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.