schemes" (emphasis added). This is an important point because I think we tend to take a microscopic view of the metaphorical "birdcage," considering its components, or wires, as separate and unrelated. This perspective can trivialize the obstacles and struggles faced by groups who are oppressed, making it easier to dismiss their failures as a result of individual shortcomings, instead of realizing the interlocking aspect of these barriers, "no one of which would be the least hindrance [on its own], but which, by their relations to each other" prevent, limit, or otherwise constrain the progress, success or equality the members of these groups can attain.

Frye also discusses the double-binds frequently encountered by oppressed people "in which options are reduced to very few and all of them expose one to [a degree of] penalty, censure, or deprivation." She cites the 'slut/whore' vs. 'prude/chaste' double-bind experienced by women in the United States, explaining the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" predicament women face in regard to their sexual activity (or inactivity). Furthermore, she notes that with regard to rape,

If a woman has been heterosexually active, she is subject to the presumption that she liked it (since her activity is presumed to show that she likes sex), and if she has not, she is subject to [the same presumption] since she is supposedly "repressed and frustrated." [...] Both heterosexual activity and nonactivity [sic] are likely to be taken as proof that [one] wanted to be raped [or liked it], and hence, weren't really raped at all.

But this issue of 'unrapeability' does not just apply to women. In our culture, black men are also made unrapeable, arguably more so than women. They are consistently hypersexualized in society's representations of them, and so of course, would never turn down the opportunity for sex (although one could argue, too, that white men are also generally made 'unrapeable,' except maybe in the context of homosexual activity). Andrea Plaid remarks that sensitive nature of the subject of "Black male sexual violence" may be due in part to people's willingness (or lack thereof) to acknowledge the issue:

It seems that the only violation folks, both inside and outside some Black communities, want to give an ear to from and about Black men is how they are "racially violated," how racism denies them their humanity, which is closely tied to their sense of "rightful" manhood [...] and more negatively, their male privileges, like feeling entitled to participated in this society's sexism and misogyny.

It's clearly an intricate and nuanced issue, and definitely one that deserves a good deal of thought and consideration. Two contributors at Racialicious provide more in-depth analyses here, and here.

Module 9

In the article by Christie Church, "Feminism Keeps My Marriage Together," Church uses her own story of unexpected encounters with sexism and the patriarchy and the limitations or expectations they impose to illustrate the point that "no matter how many gains feminism makes, it should never cease to be taught, because younger generations will be stunned powerless in the face of unexpected sexism without having any feminist education to help put that sexism into context." My question is of where feminism is being taught - does she mean informally, shared or passed down by feminists through values and ideologies, or is she referring to a formal education setting, such as a college or university? Either way, I agree with her point that it is important to include feminism as a part of education.

I also liked her (and her husband's) approach to marriage: the fact that their decision to get married was a conversation rather than a proposal, and that they got each other high-tops instead of the traditional engagement ring. I'll admit that I had never really considered before that there isn't an equivalent of an engagement ring for men. This article provided a lot of interesting fodder for thought about the institution of marriage as a sexist and misogynistic. Church's observes that "we are all socialized to see marriage as a woman's prize for being appropriately attractive and wily, and how men are offered no part in it except as reluctant, defeated lumps following behind."

Hearing about people's narrow-minded reactions to their nontraditional approach was disappointing, but not altogether unexpected. A similar story is that of Jessica Valenti, founder of feministing.com, who also encountered unfavorable responses, even from "fellow feminists who felt that getting married was a sop to the patriarchy." Valenti wrote about it for the Guardian, where she details her experiences planning the feminist wedding. It's an interesting read, and gives other examples of how she and her husband incorporated feminism into the wedding.

'Child X' - IRL?

I came across this article earlier, and almost couldn't believe it - it sounds almost exactly like the "Child X" story we read the first week of class! Two Swedish parents have decided not to reveal the sex of their two-year-old child, basing their decision on the "feminist philosophy that gender is a social construction." The parents refrain from using (gendered) personal pronouns, instead calling the child "Pop." The article notes that, "Pop's wardrobe includes everything from dresses to trousers and Pop's hairstyle changes on a regular basis. And Pop usually decides how Pop is going to dress on a given morning."

It is generating a bit of controversy, which I am a little bit surprised about. Personally, I think it is pretty cool that people are actually doing this. Others are calling the parents "stupid" or "crazy," and allege that this is going to mentally harm the child (see comments). Canadian psychologist and newspaper columnist Susan Pinker says that, "Ignoring children's natures simply doesn't work," and that the parents are failing to "respond to the child's needs as an individual." People are also arguing that it won't matter soon enough, because the child's inherent sex differences will manifest themselves in free play with other children, as they are "curious about their own identity, and are likely to gravitate towards others of the same sex during free play time."

Interestingly enough, the couple is expecting another child, and "have no plans to change what they see as a winning formula." Whatever the result of this "experiment" is, I hope that it generates positive conversations about sex and gender, and I certainly hope that I hear more about this story in the future!

http://www.thelocal.se/20232/20090623/

Module 10

Peggy McIntosh's piece on "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack of Privilege" was definitely thought-provoking. I had heard the concept of privilege as invisible before; as I mentioned in the Module 8 post, I went to see Dr. Michael Kimmel speak when he came to JMU in Spring 2008, and he gave a good illustration of how privilege is invisible. He recounted a story where he and some (mostly female) colleagues had gathered to discuss feminist issues, and a discussion arose between two women in the group. One of the women asked the other what she saw when looked in the mirror each morning, and she replied that she saw a woman. The woman who had posed the question responded that what she sees is a black woman. Race is visible to her, but not the white woman. And what does Kimmel - a white, middle-class man - see? A person! Privilege of race, class, gender, or other factors keeps these things invisible to those who have them.

I liked McIntosh's point that privilege is more than a "favored state," that it is actually a function of power; and that we are all affected by racism (and other forms of discrimination), whether we realize it or not. The corollary here is that we need to make ourselves conscious of the fact that society tries to hide: that not only does discrimination disadvantage some groups of people, but it simultaneously puts others at a distinct unearned advantage, broadening the gap of inequality.

Module 8

I found Bordo's appraisal of the body's indication of social identity and place very interesting; although a little bit hard to believe that these body types applied across the board for each class - she seems to be essentializing and generalizing here. However, the intersection of social place or class and body size is, I believe, an important and interesting one. What Bordo refers to as "the moral coding of the fat/slender body in terms of its capacity for [...] the control of impulse and desire," some people refer to as 'size-ism." Society judges and discriminates against body types that lie outside the cultural norm, but unarguably more severely against those which err on the larger end of the spectrum. However, this discrimination is overlooked or simply dismissed, in part due to our equation of excess body weight with "moral or personal inadequacy or lack of will." Bordo states that this dichotomy of over-indulgence and (extreme) self-restraint is "possible only in a culture of overabundance" where presumably, the "moral requirement to diet depends on material preconditions." In other words, only in a society where basic needs are met, where food is readily available and easily accessible and attainable, can there be a choice between impulse and restraint. This is true to a certain degree, but it does not take into account the correlation between obesity and poverty in America. The similarities between these two maps: one of obesity rates and one of the percentage of people living below poverty, are striking. In such cases, obesity is not just a factor of personal exercise of self-restraint or lack thereof, but other (predominantly economic) factors as well.

I was pleasantly surprised and excited to recognize Michael Kimmel's name in the second reading. I attended a talk he gave here at JMU in Spring 2008, entitled "Mars and Venus, or Planet Earth: Women and Men in a New Millenium," and I was really impressed with the things he had to say - a lot of it really stuck with me. I did a brief writeup of what he had to say for extra credit in a class I was taking that semester, and I'll post it here so that if anyone is interested they can look at it.

The notion of "Ruling Class Politics" is an example of how power relations are reflected and reinforced in beauty norms. By setting the standards of what is desirable to young, white, able, and middle-class, we internalize these norms, and all the other "-ism's" are reinforced.

I found the idea of common body maintenance procedures - e.g. shaving, hair coloring, etc. - as "disciplinary practices" so interesting, because we do spend time, money, and effort on these practices, but how often do women gripe to each other about what a hassle it is to shave? So why do we do it? It's social control of the body - it's not socially acceptable for women to have hairy legs or armpits. On that note, there is an interesting ad campaign being run by several makers of men's shaving products, encouraging men to shave their pubes - although I suspect that this is less in the interest of 'hygiene' than it is profits for the companies.

I believe that advertising and the media have a huge impact on our perceptions, thought processes, decisions and judgments, to an extent that we don't even realize. The statistic that the average American spends three years of life watching commercials is a little unsavory, and even more so when one considers the nature of these ads - so many of them portray unhealthy images, propagate stereotypes, or are just plain offensive. For these reasons, I've consciously removed myself from, or at least reduced my exposure to, the constant battery of advertising by not watching TV or reading popular magazines, and I really think that it has made a positive difference in my well-being on multiple levels.