News Flash 2:Crumbling Over Patriarchy or Has Feminism Gone too Far?

As a commemoration of the 100th anniversary of International Women’s Day, CBC conducted a special interview with three women from three different generations in Canada: Erin Cardone (25 years old reporter and columnist with the Victoria News), Suromitra Sanatani (47 years old strategic counsel with the law firm HB Global Advisors and former Vice President  of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business), and Ursula Franklin (89 years old celebrated physicist, feminists, and pacifist). Before the interview, the CBC  co-host Anna Maria shared with the audience the findings of Kathleen Lahley, a law professor at Queen’s University who conducted a research on the wage gap between men and women in Canada. Her studies essentially revealed that between 1970s and early 1990s, women made a significant stride forward, earning approximately 72 cents for every dollar a man made. After 1993, however, women started to fall backwards again, earning only 70.4 cents on the dollar. Although for some people the difference might seem minimal, many are concerned that it is still increasing at a constant pace.  After this brief introduction on the changing demographics and roles of women, Anna Maria gave an opportunity for all three, intellectually empowered women to express their opinions. Although they all agreed that the Feminist Movement was important, their unique generational gap  sheds light on the disparity of feminist’s goal and their incompatible views on women’s participation in the work field.

So, what is the state of feminism? Ursula Franklin thinks the existing wage gap is not a surprising phenomenon at all. For her, it is important to realize that only a few decades ago, the major problem was not even about wages or wage gaps, but about the ¨access¨ women had to opportunities that would even allow her to earn such salary. In this respect, Ursula Franklin thinks women have made an incredible stride over the past few decades, urging us to acknowledge and celebrate such feat despite the warnings of Kathleen Lahley.  Suromitra Sanatani agrees with Ursula, but suggested that we should not be complacent with our current state despite the successful advancement of women in the workforce. She cited her personal experience as an example. Suromitra used to be the only women of color in the boardroom. She explained that now there were two of them, but still not enough. Erin Cardone, the youngest women in the group, is by far the least concerned about the wage gap. According to her, men and women have been treated fairly equal and paid the same. She is confident that as the years go by, women will start running more companies and eventually advance their positions. She even exclaimed proudly that individual choice made it more acceptable for women to have a part-time job or a different work week than men.  Does this mean that a wage gap is a choice gap then? According to Erin, men and women are inherently different and thus, it is natural for women to want to take time off from their work in order to care for the children. Erin pulled out the so-called “nurturing card”, suggesting how women are more superior, pure, peaceful, and domestic beings that should serve as a “moral compass” and be in charge of revitalizing the home.  She is certain that there is nothing wrong with this image, a fact which disconcerts me because it seems like she is oblivious of the “birdcage” she is trapped into. 

 

First of all, her confidence and optimism with the current state of gender equality at the workplace makes me think that she has been deeply influenced by the “female fantasies of power” and large doses of “embedded feminism” which makes her believe that feminists have reached their goals and that women nowadays can do it all.  Although the education revolution did launch a record number of women into universities, more women today are continuously paid less than their male counterparts despite having the same degree and qualifications (2). For instance, in 1990, women with university degrees earned 86.8 per cent of what men with the same degree earned. In 2010, according to Statistics Canada, “women with similar degrees were earning 68.3 per cent of what their male counterparts were” (3). Secondly, she considers women’s preference to work part-time in order to take care of the children as a “personal choice”.  Although there is nothing wrong with the desire to spend more time with one’s own children, Erin sees a woman’s ability to choose a different work schedule than a man as an advantage that suits her needs to do a job that she was told only a woman can do best. However, as Ursula points out, “Do we really want to live in an environment where men have the choice to take care of the family but don’t, but women should?¨ In a way, Erin’s comment feeds into the patriarchal system, described by Johnson, that identifies men as the norm and thereby the most important members of society. To what extent is choosing to be responsible of child rearing a free choice? Similar to our discussion about labiaplasty in class, do women really “choose” to undergo that painful surgery like the way they “choose” to work part-time simply because they can afford it?  In either case, the women like Erin are  tricked into believing that a choose of their choice mean that they have reached the pinnacle of feminism. Paired with “embedded sexism” then, it doesn’t matter if the woman wants to work half-time, have 10 children, get labiaplasty, and wear miniskirts as long as “they” chose to do so. Little do they know that it is only an illusion created by the external and subtle forces of  a patriarchal system that traps women behind the invisible bars of “the birdcage.” Women ultimately undergo labiaplasty in order to please the man, to meet their desires of being normal and to look like a virgin because they are scorned and looked as deviant if they don’t. Likewise, women are penalized with a lesser wage for wanting to rear children.  

Towards the end of the interview Erin concluded that “feminism is partly responsible for a contingent of overworked, overburdened, and overachieving, and therefore very unhappy young women today”, like her. She explained that there were too many pressures coming towards women to become good managers, good wives, good girlfriends, do child rearing, housework, etc. (like the “supergirl” described by Susan Douglas). Ursula responded astutely, saying that feminism was not “an employment agency for women.” Rather, the goal of the feminist movement was meant to find accommodations for women with a better pay than being merely a housewife. I agree with Ursula when she said that the real problem was that woman today are frustrated because they see themselves as infiltrating a system.This is why Ursula (and in a lesser degree Suromitra) urges us to examine closely at the social structures that are causing this tendency, making Ursula  a radical feminist like Brownmiller who wanted “a total transfiguration of society- politics, business, child-rearing, sex, romance, housework, entertainment, academics.”  Ursula sees the need of working outside the system.

 
The takeaway message from this interview created by the disparate values of different women separated by various generations is that “ there’s nothing wrong with women, but there’s a lot wrong with the rest of the world.” Despite the great strides women have made in history, we are still very stereotyped in the workplace. Personally, I believe it is crucial to understand why women are losing ground after decades of successful advancement. If, what Ursula says is true then, it must mean that we must demolish the system or work outside of it, rather than infiltrate it and working around it. The responses of Erin, coupled with our knowledge of  “embedded feminism” really confirms the idea that women seem to be stuck in a vicious cycle where the forces of patriarchy always get the best of us.

Works Cited

Allan G. Johnson, “Patriarchy, the System:  An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us,” in Women’s Lives: Multicultural Perspectives.

Douglas, Susan. Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message that Feminism’s

Work is Done. New York: Times Books, 2010. Print.

Marilyn Frye, “Oppression,” from The Politics of Reality.

Short Response for Mar/29

Ahhh!! finally could log back in!! Here is my blog for today's class: In the “Mommy Tax” article, we see that Motherhood is now the single greatest obstacle left in the path to economic equality for women. This to me, seems pretty obvious because mothers are faced with dealing with issues that evolve around having children and these issues tend to interfere with work. Due to the fact that companies realize that these mothers cannot put all their energy into their paid work, mothers begin to suffer in their workplace. Today women equality is no longer about education or job opportunities; it is now more about family responsibilities. Women do not realize until having children, that leaving their current jobs to have children can cost more than half of their expected lifetime earnings. A very interesting fact that I never considered before and was astonished by in this article was if a husband and wife who earn a combined annual income of approximately $81, 500 if they decide to have a child they will lose $1.35 million. In my opinion, this blow my mind how much money this family is actually losing thanks to the mommy tax. It is also unfortunate that women who are well-educated and have higher incomes are the ones that get hurt the most when deciding to children. This is turning well educated women away from having children or waiting until their careers are fully established. I feel that more women are going to end up having either less children or none at all.

Patrick Campbell-Mar 29

Patrick Campbell

When Dalla Costa expresses her take on the “dishwasher,” on also has to take into account a family’s financial situation. Although the husband says a “dishwasher is unnecessary’” how are we the reader suppose to believe that some of his explanation for saying this has to do with a bad financial situation. This might seem easy to say, but, in regards to a husband saying it is “unnecessary” and suggesting that he is fully able to purchase a dishwasher, however he neglects his wife’s plea for one. Is it not fundamental to say that it is the wife’s fault for choosing a husband with bad character issues especially regarding her needs? All in all, the message I am trying to send here is that her statement is not universal, although she makes numerous points which could be applied to the majority of women.

A day does not go by, when I am living at home, that I do not hear my mother say, “I am NOT your maid, clean up after yourself!” Following that I always use-to say “ok settle down I do it.” However, now that I am the ‘Community Leader as appointed by Residential Life, of my household,” I am consistently being reminded as to how furious my mother could and should have been with me. Day in and day out I am cleaning dishes, floors, cabinets, and it goes on and on. I constantly hear people say, “it is not my stuff, I clean up after myself.” Like my mother I am constantly saying, “If you see it pick it up, it isn’t mine either but I am cleaning it, aren’t I?” In other words, what I am trying to expel here is that I agree with Shanshan that someone should not have to ask or plea for help, someone should see the situation and always lend a hand. Especially because through personal experience I see that another hand could cut the time in half or more. It is called common courtesy and common decency.

Wages for housework

¨if I have money of my own in my pocket I can even buy a dishwasher without feeling guilty and without having to beg my husband for it for months on end while he, who doesn't do the washing-up, considers a dishwasher unnecessary.¨

When I read that statement in Dalla Costa's essay ¨A General Strike¨, I would have sworn that she borrowed those words from my mother if it wasn't for the fact that this passage dates back to 1974. As I walk down memory lane, I only managed to catch the sight of my mother standing in the kitchen, washing dishes at night ...after cooking dinner. She always said that she would rather cook the dinner and wash the dishes herself because if father cooked, the kitchen would end up like a nuclear disaster site and the cleaning she would have to do later on would exponentially increase. As a kid, I never questioned her role in the kitchen, in fact seeing her do the cleaning had a calming effect on me, for some reason it made me feel like mom had the control and everything would be alright. Through the years, the drastic workload imbalance in the house became more and more obvious. Despite my efforts to help around the house, my mother would always reprimand me for doing so. Whenever I tried to help her wash the dishes, she would say something like ¨you'll do plenty of this later, go study.¨  Hence, I must admit that doing housework never became a routine for me, instead, it was like an occasional occurrence similar to an eclipse. Now, everything makes more sense ...her occasional frets and emotional outbursts.

This past summer, I stayed on campus and cooked for myself. I did the shopping, cleaning, and cooking.Because the kitchen was a community kitchen with opened access to other 20 something people, dishes in the sink would easily pile up, stains on the floor were ubiquitous, and microwave was 9/10 filthy with  cheddar cheese popcorn explosions. I remember cleaning up the kitchen every week, sometimes twice a week. I used to wash the dishes, clean the microwave and mop the floor. From that point on, I came to the conclusion that being a housewife was definitely one of the hardest jobs one could ever have. It is a job that  is not paid nor respected. Often, it is brushed aside as unimportant despite being indispensable in our daily lives. Like my mother, I felt like a maid. Yes, in a way, I could have chosen not to do any of it and could have walked through the puddles of ketchup every day and be oblivious of the hair balls rolling around the countertops, just the way my mother could have refused to cook dinner and swipe and dust away from the couch. I could have asked others to help and mother could have delegated the job. The problem is, clean-up help wouldn't be needed in the first place if people were responsible enough to clean after themselves and my mother would have no need to delegate work if my father would have offered a hand. I guess this is why I find Mariarosa Dlaa Costa's call to action- demand for wages for housework - conflicting because it is like saying that my mother should have dictated my father to clean the house and that I should ordered my peers to pay for my services, when in reality this shouldn't be a fight that rest on our shoulders. It was wrong even from the beginning and now it bothers me that it is one more burden that women must carry around. I'm not arguing that demanding for wages for housework is bad, in fact, I agree to all Mariarosa said. It just pains me to realize that these are the kinds of battles a woman must go through.

A Gulp of Enlightened Sexism: An Analysis of Smartwater's Sexual Objectification of Women

Sex sells. We have known that for decades. The advertisement above is the latest viral video for Smartwater, the top selling enhanced water brand in the United States. The face of Smartwater is the acclaimed Hollywood actress and old sex-symbol Jennifer Aniston, who claims this bottled water to be the most pure, refreshing and best tasting water on earth. Armed with a heavy dose of viral-film-making elements including cute puppies, the Double Rainbow guy and computer generated babies who can dirty dance, Aniston embodies the stereotype of the perfect American woman to sell water.  Like any other mass media, the marketing strategy of Smartwater does not consist of selling the actual product but the ideas and feelings that accompany it. The ad employs Aniston’s face, body, attire, and sexuality to pull every viral-trick in the book, painting a picture of seductiveness and beauty achieved by drinking Smartwater. Hence, the success of this video clip rest in its ability to sell the hope of satisfying a female’s desire of outer-beauty and, in the case of a man, the sexual fantasy of having a woman as beautiful as Aniston.

In the first 30 seconds of the video, the YouTube superstar Kennan Cahill is mouthing the words to a top hit when Aniston suddenly breaks into his room to ask him if he knew any song about water. Cahill is known for his eccentric lip-synchs performances that have garnered more than 18 million views on a single video and 200,000 subscribers. Moreover, Cahill is also known for his rare genetic condition (Maroteaux Lamy Syndrome) that makes him look like a dwarf even though he is 15 years old. Undoubtedly, his rise to stardom is as unique as Susan Boyle’s, whose dowdy appearance strays from the usual singers who sprung to fame. This, however, is the exception that proves the rule. Cahill may not have depended on his ¨good looks¨ to become an internet sensation, however, the person who embodies this smartwater ad is Aniston – an incredibly attractive blonde woman who can still bare a ripped stomach at the age of 41 – not an overweight black lesbian woman. As Susan Douglas would agree, the producers of this ad, like many others, gave preferential treatment to a particular type of women (mainly a skinny, light eyed, blonde model) over all the other non-white women, resulting in the delicate creation of ¨female fantasies.¨ Smartwater chose Jennifer Aniston because she symbolizes the highly-sought-after, perfect image of an ideal American woman that satisfies both female and male desires.  

Following the brief appearance of Kennan Cahill, three geeky ¨Internet boys¨ (who sound like a speaking Mac and who probably never had a girlfriend before) corrects Aniston after she said she wanted to turn the video into a ¨virus¨, as if completely oblivious of the concept of ¨viral¨. To the untutored eye, Aniston appears to be a complete tech illiterate, an image the appeals to the public because it makes Aniston seem friendly, funny and quirky – in other words, someone you can trust. However, if we un-wrap this marketing plot, the female ¨fantasies of power¨ shine through. Here’s the odd: even though Aniston is often seen as a representation of female achievement and control, the ad carries the seductive message to women that ¨being decorative is the highest form of power.¨ The ad promotes the message that females are completely inadequate in the realm of science, a field highly dominated by men, and should only remain as an accessory that requires a man’s input to function. As the clip progresses, Aniston exemplifies some of the stereotypical femininity, filling the advertisement with sexual innuendos.   

First, Aniston is surrounded by dozens of Labrador puppies with blue bows tied around their necks. Even though the background might not seem very sexy, the fact that Aniston is wearing a body hugging tank top and tight jeans is significantly sexy because the clothing wraps around her curves, shows off her flat abs and accentuates her butt.  In addition, although sitting crossed-legged is very common, one can also interpret Aniston’s sitting position differently. Her open legs, together with several puppies trying to carry out what looks like a vagina attack, draws attention to one of the female’s most sexual areas of the body. These symbols are connected to sex and feed the secret desire that women have to become a sex goddess, or every man’s fantasy. After the dogs, comes the talking parrot who instead of advertising for smartwater says, ¨Rachel, I love your hair.¨ This reference is associated to the bouncy, square-layered hairstyle  Aniston’s character of Rachel Green wore in Friends. A survey conducted last year indicates that this cut is still the most popular among British women. This is an example of how the media perpetuates the exaggeration of certain kinds of physical attributes in a person, deeming them desirable while rendering other characteristics undesirable.

Second on the list are dirty-dancing, computer generated babies. When Aniston first saw the babies’ entrance she exclaimed amusingly, ¨Well that’s adorable, look at you guys!¨ Once they started dancing, she looks at the camera in disbelief and says, ¨wait…what are you doing?¨She tries to stop them but fails miserably against the internet guys’ comment, ¨this will gets us more views.¨ In response, she asks ¨where’s the mommy?¨The first time you see this, it is usually funny mainly because babies who qualify for Dancing with the Stars are simply unconceivable in real life. A closer look, however, reveals that enlightened sexism is at play here. Aniston`s comment on where are their ¨mommy¨, rather than ¨parents¨, implies how the role of guidance and nurture is closely associated with females.  Aniston’s inability to stop the babies from acting inappropriately displays her lack of motherhood which closely resembles her real life. Despite being 41, she is still not married, has no children, and no plans of adopting either. Her incompetency at taking care of children and lack of intuitive motherhood may be seen as a tradeoff for her kick-ass shape, economic independence and professional achievement. However, we are talking about CG babies and the idea of babies selling sex is too immoral to even be considered a reality, therefore, one can laugh it off. It gives off the impression that we know what is right and what is better. We laugh at it because we know that babies cannot grind against each other in real life. Deep inside, we know that if they actually did it would be immoral and unacceptable.  However, the question is: when did it became acceptable to joke about sexualizing women, not to mention babies?  Although we might find it humorous at this moment, there will be a point in time that we might not realize it is a joke because the images have been so deeply engrained into our minds that our visions become blur.

The Double Rainbow guy lookalike also makes an appearance. As he bends down and opens his arms towards the sky emotionally exclaiming, ¨double rainbow across the sky¨, Aniston appears from the other side carrying a bottle of smartwater, totally emotionless. As the man is about to tear up, Aniston helps him stand straight and walks him out. After saving the guy who loves rainbows, Aniston kicks a fan in his privates and says, ¨sorry, that’s worth about 100 thousand hits.¨ The guy squeaks, ¨not for me.¨ This is a very interesting scene, because unlike seeing the dirty dancing babies, she feels no remorse or guilt about kicking a fan. Aniston is portrayed as a strong and bitchy (I am not at your reach) type of woman and the guy as a ¨helpless, ogling, crotch-driven slave.¨   This makes humor out of violence directed towards men. Aniston doesn’t feel guilty here because she is playing naïve, whereas the man appears as a weak soul at the mercy of a woman. This portrayal of a strong and accomplished woman overpowering a man feeds into the concept of embedded feminism because it depicts women as being fully empowered and confident while focusing on the use of their body as a tool for power and control.

Finally, Aniston tries to appeal to the male audience by drinking suggestively from the water bottle. At one point, she chokes, spills some water, giggles and says, ¨I’m fired.¨ Her comment suggests that she was aware that by objectifying herself as a ¨decorative¨ sexual object, she could sell the product. Rather than feeling shame about it, Aniston enthusiastically agrees with the ¨internet boys¨ suggestion of naming the video, ¨ Jennifer Aniston’s Sex Tape.¨ This makes the search word for the video extremely deceiving, turning it into an actual hit with over 1 million views in just a day. Needless to say, the producers of this ad are exploiting Aniston’s body and sexuality, rather than her brains to sell water. The fact that Aniston approves of it, confirms the illusion that one can use sex to get what one desires.

In the larger scheme of things, the ad is marketing bottled water but it never explains why it’s good. Truth is, bottled water is unethical and environmentally unfriendly.  First of all, tap water has much more strict regulations than bottled water. Secondly, bottled water is marked up in price 2,000 times. Paying for a bottle of water is like paying $10,000 for a sandwich. Likewise, selling bottled water is like selling rain to the Amazonians and ice to the Eskimos.  Not once does Aniston explain why smartwater is so good for you. The only thing she says is, ¨smartwater is the purest tasting water there is¨ (is the water made from tears of virgins or what?) Similar to the emergence of bras, bottled water is marketed as an essential commodity of life when in reality push-up bras are totally unnecessary and water should never have a price tag. With the emergence of standardized bras, women felt compelled to fit into a category, and became extremely conscientious of their bodies. The Smartwater ad has a similar effect not only because it portrays how an ideal woman should look like, causing women to envy Aniston’s body and see themselves as deviant only because they do not have a turkey neck, but also because the ad pushes towards consumerism, turning bottled water into a status symbol and marketing it as being indispensable if you wish to become someone nearly as sexy as Aniston.  Given all of the above, the entire ad is “enlightened sexism¨ in action because it ¨claims you can have independence, power, and respect and male love and approval and girly, consumerist indulgences all at once, all without costs.” 

This is not all.  In 2007, Coca-cola Co. (the world’s largest beverage maker) purchased the privately held Glaceau’s lines of water (Vitaminwater, Fruitwater, Smartwater and Vitaminenergy)   for $4.1 billion in cash with the hopes of expanding its beverage offers and acquiring long-term profits. With such a powerful company marketing liquid cancer around the world, it is safe to assume that ads similar to this one will also be screened worldwide. Can you imagine to what degree these images will seep through people’s mind and change their behaviors?  My only assumption is that 10 years from now British women will continue to request ¨The Rachel¨ haircut while sipping from a Smartwater bottle.

Works Cited

Douglas, Susan. Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message that Feminism’s

Work is Done. New York: Times Books, 2010. Print.

Patrick Campbell- March 22nd

Patrick Campbell

Anuradha Shyam’s piece “Safe Keepers and Wage Earners,” discusses the understanding of women who are forced to balance many aspects of their lives and their struggle or triumphs throughout their experience. Furthermore, she discusses how certain occurrences in the working world, like advancement and promotion, and how it affects the other aspects of that individual’s life outside of the workforce. This piece seemed to be a very fundamental chapter regarding a person in the work force and how their change in stature in their respected business transitions to the rest of their life. Personally, I seemed to learn a lot more from Enloe’s chapter.

Cynthia Enloe’s piece, “The Globetrotting Sneaker,” sheds light on the difference of treatment towards women in America and foreign countries regarding top sneaker companies like Nike. Through research it is obvious that there are many differences concerning foreign employees of American companies. American companies operating most of their business overseas is very cost effective because the labor laws that are established in America are set to guarantee wages to their employees and in foreign nations there are no standards for payment, therefore these companies thrive on cheap labor. That being said, although Enloe illustrates these differences for female employees, there is a universal treatment of both genders regarding cheap labor in foreign countries. As Amanda has stated in her main post, I also agree that I was taken back when I learned about the government’s involvement as “a control mechanism for suppressing women’s engagement in the labor movement.” The reason this is so astonishing is because it makes these women basically handcuffed on the subject of their self advancement because there is always going to be an outside agent that maintains or worsens their current condition.

Nike's mistreatment of foreign employees:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVuScVCF1Ws&feature=related

Main Post: Mar/22nd

When I first started reading Cyntha Enloe’s chapter “The Globetrotting Sneaker” in The Curious Feminist, I became very uncomfortable knowing how women were treated that worked for U.S companies such as Nike or Reebok in foreign countries. At first I thought, why is the United States getting people from foreign countries to make their products when they would easily be able to find people here to fulfill these jobs. It then hit me and I laughed to how obvious the answer is. One motive that all companies thrive for.. Profit! These companies must be geniuses. Why give these jobs of manufacturing the products to employees in the U.S when you can pay cheap labour to women in foreign countries where minimum wage ranges from 10 cents an hour to 2 dollars per hour.

In this chapter Enloe shows a statistic that in 1991 a survey done by the International Labor Organization found that 88 percent of women working in Jakarta on minimum wage (which is slightly less than a dollar a day) were malnourished. This of course makes perfect sense because living on a salary where you get paid a dollar per day, and let’s say you work 5 or 6 days a week that comes to a total of 6 dollars per week. These women are struggling to survive because they cannot afford basic necessities. What if they are single parents who have children to feed? The children`s needs come first and that jeopardizes ones own health. After looking at the chart on page 54, it again becomes obvious why companies use women in foreign countries to make their products. Look how much money these companies are saving when they pay workers in china 10-14 cents or the highest South Koreans $2.02-2.27 compared to American workers $7.38-7.94. I was very disgusted when I read that government riot police came into the factories and as a control mechanism for suppressing women`s engagement in the labour movement, they began to strip, fondle, and rape these workers. Not only are these women placed in unbearable working conditions, their own autonomy and rights are being taken away.

In the chapter called “Safe Keepers and Wage Earners” by Anuradha Shyam, I found it interesting how she complained about her work load and how she was amazed women who are able to balance their corporate and personal lives and still manage to find the time for their children. What was interesting was that she recently got promoted to senior associate. When you get promoted to a higher position of course your work load is going to be increased and your time spent working may also be increased. Thus, it is only natural that time spent doing other things is reduced. I feel that the women that are able to balance their corporate and personal lives are those women who have been in the same position for years and have been able to create a routine. This woman may be struggling to find that balance because she is unfamiliar with the demands that her new position requires and once she becomes comfortable with her new job she will be able to also find that balance.

Short Response for Mar/ 8th

After reading the document on “Same Sex Marriage FAQ” I have learned a lot that about how much gays and lesbians have lost their human rights when being in a relationship with a person of the same sex. I find it quite disgusting that individuals in the United States could be refused at a hospital visitation to while attempting to visit their significant other. To me this doesn’t make any sense. The person who is being hospitalized would obviously want their significant other to be there and support them, why do these institutions have the right or power to reject another person from seeing someone, especially in a time of need? I find all the lack of benefits also pretty outrageous. I would agree with both Ettelbrick and Shanshan’s post that allowing same sex marriages would not solve many of the issues that have evolved today. I also agree that accepting gay and lesbian marriages will not free these people because the stigmas against them in society will always be present because these relationships are deviant to the so called norm.

Patrick Campbell- Feb 8th- Make-Up

Patrick Campbell (I did the blog for today on February 8th)

Many feminist scholars thus far have discussed the term oppression in many ways. Marilyn Frye analyses this term in a truly intricate fashion. This term, as Frye describes is a universal experience amongst all races, shapes, sizes etc. Explaining how men naturally want to impose their supremacy on women and control them in a way. This universal oppression towards women, occur in numerous fashions, including sexual references, social encounters, etc. She explains how most of this abuse is morally transported through nasty comments towards women. After reading her piece I agree that in some cases “oppression can be hard to see and recognize.”

I was able to relate strongly to Allan G. Johnson’s piece “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us.” Mainly because my life structure thus far has been completely patriarchy. Although some cases involving serious injury to a women and basing the cause of that occurrence to a patriarchal system is a bit far-fetched. Furthermore, I say this because there are many reasons that play a part in a human being committing murder, rape, assault, etc He passes a more clearer explanation of Patriarchy when he explains how it occurs “in people’s lives” and more like a social setting episode.

March-8th Patrick Campbell

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 heir patriarchal social structures one or few-at-a-time. The assigned reading 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.modern patriarchal social structure.

Main Post Mar/8

Once again, today’s reading were eye opening. The reading which provided information  from the Human Rights Campaign about same-sex marriage and why people in same-sex relationships would want to marry set the tone for issues regarding on marriage. Why would a couple decide to marry? The author’s response was clearly, ¨“because they are in love, just met the love of their lives, or more likely, have spent the last 10, 20 or 50 years with that person and want to honor their relationship in the greatest way our society has to offer….¨ The text then moves on to present a laundry list of the rights and protections that are denied by the United States government to same sex married couples, including hospital visitations, health insurance, family leave, retirement savings, estate taxes, social security benefits, and immigration rights. Towards the end, it also address the problem of civil unions and why they are ¨fake¨or ¨not the real deal¨ because they are not protected by every state in the country or by the same rights as straight couples have.

Paula Ettelbrick’s essay entitled, “Since when is marriage a path to liberation?” discuesses how marriage is one of the mos “venerable and impenetrable” institutions in our society the folds you into society. For a long time, women have been repulsed by the notion of marriage as  being the provider of “the ultimate acceptance in relationships in our society”. Yet, it is this “ultimate acceptance” (that only marriage is said to be able to provide) that has made it the main priority in many gay and lesbian couples agenda. This is hardly something anyone can be blamed for. After all, it`s Aceptance… who wouldn’t want it?? Nonetheless, Ettelbrick writes that allowing same sex marriage will not put the nail in the coffin, meaning it not ease our problems or make everything easy and smooth. In fact, she argues that marriage will not liberate gay couples, or be able to change the foundations in which society is based upon. She explains that even if gay couples are able to gain those rights, it is not synonymous or equal justice. Her reasoning lies behind the fact the no one should have control over another person, yet the legal system that has penetrated our society has reached so deeply into our lives encourages such kind of behavior. Ettelbrick compares gay justice with female justice. She feels that the real problem is that gay and straight marriage would be equated and this logic of ¨de-emphasizing differences¨ is simply wrong because they are inherently not equal. One consequence, se says, is that gay marriage would discriminate gay sex or those that are not married, causing further ¨sexual oppression¨ than what they face in their present status.

Finally, she points that that even though gay marriage can be seen as a breakthrough that is driven for the hope for acceptance and assimilation, it will not be enough to destroy the system; rather it will only deepen it. For instance, she says that it will not address the unfairness in health insurance, and other benefit and rights that straight married couples enjoy in this country. As a result, she concludes that since the groundwork has been laid, gays and lesbians should pursue “broader goals than the right to marry”. Only after they have realized their diversity can progress be made. 

Patrick Campbell-News Flash-Razor's Edge

Patrick Campbell

http://www.irinnews.org/IndepthMain.aspx?reportid=62462&indepthid=15

Introduction to women’s studies thus far has been a completely new experience for me academically and socially. Throughout my life I have been surrounded by males and a patriarchal type lifestyle; considering I have four brothers and two male dogs. Now I am one of three men in a class room composed of many women and a female teacher. We have read many articles and books that point out female activists and scholars that exude their point of view and feelings towards the topics in focus. From this fact regarding our coarse structure, it is evident that most of the women we have studied contained the capability to somehow scribe, correlate, and record all their feelings and ideas about feminism including their own personal experiences for the rest of the world to read and reflect upon. That being said, I believe that this news flash assignment gave me the opportunity to introduce a large community of women who do not have this voice, the ability to speak out for their beliefs, and also stand up for their natural rights. The groups of women in focus are the women in Africa who are daily, minutely, and even secondly silenced and forcibly circumcised to ultimately fit in their particular societies and appeal to bachelors and potential husbands.

FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) is a traditional and religious practice that is done mainly in Africa. However, it is also indigenous to other parts of the world.” The way this procedure is carried out varies between villages but all share the same characteristic which is that, “FGM represents part of the rites of passage or initiation ceremonies intended to impart the skills and information of a woman will need to fulfill her duties as a wife and mother.” Many people perceive the female genitalia to be unattractive or ugly and this procedure is carried out presumably to transform the genitalia into a more desirable feature.

This practice of FGM stretches much farther beyond the cutting of women’s clitoris or in some other cases of more extreme FGM practices which involve complete transformation of the female genitalia. Some women in these societies strictly rely on this practice for income to provide their lifestyles. Unless the government is able to provide for these individuals and educate them on the severe risks that go along with this practice it will consequently continue throughout life as we know it.

As I have noted earlier in this piece, the women we have studied have been able to voice their opinions somewhat openly and freely. Women in these societies who voice their disagreement with this practice are “discriminated against or ostracized from their communities.” This article introduces a case involving an educated Kenyan woman who is running for office in Parliament and refused to be circumcised. Following this decision, “her opponents used the fact that she was not circumcised to challenge her eligibility to hold a position that “only adults” could occupy.” This situation I feel to be completely immoral and unethical in every way, shape, and form.

We have witnessed throughout history that westernizing African nations has proven to be a complete failure. That being said, I was forced to pose a question, should FGM be considered a culturally accepted practice? I would have to decline. This practice of “cutting” young women from my perspective is gruesome and horrible. My opinion on the matter might seem predictable because of the society and environment that I have been raised in, fundamentally deters me from endorsing this practice. However, there exist many examples of why this practice of vagina mutilation should be stopped and removed from all cultures and societies due to severe health risks, destruction of females’ sexual experiences, and many more.

Although societies where this practice is exercised regularly, this procedure is not frowned upon because in some instances a girl would have to undergo this procedure to be accepted by a male counterpoint. In some cases women do not feel sufficient in society and do not feel as attractive as they would have if they had this procedure done to them, which has been previously noted. Cultural relativism is an ideal which, in some way entities a community to practice procedures like the one in focus. Furthermore, since this is a universal practice of their society FGM is considered to be a moral and ethical practice which enables even the most universally recognized unethical practices seem as a cultural norm, enter FGM. Even though this mind state is held true of the women in these societies, once FGM is completely not accepted these kinds of experiences that women are forced to conform to, will eventually diminish and open up a new door for women’s universal rights in Africa.

All of these procedures are done outside of the hospital and carried out with household objects such as kitchen knives or razors. Most, if not all procedures are done in a complete unsterile manner which leads to multiple complications for the victims of this gruesome practice. Fatal occurrences to these sufferers are viewed as a weak woman who was not fit to live in the society or be a suitable wife. Everything which I have previously noted makes me want to vomit. The way I perceive mothers in today’s world are caring figures who will do whatever it takes to preserve the health and safety of her children. Therefore, I see these mothers and grandmothers as cruel and twisted individuals because they are able to impose this pain and traumatizing practice on their children who they should be protecting not injuring. In many cases these girls are cut by the dozens by the same blade which ultimately spreads diseases and infects everyone who is a victim. Many of these professional “cutters” (if you will) posses no medical background just the skill to cut and leave. Therefore, there is no help provided for these girls if the procedure is carried out and things take a turn for the worst, even death in some cases. This issue is a problem on a day to day basis considering the “secret nature of FGM.” This practice is “highly confidential, and outsiders are strictly prohibited from having any contact with the girls and women during and after the ceremony.” Therefore, these girls are completely dependent on their own will and strength to heal themselves, which many girls, especially those who are “prone to infection” do not possess. Although the experience is dreadful and filled with pain, one of the largest underlying effects are the long term ones that go in accordance with this practice such as “post-operative shock, infections, urine retention caused by swelling and inflammation, excessive scar tissue, formation of cysts” and many more.

All in all, FGM should be stopped completely and should have been stopped before it ever started. Health risks and social dissonance are not factors that women should have to experience because she does not want to have her vagina mutilated. The evidence of the problems and risks involved with this practice are right in front of these peoples’ eyes. We must work to educate and rid the world of this inhumane practice before more girls are forcibly cut. To put things into perspective for us westerners, “a girl is circumcised every 15 seconds.” If that statistic does not light a spark the minds of the world to work and aid in the diminishment of this practice, then we are all condoning it and providing these victims with no way out! Therefore, NO FGM!

Main Post- March 3rd

Patrick Campbell

Gloria Steinem’s piece “Sex, Lies and Advertising” really opened my eyes to the world of advertising regarding feminism. I completely agree with Steinem when she states that, “advertisers-not readers-have always been the problem.” Furthermore, that statement has been proven true in many of our readings in this course, whether it be Barbie Dolls, cosmetics, Playboy, etc. These types of advertising ultimately contribute to the constant fuel and anger of feminists worldwide. That is said because these type of situations involving the way advertisers or big business tend to appeal to women consequently distorts the worlds view of women in society. Issues like these are the sole reason why Steinem portrays that women in these types of situations are not seen or taken as serious. Steinem’s case involving the comparison of GM ads to women’s magazines really threw me for a loop and made me realize that the issues that feminists discuss reach much deeper than some of the fundamental ideals we have seen thus far in this course.

The onset of Joan Brumberg’s piece “Body Projects” portrays the most articulated depiction of what women worry about regarding their physical make-up and how they perceive themselves to date. What I have seen to be truly interesting is that although many adolescent women have been taking it upon themselves to raise their self esteem by working on their physical features, this was mostly done to appear more mature. Adolescent men on the other hand wait to attain facial hair and beards that make them appear more mature. Through personal experience I see this type of action to depict maturity in high school and college kids as well, whether it be to appear old enough to get into bars or clubs. In other words, men and women in today’s world attempt to groom their facial features or body to appear like the face in their fake ID’s. Brumberg introduces the reader to a case involving a young girl and her attempt at proper dieting. This issue was very interesting to me that her parents believed it was a serious problem that she cared for her physical well-being and appearance. This type of care towards your health and body is nothing like the way women worry about their bra size or butt shape, therefore, it is completely irrational for her parents to carry out the way they did.

Brumberg and Steinem’s articles both shed light on women and how they are perceived. For women to have to identify themselves through their image and not their features that legitimately have an impact on the world around them is one I see as truly disheartening. Modern day feminists believe that women should identify themselves through their strengths and the characteristics that will further their life going forward. It is obvious that the world of advertisement hinders women’s ability to believe that their characteristics like intelligence, strength, and perseverance are highly weighed and respected in the world around them. Modern day society has made women feel that their appearance and overall image is what society needs for them to be noticed or taken as seriously, this is why women’s self esteem are rendered minimal if they are not blessed with very attractive characteristics. All in all, I personally believe that if more women acted the way Patricia Carbine did regarding her passion for educating young women and painting a highly respectable image of women in today’s society.

This Link is an Interesting Article Regarding Adolescent Girls Dressing Mature Beyond Their Years

http://www.kon.org/urc/v8/danielsson.html

Steinem, bras, what more could you ask for?

Today’s articles were focused on the perception of women in society. Gloria Steinem’s article, ¨Sex, Lies and Advertising¨, addresses the difficulties of placing ads in feminist magazines.  It never occur to me how hesitant advertisement companies are to buy spaces in these magazines because of their preconceived notion that women are not a potential market for those products. For instance, Este Lauder refused to advertise in these magazines because according to them, the audience was not feminine enough. The irony here is that Este Lauder was initially started by a woman. Sadly, feminist since the 1990s has been associated with many negative things.It is unfortunate that magazines made for women, with the hope of empowering them, are actually more harmful and full of distorted self distorted images. When Ms. magazine was sold to a man, topics were limited to teaching women how to please men and preaching them on subjects about who is a lady and what ladies do. In a way, Cosmo and Seventeen magazines are merely daughter projects of this phenomenon. 

On another note, I found the evolution of how today's bras came to be like they are in the present extremely enlightening. The fact that women no longer had the need to sew their own clothes and undergarments, pave the path for standardized clothing items. Women eventually lost the privilege of fitting into something solely made by their measurements. Instead, they faced an increasing frustration of trying to fit their body parts into letters defined categories...this blows my mind.

Short Response for Mar/3rd

Gloria Steinem’s article on “Sex, Lies & Advertising” that was published in MS Magazine in July/August issue of 1990 makes several points about advertising in women magazines, a lot of them that still exist today. When opening a women’s magazine today, the likelihood of skipping through 5 pages without coming across one advertisement is almost if not impossible. Steinem argues that it is not just a little of the content found in these magazines devoted to ads, but it is almost all of it. Since these magazines are filled with all the garbage advertising for easy moneymaking reasons, the credibility of the magazine decreases and ultimately women magazines are not taken seriously. Despite the fact that changes have tried to be made, magazines still fall way below the journalistic and ethical standards of news and general interest publications. There are a lot of stereotypes that women are not very familiar with technology. Critics have said that if women do end up buying technology they first ask their husbands or boyfriends what to buy first. Women are very upset with this stereotype and are often offended when salesmen respond “Let me know when your husband can come in.” There are many single women in today’s society that are capable of making decisions on their own and do not need a male figure to help make decisions for them when it comes to technology or mechanics etc.