I Wish Santa was a Woman...

Ok so I know that Santa is a guy because Saint Nicholas was a guy, but wouldn't it be nice if he were a woman? Then we wouldn't have another oppressed woman figure who is happy to spend all of her life at home taking care of her husband (Mrs Claus). I feel like this is a great example of how tradition dictates gender roles and it's so hard to break with tradition. Another Christmas-y example: in many families, the dad is the one who gets to carve the turkey at dinner and basically lead all of the celebrations. To be honest, I love traditions and I would hate to get rid of many of them. Maybe its ok to keep traditions as long as we recognize that they really show us the patriarchal history of our society and as long as we start to make new, less sexist ones.

Another reason why Santa should be a woman: The idea of a man coming into my house in the middle of the night freaks me out (Along with the watching me while I'm sleeping and knowing when I'm awake). Unfortunately, a large percentage of women have suffered or will suffer from sexual assault or rape in their lifetime. A surprising number of men have suffered or will suffer from this as well. The majority of perpetrators in these crimes are men. Yes, this seems like a ridiculous and sad point, but I feel like everyone would be more comfortable if it was a woman breaking in to the house at night.

The truth is, I love Christmas and I love Santa; but part of me really wishes he was a woman.

Oppression

Recently, our readings for class have touched on themes of oppression. Oppression is a word that is often used without true understanding of what it actually means. One thing that this class, and really all of the pacs classes I've taken have taught me is that it is important to really analyze and understand the terms that we use before trying to understand their implications. Oppression is one of those terms. I had never really thought about what oppression meant before. I had often used it as a term to mean "held back" or "held down," but that's such a broad definition that it lessens the importance and impact of the word. Oppression must be defined by who it affects. Group membership and some kind of identifiable group dynamics must exist in order for oppression to exist. Oppression, just like many other ideas related to conflict, is closely associated with power. The oppressors must have the power to oppress and I would argue that the oppressed must have a lack of power to defend themselves.

From Fathers to Husbands to Sons...

Why are women always dependent on men? Or the better question is: Why does everyone think that we are? I'm sick of seeing the theme of ownership of a woman in so many different contexts. It's like a woman is a dog who is owned by her father, then passed on to a husband, and then when she has a son, owned by him. The discourse is not often this direct, but the idea of a woman needing a man is seen very frequently. For example, I was reading an article about Aubrey Graham, a rich Jewish Canadian turned American rap star (that's another story altogether), said, regarding his parents' divorce, “I had to become a man very quickly and be the backbone for a woman who I love with all my heart, my mother." While I am sure his role changed in his family when his parents divorced, I find his comment to be based on a sexist ideology that says that a woman cannot survive independently. We often fail to question the myth that tells us that every home needs a "man of the house". What does that even mean?

Gender and Security

A few weeks ago we explored the theme of security. As I talked about in my last blog, definitions are always a central part of analysis, so we started by talking about possible definitions of security. While the articles focused more on the military, in class we talked about security in the domestic sphere. For me, it is much easier to comprehend examples in the domestic sphere because I can relate to them. I've never been a witness to war. We talked about security as a perception rather than a measurable fact. This applies well to the idea of domestic violence and relationship dynamics. Women often stay with abusive husbands or boyfriends because they feel greater security if they stay in the relationship; even though statistics say that they are not really safer. What really is at the basis of determining security? Do different things make each person feel secure? Or is there some basic need that drives the perception of security that is common throughout all humans?

Ugly Betty

One of the articles that my group picked for our presentation about the portrayal of gender in different cultures by the media was "Ugly Betty is Gone. Now Where's the Latina TV?" This article brought up important points about both cultural and gender representation in the media. Oftentimes in the media, "culture" is based on appearances rather than actual cultural groups. As shown in this article, Latinas are a perfect example of how this can play out. Latinas can look like they are of African or European descent and can often play roles as representatives of these cultures rather than their own. This makes media stereotyping an even more complex phenomenon because it gives skewed perceptions of gender in different cultures while not even correctly portraying each culture.

This article is also very interesting because it discusses nonwhite couples in the media. The author states that men that are not white can be in a tv show by themselves or can have a partner of a different race or culture. On the other hand, nonwhite women are almost always portrayed alongside a man of their culture or race. While this is a valid point in many aspects, I don't think it always applies. I think this would be a more powerful and convincing statement if it was about the ROLE the actress played rather than the actress herself. If Jennifer Lopez plays a "white" role than she can have a white boyfriend or husband. However, if she plays a Latina role, than she will almost always have a Latino boyfriend or husband.

Poems

In class we went over poems about gender and ethnicity. My specific group discussed a poem about an Asian-American woman who had trouble finding beauty in herself because she wanted to be white. The poem was powerful for many different reasons. As much as we stereotype Asian-Americans in the media and in our own lives, I feel like they are often looked over when we talk about race and diversity in the United States. So much of our discourse centers on black and white. When I read this poem, I assumed that the author was a black woman, just because she said that she was not white. I feel bad when I catch myself doing things like that, but I also find it very interesting because it shows that despite my efforts to analyze how my perceptions are affected by society, I am easily shaped by what I am told and by my experiences. Why are Asian-Americans not a part of the discourses that I have been taught? It could be because of where I live in the United States, but it could also be many other factors. Are Asian-Americans generally not included in traditional "white" or "non-white" contexts? What could be the consequences of this?

Commercialized Gender Messages

Today my mom and I went shopping for my cousins in the toy department at a store in our local mall. We were both shocked by how separated toys are for girls and boys. It was frustrating because as much as I don't want to solidify the gender messages that society sends to kids, I don't want to be reactionary and I don't want to offend the kids' mom. I just want to get the kids a present that they'll enjoy. I talked to my mom about it and she said that when my brother was little, there was a big push to make more toys for all sexes and genders. There were dolls that could be for a boy or a girl and there was a greater emphasis on selling toys for kids rather than for boys or for girls. She was disgusted that society has moved away from this and gone completely in the opposite direction. This doesn't mean that toys need to change drastically, it just means that marketing needs to change. Having a girl aisle and a boy aisle is sad, especially when it's for little kids who just want to play with the shiniest thing they find. One of the things that bothers me the most with gendered toy aisles is the easy bake oven. No one can say that boys don't like easy bake ovens. At the same time, any boy that asks for one for Christmas either A) has to become a chef when he's older or B) is gay. When it comes to toys, I think guys have more rigid restrictions on what they're allowed to want. It makes me so sad and so frustrated thinking that we do this to young kids. Even if parents assure their kids that they can want whatever they want, society will continue to pressure kids to conform to the existing gender standards.

Thanksgiving

Holidays provide great opportunities to see how gender relations play out in family life. This Thanksgiving was my first time at home this semester. It was interesting to be able to apply what I have read about and learned in class to what happens in my family. My mom has always been the person who cooks in my house. During Thanksgiving, though, there is much more food and she can't make everything by herself. So who helps? The women. It's a classic scenario. The women are in the kitchen making food while the men are in the living room watching tv, relaxing, and waiting for the food to be ready.

Why is it like this? That's something that I always ask myself. It really is quite complicated. Societal expectations definitely play a huge role here. My mom told me that she taught all of the kids in my family to cook, but that my brother just wasn't interested. Maybe it's true that he just doesn't like cooking as much as my sister and I do. But I imagine that's based a lot on what he's been told he should be interested in since he was born. I don't think the central idea here is cooking, I think it's more about how we are taught to spend our time. I have always been taught to help my mom and to do what I can to make my family happy (not just by my family but by society in general). I don't think my brother was taught the same thing. My brother loves my family just as much as I do, but he hasn't been socialized to contribute to it in the same way that I have. It's interesting now to realize that things that I have always assumed to be personal differences may actually be much more gendered in their nature.

Gender Roles in Relationships

Relationships provide a great arena to examine gender roles and gender dynamics. Given the importance of individuality and the growing emphasis on feminist thought in our society, it is amazing to see the "old-fashioned" attitudes of US citizens toward relationships and the homogeneity of relationship dynamics.

At the end of class today, we started talking about the idea of "chivalry" and its role in egalitarian heterosexual relationships. This is something that has bothered me for a while, but I found a lot of clarity in our discussion. The basic idea of equality in a relationship does not have to center around specific roles or actions that each person does; rather, it is about reciprocity and mutual respect. A woman can clean and a man can chop firewood if that is what the woman and man desire and those are the roles that each one decides to fulfill. In my family, my mom brings in a larger paycheck, but my dad has greater job security and they have found a balance that appeals to them. In terms of housework, my mom does do more than my dad, but my dad has always been in charge of driving the kids around. A balance in contribution to the relationship and the family (if there is a family) is an important part of an egalitarian relationship. The other key part is the respect shared by the couple. A man can be chivalrous and open the door for a woman without demeaning her. A woman can iron a man's shirt without being oppressed. It is not the action itself, but the motivation that causes problems. A man should not open the door for a woman because women aren't strong enough or because "that's what men do". He should do it because he cares for her and because it makes her happy. A woman should not iron a man's shirt because as a man he is incapable or because it is her job as a woman. She should do it because she wants to do something nice for the person she loves and she knows it will be appreciated. The lines are blurry, but I think this is a vital point in studying gender roles and, more personally, for having a strong and egalitarian relationship.

Sex Ed

I was excited to see the presentation on sex ed this week because it's a topic that I am very interested in and have done research on. I went to Catholic school from kindergarten through high school and had a very incomplete sexual education. As a young girl, I remember being jealous of my friends who had more extensive sex ed classes, including division of their class into boys and girls to go over specific topics. All of my friends thought it was embarrassing and uncomfortable, but I was curious. I don't think my sexual education was awful, but I don't think it did nearly enough to prepare me and my classmates to make smart decisions regarding sex.

I think one problem with sex ed is that parents want to protect their children and don't want to expose them to sex when they are young. This is a reasonable worry because the job of a parent is to protect his or her child. At the same time, the job of a parent is also to prepare the child for his or her future and sex ed is an important aspect of this preparation. Teaching kids about sex will not make kids have sex. The truth is, kids are going to learn about sex, whether it's from their parents, their school, their church, the media, their friends, or some other source. From my experience, kids will have sex when they want to or when they think they are supposed to. A comprehensive sex ed program should prepare these kids to make good decisions. Going back to the discussion that we had during the presentation on gender and war, it's also important that sex ed includes the themes of sexual assault and rape. Boys and girls need to know what sexual assault and rape are. They also need to know that sex is a choice and should never be an obligation. Boys and girls need to know that there is no specific age when a person is ready to have sex. One of the biggest problems that I see with abstinence-only education is that it makes sex more important than it should be and it becomes a huge and exciting mystery that kids want to know more about, while at the same time it becomes a taboo subject.

It's impossible to completely shelter kids from sex without sheltering them from the world completely. I think the best way to prepare them for their sexual life is to be open and honest. Not all people make the right decisions and there will almost definitely always be kids that have sex before they're "ready". While having sex too early can cause harm, having sex without taking precautions (such as using a condom) can have even more harmful, permanent and life-altering consequences.

Presentations - Female suicide bombers

The presentations on human trafficking and gender and the military fit together really well. Even though human trafficking is not intrinsically tied to military activity, the themes of abuse, sexuality, and rape are central to both. The human trafficking presentation was eye-opening because it's something that I know about, but not something that I think, see or hear about often. I think it's something that's often ignored. Like many other gender issues, people don't want to think about it and by denouncing it, think that enough is being done.

Female Suicide Bombers

The reading on female suicide bombers was frustrating because it made arguments about social constructs, biological facts and cultural norms all at the same time. The idea of female suicide bombers in itself is driven by so many different factors that it's difficult to analyze it in a particular frame and negate that certain factors are important. I don't think it is valid to argue that the idea of femininity and the role of a woman is completely socially constructed and at the same time argue that suicide bombers are acting out of free will. I also thought it was interesting that the author criticized viewing female suicide bombers as victims because they are the ones carrying out the attacks, regardless of sex or gender. I think that both men and women suicide bombers are victims and should be seen as such. They are victims of war and of the society in which they live. Analyzing who is a victim and who isn't is another argument, though, and one that is also very complicated. The article does talk about victimization in terms of perception and that is definitely valid because the actions of people are perceived differently based on sex. However, if one believes that actions and the logic behind actions are driven by (at least in part) the perceptions of their actions by others, then it follows that it's reasonable to judge the actions of men and women differently.

Gender Perceptions of Conflict

I've recently been having some frustrating problems with my roommates and came to wonder why some of my roommates act the way they do and say the things they do. One thing that I often hear is: I hate conflict. I just don't understand why. To me, hating conflict is like hating change, hating developed relationships, and hating opportunity. It also seems completely useless to waste energy hating conflict when it's inevitable. Talking about this problem to different people, I often got the same response, that girl's are like that and that it's so much easier among guys. Why is that? Maybe women are in general socialized to try to prevent conflict since conflict is often seen as a masculine idea or quality. The problem is that really the only way to avoid conflict altogether is to never have any personal values or beliefs. Also, conflict is a very important mechanism for change and empowerment. Is the socialization of women to be nonconflictual also a way of maintaining a patriarchal power system? I don't think that men are necessarily taught or socialized to deal with conflict well but women are often not taught to deal with it at all.

Chris Ivey

This past week Chris Ivey came to Juniata and showed part of his documentary on East Liberty, a neighborhood in Pittsburgh. Both the documentary and the talk that he gave were very eye-opening and inspiring. I actually went to the talk for a class I'm taking on social deviance and criminology, but there were many things that he presented that apply to our discussion on gender. One facet of gender and conflict that he talked about was the idea of security. This was especially interesting because we had just been discussing it in class that day. In the documentary, one of the men interviewed talked about girls that dated "bad" guys when they really would have preferred dating other guys. Why did they do this? Because they said they felt safer with those guys and they felt like they would be better protected by them. The man who was talking about it went on to say that he didn't think they were actually safer. In this case, it was the perception of security that was most important. In class we touched on the idea that women sometimes sacrifice a lot for the idea of security and I think this is another case in which that happens.
Another thing that Chris Ivey talked about was the idea of male gender identity in the black community but more specifically in East Liberty. Violence and agression are promoted in many ways as important values and aspects of masculinity. This is one way in which men are both harming and limiting themselves and other men. In this case, not following these norms brings about a threat regarding a loss of both masculinity and race. Gender identity becomes more complex than simply a question of male or female. Music was shown as one way that this particular concept of masculinity is perpetuated which made me wonder if music could also be a powerful force for changing these gender perceptions.

"Mom Caves"?

http://www.shine.yahoo.com/event/lifeslittlepleasures/5-steps-to-make-your-own-mom-cave-2406034/

Man caves have become popular recently and are seen as a sign of true masculinity, freedom, and escape from life's troubles (especially a nagging wife). Now someone has finally come up with an idea for women - "Mom caves". I'm not sure if this title is simply meant to play off of the word "Man", but this article blatantly ignores all women that are married or have a partner but are not moms. Whereas a man needs to escape his wife or girlfriend, a woman apparently only needs an escape when she has kids. This isn't the only issue I have with this article (actually, I think it might be easiest to just say what I don't have an issue with). The article states that man caves are usually transformed "basement alcoves" complete with "A mini-fridge, a La-Z-boy and a universal remote control". When it comes to mom caves, "anywhere from an unused closet to a guest room" will do. Why does this article assume that a woman must fit her space into a small corner of the house while a man is granted a bigger and more comfortable space? Following this article's definition of a mom as the main caretaker of the household and a matriarch, I would think that a woman would have more need for personal space than a man would.

This article was more upsetting to me because of its overall comment on society than on gender roles. I understand the importance of personal space and I commend the idea of finding a way to reduce stress and increase tranquility, however the idea of "caves" disturbs me. The whole idea seems to center around shutting oneself away from not just the outside world, but the family. There is so much emphasis on the need to get away from everyone else, that the idea of being with everyone is construed as stressful. It seems that the moms and men that have the resources to create these caves must have the monetary recourse to have their own rooms. Why can't a bedroom be a personal space? Why can't a relaxation space be shared? I worry that this article accepts too readily the idea of man caves and fails to adopt a more positive point of view. Maybe mom caves seem to be progressive or feminist, but they really follow the lead of what men have done. I think women should instead be working to reintegrate the family. Personal space and time is important and sometimes necessary, but family integration and shared time is also vital to for children's advancement and the development of relationships.

Masculinity 2

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/20/why-we-need-to-reimagine-masculinity.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/19/AR2010101905822.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

These two articles were helpful in understanding masculinity in contemporary American society. The first article provides an interesting overview of the changing roles of men throughout history. The authors argue that "masculine ideals" have changed over time depending on the need of society, but currently men are facing a crisis because of the lessening importance of primarily "male" industries. Due to this crisis, some men have looked to "old models and mores of manhood for salvation". This is detrimental for both men and women. Men are suffering in many ways. Jobs that fit into traditional conceptions of masculinity are not abundant and men who opt into careers that are traditionally feminine risk being emasculated by others. Women also suffer in many ways, given that these old models and mores do not support the empowerment of women and can actually encourage detrimental views of women. In my opinion, the biggest problem is that these views are spread to both men and women as how powerful people should be. This is shown in the second article that talks about the new trend in politics based in these values of what a man is, and what power is in general. In part, this trend bothers me because men are being attacked through methods of verbal castration. Aside from the question of the values behind why they are being "castrated", this method of attacking men seems invalid and offensive to both men and women. Why is the biggest threat or attack on a man his castration or his feminization? Its also upsetting that women are taking up both values and methods that are so obviously oppressing to them.

Masculinity 1

Unfortunately I haven't been able to connect to blogger so I'll have to try to catch up on my blogs on masculinity this week.

I think masculinity is an interesting theme to move to because it is often something that is overlooked in society. In some of the first readings we did this semester, we talked about the "dominant" traits becoming almost invisible in our discourse. Being male and being white is what is considered "normal" and we tend to not address exactly what it means. The problem is, as Valenti notes, that "men are affected by sexism too". Men are constantly battling to assert their masculinity and to show that they are not women. They have done this in different ways throughout history but violence is one thing that has commonly been attributed as "manly". Valenti talks about a recent trend towards "cool" men acting like boys. They have man caves and escape to the woods, they watch football and pick up women while going out with their friends. This new ideal is evident in tv shows and in the media all over, but it is also evident in how men perceive masculinity and strive to act.
The problem with society's inability to acknowledge our conception of masculinity as a powerful and at times damaging force is that this conception of masculinity is forced down our throats at all times. Men do not have a lot of people showing them that our conception of masculinity is just one option and is not in any way the best or the only viable way to be a man. Men need more support when it comes to understanding how to be men. Right now, many boys struggle with their inability to fit into the mold and have their masculinity taken from them (or withheld from them) because they are not "manly" enough. We need to acknowledge that there is no true ideal for "manliness" that transcends time and place, that masculinity is an idea and is always changing. Men are suffering from sexism just like women are and feminists can play an important role in helping to change this problem.

Multicultural Feminism

Last week, I read Tong's chapter on multicultural feminism. I found myself agreeing with the viewpoints presented in this chapter more than I have in other chapters. "Traditional" feminism seems to try so hard to create an idea of sisterhood that it ends up pushing many "sisters" away. In defining what it means to be a woman, feminists have inadvertently defined what it means to not be a woman. What happens to women that don't fit the definition? Do they get pushed into a nonwoman category? I think this is a perfectly valid concern, especially because the feminist movement should be about liberation, not further oppression, of all women. Multicultural feminism says that femininity and the struggles of women should not be defined by a specific group. Feminism needs to embrace all types of women, and this may mean creating a broader and more vague definition of what feminism is.

One problem with multicultural feminism is that it can become too vague and allow for too much cultural and personal interpretation and therefore allow for oppression. Maybe it is necessary to search for basic absolute values that can be applied to women throughout the world. Without a basic value set, the "this is my/our culture" argument can become the final and most powerful argument and the opposition has no option but to respect it. I think that multicultural awareness is vital to the feminist movement, but universal rights and values need to be created or acknowledged so that feminism and women's rights are not pushed into the background. This is especially important since we tend to view most cultures as patriarchal and one of the goals of feminism is to challenge the basis of the patriarchy. Without challenging cultural norms (patriarchy), can feminists still achieve their goals? I don't think they could.

"Pop Culture Gone Wild" - Valenti

As with the previous article by Valenti, I found the language to be refreshingly entertaining. Sometimes its nice to have a break from the scientific language that is often used in articles that we read. At the same time, I think that those articles have a very different value than what is presented by Valenti.

What I find most interesting about her writing is the way that ideas are presented. She often uses such straightforward language that is seems illogical not to agree with her. To be honest, I generally agree with her viewpoints anyway and I like the quotes and events that she uses to support her ideas. There are times, however, when I feel that she is misinterpreting what is said in the quotes, or being too aggressive with her point and essentially I don't agree with her argument simply because of her strategy, not because of the argument itself.

In this article, the idea that Valenti presented that societies expectations are mutually exclusive. It is impossible to be a virgin and sexually experienced. In our society it is impossible to be sexually liberated but not a slut. This is a great argument because it is present throughout the female experience. It is prevalent in society and we encounter it daily. I strongly agree with the idea that, as women, we should recognize where our decisions come from. Valenti remarks that she loves makeup, and she knows that that is because society says makeup makes her more beautiful, but she still loves it. I think that is an excellent point. It isn't about whether we do or do not like something, or whether we do or do not choose to do something; the important thing is that we recognize why we like what we like and why we do what we do. Sometimes in questioning what society expects of us, we do exactly the opposite as a way to rebel, but the reason behind it all is still the same. For example, when I was in high school I stopped shaving because I didn't think I needed to just because I was a woman. But after years of not shaving, I realized that I liked how shaving felt. I liked having smooth legs and, to be honest, I felt prettier. I know that the reason that i feel prettier with shaved legs is because society tells me that that's pretty. I realized that I liked shaving my legs, but when I don't feel like doing it, it's ok and I shouldn't be ashamed about it because it's my choice whether or not I do it. As a feminist, choosing to shave should be as much of a "liberating" choice as choosing to shave.

One doubt that I have about the article is Valenti's analysis of the quote from Janice Crouse. She only presents us with a relatively short quote, so maybe her reaction is to a longer speech given by Crouse, but I do not come to the same conclusions that she does regarding the quote. She argues that this quote says that girls are putting themselves in danger if they are out having fun and socializing. I read the quote as a warning that society is encouraging girls to put themselves in dangerous situations. At the same time, I don't agree that the solution lies in recommending that girls do not engage in this behavior. I also don't believe that in a world where girls don't go out there would be no crime against them. I do believe it is valid that Crouse brings up the influence of society's expectations on the behavior of girls and how expectations can contrast starkly with reality.

Biology, Sex and Gender

I think it's important to recognize that there is a biological factor in sex and gender. I enjoyed Dr Widman's visit to our class on Thursday because we looked at sex and gender from a different viewpoint. As someone who has studied both biology and psychology, I have a natural tendency to lean towards these areas in part when discussing the origins of gender because it's what I've been taught.

During class, I think we all began to question where the line lies between accepting information and being skeptical. It's important to be skeptical, especially in matters such as gender, where research is often skewed and methods often corrupt; however it is also important to be open to the idea that biology can be a factor. I think a major problem with the argument over gender, sex and biology is how we talk about them. When we find associations between sex and certain characteristics, I don't think we tend to question our assumptions about these characteristics. Maybe certain characteristics are seen as positive because they are more commonly found in men. Maybe feminists need to address the basic assumptions behind characteristics as well as attacking the assumption of where these characteristics come from.

I also think that the idea of biology being related to gender is a strong potential source of support for those whose gender does not match their sex. Sex doesn't have a direct correlation with gender, but maybe both gender and sex have a correlation with biology. I don't think much research has been done on this, because for a long time we have assumed that gender and sex are the same thing. I also think that biology is important because it gives us a possible base point for where our socialized gender roles have come from.

Sovereignty and Power

The Goldstein article talks about three schools of feminist thought in regards to gender and its role in war. The liberal school of thought reminds me a lot of what kids are socialized to believe is "right" in school. Girls can be anything they want to be. Girls can even join the military! But no one says, boys can even join the military! There's an assumption that this kind of feminism is empowering, but it still supports and reinforces an agenda based on male-domination. As the author said, this kind of feminism involves women adapting to society as it is, rather than working to change the actual structure and value system of the society.

The difference feminist view is interesting because it assumes that there exist inherent differences between men and women. They view women as "peaceful" and men as "violent". The most interesting question brought up by this section in my opinion was about sovereignty. Is sovereignty a male-produced ideal that we appreciate based on the fact that our values are male-driven? The problem that I have with this viewpoint is that it perpetuates the dichotomous conception of gender. It seems to call for generalization and doesn't allow for the idea of individualized gender or a variety of genders.

The postmodern feminist view seemed more vague to me. It seems to question the assumptions of the other viewpoints and sees gender as having an important role in war and the military, but that the role and place of gender as changing and not constant.

War seems to be a place where gender roles are important but can also get confused. War can be a place of social change, as it was during WWI, but it can also be a place of role perpetuation and reinforcement of boundaries.

Hatty - Aggression, Conflict & Violence

The article by Hatty, although long, was interesting and helpful because many important terms and topics were covered. In class, many people talked about aggression as being a "positive" thing and I think it can be at times, but I think the term is often misused. There is a difference between being offensive or forward and being aggressive. In the reading, Silverberg and Gray (1992) are cited as defining aggression as "the initiating toward some other(s) of an act that is higher on the violence scale than the previous act in a given interaction sequence, i.e., a readiness to initiate acts at higher levels of violence." Overall, I got the impression from the reading that aggression is strongly connected to violence and implies a willingness to use violence. Could aggression also mean a willingness to exacerbate conflict or escalate it not using violence?

The section from this reading dealing with "sexual predators" also brings up many good points. This semester I am also taking a class about social deviance and criminology and this section ties in well with what we're discussing in class. In analyzing the effectiveness of a social control system, it is important to note whether it results in an increasing or decreasing number of deviants. In regards to the system that controls deviant behavior in the "sexual predator" category, I think the goal is not to reduce the number of deviants, rather to force people who have committed crimes that correspond to this category, to adopt the deviant role of "sexual predator" in an attempt to keep the community safe. Personally, I like to be able to check to see where sexual offenders live in my area, especially ones that I know. However, I'm not sure if this system actually works to decrease crimes and make communities safer.

Sexist Women & Hooks Chapter 1

The chapter from Hooks about feminist politics was helpful for me because it shed light on the stance of feminists today. Even as a feminist, it's sometimes hard to get a good grip on exactly what you want and the language you want to use to best convey your ideas. I like the combination of the political stance set forth in this article and the idea of women's rights as human rights in one of the readings from Thursday. In my experience, there's a common misconception that feminism is strongly an anti-male movement. This causes men to shy away from any mention of the word feminism, even though many of these same men agree with the goals of the feminist movement. This also results in women declaring themselves feminists based on their strong hatred of men, not on their desire to promote the rights of women. I love the article about women's rights as human rights because it talks about a simple shift in language and the resulting shift in thinking that comes along with it. Women are human. Humans have basic rights. This discourse allows the connection to be made between women and basic natural rights. It also changes inequality, sexism, oppression and gender violence a human problem rather than a woman problem.

Hooks rights that females can be sexist too and that the acknowledgement of this fact helped to deteriorate the anti-male sentiment present earlier on in the feminist movement. Sexist women play a huge role in combating the feminist movement and defeating the feminist agenda. In class we talked about the importance of the physical side of women; how society demands very specific adherence to a very narrow definition of beauty. Women are a huge part of the "physical" problem. In my own life, I've had more pressure from moms and female coaches than from anyone else in regards to my weight and appearance. Even moms that know they should tell you you are beautiful no matter what tend to make comments when you put on a few pounds. My cross country coach in high school praised us for losing weight and made fun of "fat" girls in front of us. I haven't met many men that focus on my weight. That's not to say that they don't exist, however in my life there are more fat-conscious women than men. Women face so many conflicting messages about the physical that it is often difficult to pick one message to follow. For example, my mom is quick to say that women should feel beautiful no matter what and that they don't have to be stick thin to be happy. However, she will often say things like, "Wow, it's a good thing she lost weight, she really looks a lot better." Why is it that we focus so much on this? One could argue that in a lot of cases it is good to lose weight for someone who is overweight because they're healthier. However, the comments are always, "Wow she looks a lot better," not "Wow, she's much less likely to have joint pain at a young age now."

"You're a Hardcore Feminist. I Swear." Valenti.

This article by Valenti was refreshing because it was such a fun and easy read. I really liked the way the author connects with the audience because it's a good way of showing the accessibility of feminism. I was surprised by the beginning of the article and the words that the author used, but I think that's exactly why she did it. The idea that the worst insult is calling someone a girl seems awful but also justified.

The article overall had a lot of good points. However, I don't think of feminism as being for middle-class white ladies. I usually think of feminism as being about equality, not just for all sexes and genders, but for all people. This article has made me realize how many people there are that don't understand what feminism is. Above that, they are afraid to consider themselves feminists because it seems like such a radical thing to be.

Connell: "Making Gendered People"

Lorber calculated that "modern Western societies distinguish five sexes (based on genitalia), three sexual orientations, five gender displays, six types of relationships, and ten self-identifications". This statement alone is a very interesting and important contribution to the study of gender. We often think of both gender and sex as dichotomous and sexual orientation as either heterosexual or homosexual. This statement shows, even on the basis of strict biological terms, that the normative viewpoint of sex and gender is inherently skewed. Even people who push for gender equality often make a basic assumption that there are two distinct genders. It's common to hear that women need to fight for equality in a patriarchal society. But what about the other sexes and genders? The assumption that gender and sex are dichotomous is contradictory in the campaign for equality.

I like the idea of "identity" being plural. Identity is such a complex idea and I believe that thinking about it as a union of several different identities is not only helpful but necessary. I think that gender identity does play a central role in our total identity simply because gender is a social category that rules so many of our actions and interactions. Gender identity is an important, maybe necessary part of being part of society, whether it means that you are relatively normative and accepted or assigned a deviant role.

Gender and Conflict

I am really excited for this class. I look forward to possible discussions and already feel like the readings are helping me better understand the idea of gender. The first reading that we had on gender and race was a little hard to read at first simply because of the language. There were words that I hadn't heard before and words that I don't often use. However, the article had a lot of very interesting points and the second time through it made a lot of sense. I like the use of relationality to talk about gender and race. The author says that in our society, one category is given a higher position or almost a kind of "transparency" which makes that category the "good" one while anything else is "bad". I think many people would argue that women are not thought of as "bad" because of their gender but I agree with the author. We may not use the word "bad" but women must struggle to attain equality because they are casted in a lower light. For example, when we think of equality in the Senate of the US, most people talk about the changes in the percentage of women representatives and talk about certain women being impressive or unique because they are in a position of power. We don't normally say, "He is a male representative," but "He is a representative." However, in the case of a woman, gender is often emphasized to the point where it becomes redundant, "She is a female representative" rather than " She is a representative." I'm not saying that this is a bad thing. Actually, I believe that the recognition of women gaining more positions of power is important in emphasizing the necessity of equality not just in government, but in the society as a whole.