I'm a Barbie Girl-Patrick Campbell

Patrick Campbell

Personally the required readings for today involved many scenarios in which I completely do not relate. Growing up I played with action figures and was into the Power Rangers and Dragonball Z, I never aimed any attention to the Barbie Doll which is fundamental considering I am a guy. Therefore, the issues brought about in Susan Douglas’s piece regarding the Barbie Doll involving its impact on young girls was nothing I have ever witnessed before. Little girls worrying about their bra sizes seemed to be a bit of reach for me because due to their young age I am pretty sure the girls in focus did not have any boobs to begin with. Following the rest of her piece, I was able to determine that this doll must have had a large impact of what girls think about themselves and what they want to be perceived as while they grow and mature.

After noticing the cartoons and objects that I focused on when I was a toddler, I realized that the Barbie Doll was the only figure that girls were able to relate to during their young years of maturity. I personally believe that this is a fault in the system of youth education and focus. In other words, another figure should be available to young girls to relate to and try to impersonate. There was never a doll made that appeared to show women’s strength besides those which exude sexuality in women. Therefore, it is rationale to believe that the Barbie Doll was responsible for the “brainwashing” of young women, which Amanda pointed out in her main post.

P.S. nice rap Amanda

Plastic Girls in a Plastic World:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmC40aM8Bhc

Main Post: Mar/1

Susan Douglas never seems to disappoint me. I really enjoyed reading her “Lean and Mean” chapter in Enlightened Sexism. What also was very interesting was the fact that I could relate stuff that she talked about in this chapter to my everyday life experiences. It is funny how society has made up this version of what a perfect female figure should look like, when in fact one barely exist nor are the characteristics feasible (in a natural state). What I mean by this is sure girls can become anorexic or bulimic and get plastic surgery done to fill a 38D cup but this is one too expensive and causes mental harm. After reading this chapter I would argue that the Barbie figure doll plays a huge role in “brainwashing” girls into thinking they need to look like this image. Girls in their young ages are playing will dolls that have the beyond perfect body that fit into size zero clothing but also fill a D cup bra. Thinking about it, you think these women would not be able to stand up because they would be top heavy. It is outrageous the amount of cosmetic surgeries that have increased throughout the years. Douglas pointed out that in 1992 only 32,000 people got breast implants when in 2004, 247,000 people had breast implants. Of course we can blame no one other than the media because the images that we have seen at the turn of the 21st century are those women that have gained their power through having a slim, young, hot body. We see characters like Cuddy the boss in House and female forensic researchers on CSI who constantly flash cleavage in an atmosphere that it is not normally being flashed. When Douglas began to talk about this “Hotness Olymipics” and this aspect of female-on-female bullying I began thinking about instances in my life where I have either took place in this behaviour or have been a witness or even a victim. Interstingly enough I came across this photo and song remake that one of my friends on facebook posted online. This picture is basically of Rhianna the singer but it has been photo shopped to make her look fat. I was disgusted at this image when I saw it, and even more surprised when I found that it was a female that posted this image along with the new lyrics. The person that posted this image is not the skinniest or in the best of shape herself. Then looking at all the comments that were posted I found, to my surprise nothing but females commenting and making jokes. There were no comments made by any males. I find it sad that some females feel the need to put down others, or ultimately make up this lie to make them feel better about themselves. Women need to become more confident in themselves and their image for the sake of their own lives and the lives of other women. If everyone was happy with who they are, then no one would feel the need to bash others etc etc. Here is the picture and the lyrics I found:

"Oh na na, I love to bake. Oh na na, Feed me cake.Oh na na, watch my belly shake, belly shake, belly shake. Yeah, I heard you good with them chopsticks,Yeah you know food to mouth.The price of a #9 is 8 something, right?Cuz I’ve been tryina order out awhhh.Good food, white wine, awh.I eat a lot in the night time, yeah, okay away we go,I heard about your food on the radiooooo, get a plate."

Short response Mar/1

In the first half of this chapter entitled “Lean and Mean”, Susan Douglas addresses how society and the media have distorted our notions of beauty.  Everything ranging from Victoria’s Secret ads, Cosmo magazines and television series show the female audience that their hyperfemininity characterized by their unbalanced, oversized breast and size 0 bodies are their most powerful tool. Moreover, they depict men as “helpless, salivating dung beetles” (214) when confronted by such type of women. The most disconcerting part of this chapter was related to the increasingly large number of TV shows broadcasting how plastic surgery is considered a miraculous intervention in a woman's life.  


I remember catching a few episodes of ¨The Swan¨when I was still in middle school and thinking how people could undergo such harsh procedures, both physically and mentally. The scariest part was always towards the end of the episode, ¨the revelation¨as I recall, when the women admitted to themselves how beautiful they looked in the mirror, YET, it didn't feel like them...rather, a whole new person. Obviously (as Douglas would argue and I agree with her), these women experienced a 180 degrees transformation in order to reach a fake standard of beauty. Who would recognize themselves after having knifes and foreign compounds invade one own's body?  Unfortunately, even though the negative secondary effects of such procedures, like Botox, are endless, an increasingly alarming number of people continue to pay for these ¨miracles¨....2.8 million Botox injections  were given in 2007 alone.   

Short Response for Feb/24th

I found it interesting how in the Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence (1980) the author tries to differentiate between the difference of being lesbian and being a feminist. She talks about how in a worsening economy, the single mothers try to support their children which ultimately confronts the feminizations of poverty and how the lesbian faces discrimination in hiring and harassment and violence in the streets. I find it very unacceptable that sexual orientation, let alone gender is a form of social and economic inequality in today’s society. Women get penalized enough in the work force just by simply being a woman and now they are being punished even more because they are attracted to other woman? Just because majority of people in society are heterosexual why does that mean that if you are not heterosexual than you are abnormal? This goes along with the gender and sex issue and how some babies are born intersex and are considered abnormal. Just because someone differs from the norm it should not mean that they are abnormal. It should suggest that they are unique. The argument that heterosexuality is normal because in order to produce offspring you need heterosexual relationships is valid, but it does not change the fact that some people are attracted to those members of the same sex. It then becomes the question, is homosexuality innate or socially learned?

Short post feb24

Certainly, in today's society we instantly assume that others are heterosexual by default, often without thinking it twice.  As kids, we grow up learning at school that girls wear skirts and boys wear pants. In middle school, it was expected that if girl was "swept off her feet" it was naturally because of a male crush and during senior prom, the norm was to be a heterosexual couple, so on and so forth. The idea of compulsory heterosexuality can strike some people's nerves as being too irrational. These are the people I hear who argue that heterosexuality is the norm because that's the way for reproduction to occur. It is wasn't set this way, homo sapiens would be non-existant by now! Although their argument sound fair, to think that heterosexuality in  the only way to go would be missing the point entirely. As Rich suggests, compulsory heterosexuality suggest that people might not be fully experiencing or fulfilling their desires. When I think about that, I find myself in a state of unease because the whole theory somehow  implies that my feelings, all which I have experienced and felt so far, have been sort of " socially programmed"  and dictated by a "socially accepted framework"  rather than by my own consciousness. On the other hand, this should not surprise me because I should have realized that society is closely interrelated with the individual. I guess this comes back to the one of Fausto's point: nature creates a map, but nurture is the compass that guides us around that map. So,after taking the time to briefly evaluate my life and relationships, I  realized how much compulsory heterosexuality has affected me. For instance, there has always been social pressure from my family and peers to date, not only a straight guy but also one who is not outside my race.

Short Response for Feb/22nd

Susan Douglas’ chapter on Sex R Us was very interesting to me. I find it interesting how sex is being sold in today’s society and how women fight and hope for sexual equity. This hope for sexual equity has been shaped around images that sell jeans, underwear, magazines, music videos etc. It is amazing how sexuality is portrayed in society and how certain artists and singers have gotten away with a lot of lyrics with their promotion of sex. I laughed at the point where she argues that girls learn at a very young age to “strut their stuff” and how she commented on the TV show Toddlers and Tiaras and how ridiculous these little girls and their parents are, and how involved they are in these beauty pageants. To me, I find that very wrong. Girls at that age should be having fun and learning, not worrying about their spray –on-tans or fake eye lashes. I believe that basically brainwashing this kids at such a young age about being perfect or looking a certain way is not appropriate. I wouldn’t be surprised if these girls ran into issues such as anorexia or bulimia when they were older. After reading Patricia Hill Collin’s piece on “Black Sexual Politics” I would agree with Pat’s post when it comes to Jennifer Lopez . I feel like the media and others highly value and use her bottom in a sexual reference, but I do not think that her claim to fame is her butt. Again as Pat mentioned, if JLO believed that this was important for her success she would not have received a butt reduction. I feel that she wanted to prove a point and stop rumours from flying.

Selling Sex-Feb 22

Patrick Campbell

Susan J. Douglas’s piece “Sex ‘R’ Us,” introduces scenarios involving young women dressing and acing far beyond their years of maturity following the transition of female celebrity role models like Brittany Spears from “teen pop star” to a breast implanted sex figures. Douglas explains that due to this type of change, “young women” felt that they “were suppose to dress like call girls and had to start doing this at an even younger age.” I have personally witnessed this type of activity through my experience of picking up my brother from elementary school a few years ago. As I pull up to the school and the kids pour out of the building, I realized that many of these young girls were dressed with tight-petite clothes that appeared completely out of place given their young age. I believe that this type of activity involving young girls dressing in sexy mature clothing is why children these days are experiencing physical sexual activities much earlier than that of their parents and modern day adults. This experience made me really think of Douglas’s last question of, “how did we get here,” because to be completely honest, this type of activity is what hinders the intellectual view of women across the globe, so why continue?

Although Patricia Hill Collins’s piece “Black Sexual Politics” shows how Jennifer Lopez’s buttocks is highly valued and used as a sexual reference, I do not believe Lopez wanted to be perceived as a women whose fame is only due to her significant rear-end. I say this because, she has received a butt reduction a few years ago which shows that she wants the worlds eyes to be removed from her rear and focused on her talents and accomplishments as an artist. Despite Collins’s take on women flaunting their sexual body parts, she takes a strong interest in the male sexual prowess in African American culture. She believes that modern perception of black males and females in America created a “new type of racism” in the nation today. Although she states this new type of racism has developed following the “black sexuality,” I am not completely taken by her argument to defend how this was translated into a new type of racism. I feel she lacks a certain depth of significant evidence to support her claim (cause and effect, origin, actual case of this impact on society).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ErQeVY7uUg

News Flash - "Blame it on the... Woman"

I found a few very interesting articles in the New York Times about women in today’s media and relationships. The articles discuss how powerful women actually are and how some of their behaviours affect those behaviours of the opposite sex. The first article is called “Pop Culture Creates New Heroines” and was published in the New York Times at the end of the 2010 year. The article basically analyzes some of the strong and dominant women figures that are found throughout different media sources. The article argues how in films, books, music, television etc in today’s era we have rethought gender roles and the old virgin versus slut/ whore metaphor. The author feels that today we are in an age of female empowerment where women are more likely to be cast as sex objects or action heroes, or in some instances both. The women will all of the power seem to be those who are sexy, but brainy at the same time and both flirty and witchy. Characters in past decades would have either or of these qualities mentioned above.

Today, the characteristics are beginning to fuse together to create one power house of a woman. There are still evidence of characters who are competitors, with one being dominant due to her sexuality and the other due to her knowledge. The article uses the example of women in American politics where Sarah Palin was argued to be the sexy action politician, while Hilary Clinton was the more brainy type. The new female images are coming from books and movies with characters such as Cleopatra and Lisbeth Salander (character from the novel "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" and its sequels). These women are strong, independent, and are super-hero like characters. They often present themselves as being indestructible. This article related to the readings in Susan Douglas’ book Enlightened Sexism, specifically the chapter of warrior women in thongs. To me, it seems like the women who have the most power in movies and entertainment today are those who follow the Cleopatra theme rather than the girly feminism characters as seen in movies like “Clueless” or “Legally Blonde” etc. Now the question is do men really treat or respect these over superior women? Or do they in fact respect the underachieved and girly women?

Interestingly enough, I found an article that relates to the above questions. The article is titled “New Dating Book Says Feminism Ruins Relationships, Women Can Stop Men From Cheating” from Fox News. The authors in this article agree with the fact that feminism has come a long way in making women equals, but it has done a lot to mess up the love lives of a lot of women. They argue that women have been conditioned to “act like men” in the office in order to become successful and climb up the corporate ladders. Because majority of one's time revolves around their jobs, women have brought this masculine attitude back into their love lives and have ultimately caused the destruction of their relationships. The article argues that the reason why men cheat on their significant other is because they need to be with a person who is feminine, sexually available, loving and appreciative. Men often cheat on their successful and gorgeous wives with those women who are less attractive or accomplished. The reason for this is because men, with their arguably small egos, need these mistresses to stroke their egos to make them feel better about themselves.

Women need to basically show their men that they need them every day in some sort of way. Interestingly enough, the more women try and impress their man by telling tales of all that they have done, the more they will fall in love with the man, but the least the man will fall in love with them. Men do not fall in love with accomplishments. Men want to be “the man” in the relationship, the one who is the provider and protection. Ultimately, when a man feels that he is not needed by a women, his ego is hurt and he finds other ways to treat it. The article uses the “Oscar Love Curse” as an example of a successful woman being cheated on. The Oscar Love Curse is basically the superstition that anyone who wins the awards for Best Actress or even Supporting Actress, their significant other will cheat on them soon after. This has happened to very successful women such as Hilary Swank, Reese Witherspoon, Sandra Bullock etc, who have all been victims to this theory. Overall, the article states that women need to whip off the pants and replace them with skirts and stop rambling about their credentials if they are looking for a long-lasting relationship

Articles:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/us/22iht-letter22.html

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/12/08/exclusive-new-dating-book-says-feminism-ruins-relationships-women-ability-stop/#

Newsflash1 – Digital Divide:A Replication of the Offline World

            Discussions about the gender gap in science and technology fields have become as contagious as cholera in the real world and just as widespread in the ¨online¨ world. Recently, the New York Times  reported about the scarcity of women contributors in the Wikipedia forums, triggering heated arguments not only from the readers but also from many experts in all walks of life.

            Wikipedia, the ninth most visited website on the Internet, is a free encyclopedia hailed as a collaborative, genderless, and egalitarian space where no expertise is required to edit any of the articles. A Pew Survey indicates that 53% of internet users use Wikipedia as an objective resource source (1). Yet, a study conducted by the Wikipedia Foundation indicates that barely 15% of all Wikipedia’s contributors are females (2). This is worrisome because it means that Wikipedia’s vast wealth of information, believed to be the contributions of all citizens, is in fact testosterone-laden. In other words, Wikipedia might appear to represent all values like freedom and openness, but the striking gender disparity is merely a replication of the division that we find in real life and the depth to which the patriarchal system intrude upon our lives.

       Heather Mac Donald, a contributing editor to City Journal, firmly rebuts the notion that Wikipedia is sexist, urging feminists to ¨stop hyperventilating¨. According to her, women have always been unsatisfied with their participation in the media and have persistently blamed men for being the ¨gatekeepers of literary culture¨ (3). Less than a decade ago, for instance, the political commentator and feminist advocate Susan Estrich launched a raging campaign against Los Angeles Times for alleged discrimination against female writers. Estrich concluded that the exaggerated number of male compared to female contributors on op-ed pages, influential newspapers and published journals was not ¨the result of merit alone¨, but a symptom of female exclusion (4). Mac Donald explains that this logic is false when used against Wikipedia, because there are no ¨gatekeepers¨ that can inhibit the participation of a woman. As a matter of fact she says, ¨anyone can write or edit an entry, either anonymously or under his or her name¨ (5). According to Mac Donald then, women are not contributing simply because they do not want to and not because Wikipedia is sexist. However, to believe that personal preference or choice is the determinant factor behind this phenomenon is obviously an overly simplistic remark. Clearly, there has to be more convincing explanations that can detail the source of drastic gender imbalance in Wikipedia, especially since the website enjoys a fairly equal ratio of 52% male to 48% female visitors (6).

             A closer look at Wikipedia pages suggest that, among many other reasons, women are probably less inclined to participate on a sphere that does not mirror their social or real life. Susan C. Herring, a professor of information science and linguistics at Indiana University, discovered through an online survey that more women, compared to men, had a negative impression of discussion forums (7). According to Herring, some women felt intimidated by the hostile and contentious environment of editing forums because the process of constructing knowledge required constant debating and defending of one’s point of view against strangers that would delete or even insult their contributions. More importantly, Herring explains that men and women have different communication styles in which ¨men tend to assert their opinions as facts, whereas women tend to phrase their informative messages as suggestions, offers, and other non-assertive acts¨ (8). Hence, women are less inclined to contribute in discussion forums because the nature of Wikipedia favors a more assertive style.  Does this mean that women do not like to argue? Are women unable to take a stand and defend their positions? Obviously, the case is far the opposite. ¨Women know as much as men do, can express themselves as clearly, and have just as much ability to work collaboratively to construct bodies of knowledge¨, says Justine Cassell, a professor and director of the Human-Computer Interaction Institute at Carnegie Mellon University (9). Unfortunately, women in many places today can still attract a negative crowd by acting as contentiously or defending one’s opinion as vigorously as men sometimes do. Consequently, Cassell concludes that ¨a woman who wishes to share what she knows with others may not want bitter altercation and successive edit wars¨ (10).

To a large extent, these are the ripple effects of the patriarchal system that Allan Johnson describes in his essay Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us. Patriarchy, according to Johnson, is a social system in which every person is a participant whether or not they realize it, and whether or not they choose to be one. A patriarchal society is based on the dominance and control of men, and promotes characteristics associated with male as the norm.  Coincidentally, what we see in Wikipedia is a ¨fact-loving realm¨ that appeals to men because they are ¨fact-obsessive geeks¨ and where women suffer a lack of influence because of their non-assertive communication style (11). With an educated eye, one can realize that Wikipedia resembles a patriarchal system that is male-centered in a very subtle way because it highly favors a masculine style of communication, to the point that it becomes an unearned privilege for men. The most important concept Johnson explores is that patriarchy is neither a problem of the individuals in the system nor an implicit way of saying that men are cruel. This means that to understand the gender gap in Wikipedia, it is not about trying to understand how the individuals and their personalities work within the system, nor is it about playing the blaming game. The key to solving the problem, as Johnson argues, is to understand that patriarchy is a social system in which everyone is a full participant. Thus, to solve the gender gap in Wikipedia, it is absolutely necessary to shift the attention from focusing on the personality traits of men and women to observing critically at the ways in which ¨sexism is embedded in major institutions¨ (12). 

Main Post: Feb 17th

After reading the third chapter in Sexing the Body by Anne Fausto-Sterling I became frustrated at the fact that doctors are so determined to “control” or “fix” human beings to fall under the so called two categories of sexes. Fausto-Sterling states that “if there has been no prenatal ‘fix’ and an intersex child is born, doctors must decide, as they would put it, nature’s intention. Who gave these doctors the power to play God? These doctors are supposed to decide whether the child was “supposed” to be a girl or a boy. I am confused by the point where she states that nurture matters a great deal more than nature. If nurture matters more than nature than why are doctors in such a rush to choose whether these people should be male or female? Why not nurture them and allow either the parents or the child themselves to decide which sex they would like to be through socialization. The chapter talks about instances where the child “ought” to become male or female. What is somewhat frustrating is who says that there has to be or is only two sexes? According to Fausto-Sterling, 1.7 percent of all births are with intersex babies. At first, this number may seem very low but after looking at a specific population of a city with roughly 30,000 people, 5,100 people would have various degrees of intersexual developments. 5,100 is a lot of people, regardless of how many people it is compared too. Thus, if intersexuality occurs more often than we think, then wouldn’t that suggest that it is in fact normal rather than abnormal? Which would also suggest that there are more than just the two sexes. I also felt that the phall-o-meter is also really ridiculous. Again, who are these doctors to make this kind of criteria and why is it necessary? So if a baby boy is born with a penis that is smaller and 2.5cm his sex is in question and needs to be put under sex assignment? I find that quite ridiculous.

Short Response Feb/17th

When I read chapter 3 and 4 of Fausto’s book, it immediately reminded me of another book I read two years ago, ¨Middlesex¨ by Jeffrey Eugenides. The main character in ¨Middlesex¨, Calliope/Cal, is a hermaphrodite and I believe the story line follows her/his personal struggles of as s/he grows up and starts to change both physically and emotionally. In fact, I think she grew up as a girl only to discover that she was male when she reached puberty. I remember that one of most striking characteristics of that book was the underlying binary opposition of words and ideas that the author would use. For example, the story moved seamlessly between Greek and American tradition, past and present, history and fiction, and most importantly male and female. Jeffrey Eugenides commingles genders, places and cultures in his book. The point I want to make is that both Eugenides’s idea and Fausto argument is founded on the notion everything is contingent, intermingled, tangled with each other. Nature and nurture cannot be separated. Similarly, the sex and gender have transcended history in many ways. And to agree that the only truth is a dichotomy is to be very blind. 

Feb 15th-Patrick Campbell

Patrick Campbell

Many of the articles we have read this semester discuss the effect that gender plays in the construction of society. Anne Fausto Sterling believes that sex is socially constructed. Although the anatomy of a human is easily determined by visual means, Sterling believes that a persons gender is a socially determined matter. She presents her case by using her example of sexual testing in the Olympics. Although these people use medical testing to determine a person’s sex, I feel that believing more advance testing is needed to determine a person’s gender is a bit radical (if someone is a male or a female, they have known their whole life).

I may be seen as ignorant, however, I strictly believe that there is only two sexes (male or female), despite the few cases of gender challenged individuals such as transvestites. Although I have this belief of only two sexes the case involving the Spanish athlete Maria Patino really threw me for a loop. However, the banning of this athlete from competition was extremely immoral. I say this because, following he expulsion from female competition, what is she able to do next? This type of discriminatory competition is what has structure today’s society into the way it is now, patriarchal and very controlling of women. The fact that she has testes does not affect her muscular make up or her feminine build, she is still competing as a women. Therefore, this type of testing should be banned in athletic competition because as we see it can transform into a life destroyed. Furthermore, the destruction of someone’s life over the fact that modern day science can identify such minute differences amongst people which were not around during the onset of Olympic competition.

Short Response Feb/15th

Is gender really binary?Of course not! And it is unfortunate that our society is still uncapable of understanding the complex underlying history of sex and gender.   I really wish that people could slowly try to accept the fact that the high ideal of two sexes only does not really match the reality in which we live in. Among the many important issues that Fausto addresses in the first chapter is the binary notion of nature vs nurture. It was the subject that caught my attention the most.  Nature is basically an unscripted mind, what is inside us the moment we were born, before we interacted with the ¨outside¨. Nurture is exactly the opposite. It is the result of acculturation and the process of socialization. What happens when nature and nurture come together? Fausto argues that a whole spectrum or scheme of  things can develop out of that. In her thesis statement on pg 5 she uses the phrase mutually ¨dependent¨ to describe this ¨binary opposition¨. Nature and nurture are not mutually independent. They can not be treated separately because they essence rely on each other’s qualities. Likewise, straight and gay cannot be divided into two distinct categories because the truth is, there exist no clear-cut. Rather, there is a wide scheme of variations between the two. For instance, the average height of people is 5-6 foot. Architects build houses for people with a standard height. Yet, deviations exist -- there are 7 feet tall people! So do we chop them short? No! We tolerate them and those people, in turn, learn to live their lives as extremely tall people who cannot fit through the usual doorway, etc.  I guess the take home message is that trying to understand our world in binary oppositions that are mutually independent will not take us very far, because  nothing is black and white only.

Main Post for Feb/10

Lorde, women’s fight to be men’s equal will continue to be an endless battle if oppositions are actively maintained within the women’s community. She points out that the weakness in the feminist movement is the failure to respect differences in race, class, and sexual orientation as having a crucial role in the female experience. She explains that white heterosexual feminists are seen as the norm, which results in a marginalization of black and/or lesbian women. By doing so, women are following a cycle of oppression that mimics the patriarchal system, with the exception that white middle-class feminists are the oppressors and black/lesbians are the Others.  

Peggy McIntosh, an American feminist, puts into perspective the discussion of gender, race and sexuality that Lorde observed. In her personal essay, McIntosh reflects on her life as an American women and recognizes how many unearned privileges she has been offered throughout her daily life just because of the skin color she possesses. She lists a total of 50 aspects and situations in  life where being white has given her comparative advantage, security, and trust compared to being black. Out of the 50 situations listed, 8 of them deal with the unearned privilege and protection which are often taken for granted by heterosexual people. Although I understood where she was heading, I dislike the way she chose to approach this problem: ¨As we in women’s studies work to reveal male privilege and ask men to give up some of their power, so one who writes about having white privilege must ask, “having described it, what will I do to lessen or end it?” In other words, if we can’t earn it then we should persuade those in power to give up theirs? For this reason, I just can’t help but find some her ideas a tidbit outdated and even extreme despite trying to challenge us at times.

Short Response:Flippin N Floppin- Patrick Campbell

Peggy McIntosh’s piece “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” was a very interesting read for me. I say this because when I began reading this I must have had an ignorant, perspective because as I read the list I did not relate to most of her tallies. I felt she was being truly redundant and trying to relate all issues of racism in common day-to-day situations (whenever I walk into a room I do not think to act differently when different races are present).I truly understood McIntosh’s point when she stated she “did not see” herself “as a racist because” she “was never taught to recognize racism only in individual acts of meanness by members of my group, never in invisible systems conferred unsought racial dominance on my group from birth.” Once she stated this, I realized that I was brought up in a perspective like closely relative to that. Following this realization, I went back and read over her tallies, and began to catch myself understanding all of her points, enter my belief in her piece “White Privilege.” This type of turn-around has not happened to me in a reading throughout my study here at Colgate. Therefore, this was a truly original reading experience for me.

Audre Lorde’s piece “The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House,” starts off similar to McIntosh’s piece, by telling the reader of the importance of “examining our many difference,” prior to correlating a “theory” (whether it be feminism, racism, sexism-as shown in both articles). Lorde’s piece originated in 1984 which I see as truly interesting as well because a feminist perspective from over thirty years ago, portrays that women have been fighting for this cause for such a long time (and even prior to this), and feminism is still strong today. This article in a way made ‘eat my own words’ from the previous posts when I stated that, “it is not a marathon but a race,” because this proves that many women have been documenting their history of feminism and are referencing all known documents, which shows the true endurance of feminism.

Worse Then I Thought.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pdbnzFUsXI

Short Response for Feb/10th

I have read Peggy McIntosh’s piece on “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack” several times in other classes due to the fact that I am a sociology major and every time I read it I feel more disgusted on how the world works, especially when it comes to the difference in privileges between the races. I find it ironic how she states that men refuse to suggest that they are over privileged but also agree that women are under privileged. I like how she uses the connection that whites are carefully taught not to recognize white privilege just the same as males are taught not to recognize male privilege. I also think that using the metaphor of white privilege as being an invisible weightless knapsack filled with unearned assets is a perfect way to explain the concept. Looking at McIntosh’s daily effects of white privilege I begin to see many luxuries that white people unknowingly receive, and where people of a different race struggle within their daily lives. Some of her points seem really obnoxious to me. Like for instance number 17. “I can talk with my mouth full and not have people put this down to my color”. I find this very extreme. Personally, I would never suggest that the reason why a person of a different race was speaking with their mouth full was due to their race or any other factor really. The one that always gets me is similar to number 46, where white people can chose blemish cover or bandages in “flesh” color to have them more or less match my skin. Another example that goes along these lines is the crayon box example where the name of the color of the crayon that is peachy is named “flesh”. How do you think a child, especially one of a different race, who is coloring in their coloring book supposed to react to this? They understand what flesh is and know that the color of their skin does not resemble the color of the crayon.

Short Response Feb 8th

Patrick Campbell

A common theme that I have witnessed throughout the readings in this course is that these feminist authors tackle issues that occur in their patriarchal social structures, one or few-at-a-time. The assigned readings for this blog discusses the issue of marriages, whether it be gay, straight, or lesbian marriages. It is obvious to me that Paula Ettlebrick and the author of “Same Sex Marriages” differ on their reasoning for gay and lesbian couples’ intentions to marry. This type of confusion could be a pertinent reason as to why social confusion and misunderstandings occur so often in today’s society regarding these issues in focus. Ettlebrick states that “lesbians and gay men among us look to legal marriage for self-affirmation,” and to “transform from ‘outsiders’ to ‘insiders,’ because we have a desperate need to become insiders” (pg 306).

I believe the “Same Sex Marriages” document takes a stronger approach to the reasoning behind gay and lesbian marriages. That is said because this author aims to understand this social struggle from the broad perspective. By looking at the full picture, one is able to determine the most logical and rationale solutions or practices that must be created to further or improve their ultimate cause. This type of action needs to be taken by feminists of today, instead of looking at one or two issues at a time, they must analyze the whole picture into one. From this point, these people will be able to articulate the most effective and rationally sustainable model for society going forward. To clarify, the breakdown of all the issues, in a setting like that of congress-only it will be filled with members of all sides (feminists, men, legislatures etc.). From this setting, a group of educated individuals representing all perspectives would yield to most drawn out and effective model for society to bridge the gap between feminism and our modern patriarchal social structure.

Main Post: Feb/ 8th

The article in the Feminist Reader on “Challenging Men to Reject Gender Stereotypes” talks about how society normally thinks that the term “gender” or gender issues evolve around women. Despite this, Gokova argues that men have to participate since men need to change to realize overall change. In terms of sex, Gokova feels that it is important that men should begin to change their attitude towards sex. She suggests that they should start looking at sex as an opportunity to communicate mutually between women rather than to dominate them. She further argues that it is the role of the men to begin to recognize women as equal partners. The overall message in her piece was that men are understanding that the gender struggle is not about lifting women to the position of men because after all men have been put in a position of super-human, but that men need to cooperate with women to minimize gender issues.

In a lot of the readings the issue of oppression was raised. Johnson states in her article that the oppression of women happens because men want and like to dominate women and act hostility towards them. In Frye’s article she gives us a break down of the word oppression and explains how “press” is a element of the word which basically can referred to as something that is compressed, or some sort of mold, where restriction on the thing’s mobility occurs. We see that in Frye’s article it does not matter what your status or race is, oppression affects all women. I found Frye’s article really interesting especially when she harped on the fact that for teenage females, being sexually inactive or active is a lose lose situation. She made the point that heterosexually active women are often labelled as being “loose” or a “whore”. Frye states that the punishment comes from the criticism and embarrassing remarks. She further explains that the total opposite also happens. If females are unwilling to have sexual relations with males, they are referred as being “teases” or “prude”. What is also ironic about this example is how she used the idea of how girls who are active feel that they need to hide it from their parents. These same parents that would be disapproving of sexual activity are now criticizing or worried that because their daughters are not sexually active that maybe they are lesbians. Then she gets into nonsense examples where, if a woman has been sexually active and was raped then she is accused of liking it because she is sexually active. This is very true about reality where there are many instances where females are being downgraded and ultimately in lose lose situations.

Short Response for Feb/8

The main theme for today's readings deals with oppression. Marilyn Frye's article spoke to me in many ways and I agree with her on several points. For instance, oppression affects all kinds of women no matter what their class, race or marital status is. Frye's described the oppressive forces against women with the metaphor of a birdcage. It was very appropriate and I find it to be an extremely useful tool to use in explaining others about the symbolic suffocation women experience in their daily lives. It is true that they can vote, buy their own property, and get marry whenever they can. The fact that nothing obvious is hindering a woman to do all of the above does not mean she is finally liberated from the birdcage.

 At the end of the day, however, women are not the only ones that are being pigeon-holed or caged. Men suffer equally from this constriction. For example, I personally think Frye criticizes the  men's door-opening custom too harshly. Men, like women, are forced by an entity larger than themselves to act in a certain way. Like Johnson argues, to blame the system is to choose the easy way out and to blame the individuals inside that system is to totally miss the point. Men were not born to instinctively open doors for women, thus, to blame the individual for doing so is wrong. Like Johnson suggested, we must look beyond the individual themselves- the single bars of the birdcage- to understand what are the values being taught and ways of thinking that allow these subtle ways of oppression to be perpetuated.

Short Response for Feb/3rd

I totally agreed with Shanshan’s post. I also agreed that there is a subtle difference between the way white women are portrayed on TV shows compared to black women. Douglas explains how white women are often put into characters that are very attractive with some sort of power. Women are constantly fighting the pressure that are placed among men to look beautiful and are constantly objectified, which in the end just frustrates woman and makes them want to lash out towards men. It was interesting how Douglas commented on how the behaviours of black women can differ in the media than those of white women. She states that white women are supposed to be diplomatic, conciliatory, and nurturing at home and at work. She further explains that they are not supposed to be too tough or have a sharp tongue and if they do they are come across as being a “bitch”. Black women have the opportunity to be code-switching woman. They can one minute be very professional and follow the middle-class norm, and the next switch and use Black Speak and ultimately make feminism hip, cool, and funny. She uses examples like Oprah and Queen Latifah who are black woman that are all successful powerful woman. After reading this chapter it made me wonder how professional white woman would be portrayed if they threw in a few slang words or informal speech? In my opinion it would probably degrade them. Whereas in a professional setting if a white male did this, I think that people would like him better because he would seem more easy-going.

Short Response for Feb/3rd

I enjoyed today’s readings a lot. I think Douglas touched on several controversial topics that really forced me into thinking more deeply about the media and how women are consistently being portrayed in the wide spectrum of feminism. Before I read this chapter, I had no idea that ¨Clueless¨ had unleashed the unprecedented rise of chick flicks and thus, the new wave of girly feminism. Douglas analysis of other movies like ¨Miss Congeniality¨ and ¨Legally Blonde¨ left me even more perplexed. First of all, these are movies I have not only seen once but multiple times.  Hence, I guess I was able to follow through all her descriptions and recall each of the scenes clearly in my mind. This in effect, made her points stand out even more. 

The most important thing I noticed was the subtle difference between the way white women and black women are portrayed in the TV shows and movies. On the various example Douglas gave, white women are always beautiful and strong. Characters like Ally McBeal and Elle Woods try to exude a lot of confidence and ultimately end up in positions of relative power. However, their personal lives are complicated with conflicting desires. On one hand, they are professional women…empowered women. On the other hand, because of their sexuality, hyper-femininity, they are merely a joke for men. The take home message was something on the lines of: as women, there’s no way you can have brains and beauty all at once. In contrast with these female roles, African-American women like Oprah and Queen Latifah are all portrayed in a slightly different light.  They are all empowered, successful role models that try to embrace life beyond the over sexualized black women represented in rap videos. In addition, they are often admired because they speak from their hearts, and have no fear of men. Even though they can kick some ass, the media nonetheless has always succeeded in making fun of black women through downplayed characters like Big Momma. This made me realize how much more we need to strive for in order to break the race and class barrier. 

Short Response: A Job Well Done-Feb 1st

Patrick Campbell

From the beginning of this course until now, we have read articles and books by women who articulately scribe their experiences and feelings regarding the transition of feminism from the days of no women’s rights through modern day feminism and feminism going forward. The article by Rebecca Walker “Becoming the Third Wave” in The Essential Feminist Reader by Estelle B. Freedman, is my favorite example to date of a feminist who understands that it is not a race, but rather a marathon (as I stated in my previous post). Walker “rejected the idea of “post feminism” and worked to engage young women in politics.” She also portrays the importance of strong feministic persistence, which is crucial for attaining many of her goals, one being a model for the Third Wave of feminism. Walker’s experience on a train really opened broadened my perspective of men’s effect on women regarding the way we speak of them, especially in public. Growing up as a male in college, I see many instances of male individuals slandering women through sexual conversations of their own intimate experiences with women. When you hear a male in a group of other males say “I scored last night,” the next thing you hear is another guy asking him “how it was, how were here boobs, her butt etc” (usually in a more derogatory way). This type of conversation is a main reason why people perceive women as objects of sex or just something to look at, much like Mr. Heffner’s take on playmates. All in all, women like Rebecca Walker, not showing fear in her beliefs and standing up to men in any given situation, serves as the model feminist in the modern day world and going forward.

Our prior readings showed a case in which women sought out men to aid them in their feminist fight and struggle. Rebecca Walker is my favorite model of a feminist going forward because she shows that women must stick together and create change on their own. This is shown when she states that women must “not vote for them unless they work for us, do not have sex with them, do not break bread with them.” Walker is demanding change and the coming together of women to yield results, and this is absolutely crucial from my perspective.