Femminist priority

My "feminist priority" would be to feel safe doing anything that a man can do, and for all classes and races of women to experience equality. Before taking this class I felt that I was allowed to do anything men can do and that I had equal rights. The one difference that has always bothered me is that because I am a woman people have always told me that it's not safe to do things that men can do. After taking this class I realize that some of that is due to ideas of gender and how women are seen by society. For example, I don't have a car, and I care deeply about the environment, so I like to walk and take the bus places. People are always very concerned when I walk places and when I take the bus alone, even when it's not at night. I'm told that as a women this isn't safe. I also love nature and I enjoy hiking and camping. I've been on many solo day hikes, but I've never backpacked by myself overnight. Many people do this and although it is dangerous, for people who know what they are doing and have the right equiptment it is not a crazy thing to do. I really want to be able to do this because it is a dream of mine to hike the Appalacian Trail. However my friends and family warn me against doing so becasue they think it is too dangerous. When men want to do activities like this it is seen an rugged and "manly" but for me to go out into the wilderness alone is frowned upon. For these things to change I think two things need to change in society, the first is the prevalance of violence against women and the second is our ideas about gender. Part of the reason people don't want me walking or taking the bus alone is because as a female I am expected to be weak, and am taught to stay close to home and that I need to be protected. There is also real danger for women to fall victim to rape, and other types of violence when walking alone. For both the percieved and real danger to change our society needs to view women differently. Things that encourage men to rape women such as ideas of women as objects, ideas about sex, ideas of agressive masculinity, and of women as weak and submissive need to change. Ideas that I am somehow uncapable of doing things on my own and need to be protected also need to change so that I am not discouraged from doing things like walking or hiking and camping alone. The way that boys and girls are socialized also needs to change. From a young age boys are taught to be more independent and to expolore more so they are seen as being capable of doing the activities that I naturally like to do, but am discouraged by society to do. If society saw be as being capable of doing these things than people wouldn't be so worried when I do them.

Another thing that I am concerned about is for all women to have the rights that many people see women as having. Before this class I was one of those people who thought "We're already liberated, so what's the point of femminism?" I now know that although middle class white women have made great gains in terms of rights and equality (though we still have gains that need to be made) that is not the case for all women. I also learned that different women face different issues. I have learned about the femminization of poverty and about how our welfare policies don't accurately adress the situations faced by women on welfare. That's why a big femminist priority for me is a welfare policy that fully adresses the needs of women. One way we could accomplish this would be recognizing the value of child care and domestic work and assinging it economic value. Another way would be universal health and day care. These policies seem unrealistic based on the current policies in our country, but atleast as far as health and day care are concerned there are other countires that have universal health care and that provide economic support and child care services to their citizens with children. I think that this could be accomplished by taking some of the money we spend on our military and spending it on things like welfare, health care, and child care. We spend more money than any other country on our military by a huge amount. We could afford to use a large amount of that money else where and still spend more money than any other country. We can afford to spend less and still be a big military power.

reproductive issues

Historically racism has had an impact on the gendered experiences of women of color in the health care system through forced steralizations and the eugenics movement. The eugenics movement took Darwin's ideas of natural selection and applied them to humans with the idea that only the "fit" should be encouraged to reproduce. Around the time when some white middle class women were first pushing for woman to choose when to be mothers and to control their reproductive lives some male politicians said that this would cause race suicide for white Americans. Policy makers encouraged white families who were middle class or wealthy to have many children. They also tried to limit the reproduction of those who were "unfit" such as criminals, those considered to have mental problems, prostitutes, the poor, and people of color. This often meant forced steralizations for women who fell into one of those categories. Puerto Rican woman have also been historically impacted by the belief that problems in Puerto Rico were caused by over population. This lead to forced steralizations, and coerecion to use birth control. Today, women of color, and poor white woman also face problems with steralization based on their gendered experiences with the health care system. The government will not cover abortions for low income women. In many cases the only birth control option for women who are relying on the government for health care is steralization. This means that although they aren't forced to get steralizations, it is their only option. I learned through some of our reading that most women who get abortions plan on having children in the future. Many women who don't currently want children would much rather use a temporary form of birth control, but the only option given to women relying on government assistence is permanant.

It is important for femminists to broaden discussions of reproductive choice beyond abortion. Abortion is often due to unwanted pregnancies (although there is sometimes danger to the mother due to complications, or problems with the baby). One thing that should be discussed is how to lower rates or unwanted pregnancy, or to change conditions that may make it challenging for some women who might other wise want children to be able to provide for their children and themselves better. Things like preventative methods of birth control need to be discussed, and education about about reproductive matters for all women is an important issue. Access to child care and health care for all women are importnat issues that need to be discussed. We learned that some women have to travel very far, or are unable to travel at all to clinics with reproductive services. Reproductive choice also includes overall reproductive health. Women need to have access to health care to make sure that they are able to be treated for things like infections or other problems. They also need to have access to health care for cancers that can affect their reproductive abilities. A woman can't choose to reproduce at all if she has cervical cancer that was detected too late and has to get a historectomy, or if she dies becasue it was never detected at all. It is also important to make sure that all women actually have options to choose from. We may have reproductive choice in the sense that we can choose to have children or not, but we need to be sure that all women actually have the chance to do other things. For example, we need to make sure that all women have access to quality education and equal chances of finding jobs. This issue can be over looked since many white middle class women already have these oppritunities, so some people assume that these options are open to all women when that is not the case. Another issue that wasn't mentioned much in the module was counceling. The module did mention that sometimes counceling is required before getting an abortion as what I understood to be as a deterent or waiting period. However I think that counceling is very importnat for people who either weren't expecting their pregnancy or who aren't sure they can handle motherhood but aren't sure they necessarily don't want to keep their child to have counceling. Many women know for sure that they don't or do want to have thier baby but that isn't always the case. It is a huge decision that will impact the rest of someone's life, which ever decision they make. Some women, especially teenagers and young women may not know or fully understand their options. There are many women who want to keep their baby but feel like they can't becasue they don't have enough economic resources, access to quality child care, or social support. Counceling is crucial because it can ensure that women know what all their options are before making a decision. It can also provide them with information about resources to help them with child care, jobs, money, and support. It is also good becasue this can be a very emotional time for women and that makes it very hard to make a decision. There is also the issue that many women may feel pressure from family or husbands/boyfriends to either have or not have an abortion when that isn't what they really want. We have already discussed how men dominate in our society, counceling can help a woman figure out what she wants and how to accomplish that. If a woman does choose to have an abortion I think counceling could help a lot because it can be a very difficult experience physically and emotionally. Many women who experience this may be too ashamed to tell their loved ones or lack a strong social support netowrk. They need someone to be there for them.

women and violence

I think that violence aginst women in prevalant in society becasue of ideas about masculinity and femminity and becasue we live in a patriarchial society that has historically seen men as superior to women. Men are taught from a young age about their gender roles as males which includes a concept of masculinity involving agression, violence and compitition. Women are also taught gender roles from a very young age that can help them learn to be less compititive, and agressive. Based on this type of socialization, it makes sense that women fall victim to male violence. We also learned that there are many complicated reasons why women stay in violent situations, or don't report them. Women, especially impoverished women may feel that they have no other place to go if they leave a violent domestic situation. A fact that I never thought about before is that women, especially middle class women may be ashamed to admit that they are in an abusive situation. Women may also feel that it is importnat for their children to have a father, and will stay with the father of their children even if he abuses her, although the number one reason for leaving abusive relationships is when they realize that is is harming the children, or when the children are being abused aswell. There is also fear of reprocussions from the abusor, or even fear that he will kill the woman if she leaves him. I also learned that most incidences of rape go unreported. This could be due to a variety of factors such as embarassement, and the tendency to blame the victim in our society. I learned from this module that in cases of rape, the victim's past sexual history often comes into question. People will often think that if the victim hadn't dressed a certain way, or been in a particular setting than they wouldn't have been raped. This shows an unfair bias in our society. No one would question the way a man was dressed if he was attacked. I think it is a very dangerous practice of us to blame women for dressing a certain way or being in certain situations when they are raped. Not only does this discourage women from reporting rape, but it also gives men the idea that it is ok to rape women if they are dressed provocatively, or if they are alone at a bar. I think it's alright to warm women not to do things like walk home alone at night, or not to go to leave parties with men they don't know, but not to blame them for being attacked if they do so. I also think the blaming of women for being victims of not only rape, but also other sexual violence including sexual harassment is also related to the double bind faced by women. We have pressure on one side from society to be "sexy" and to conform to fashion trends that are provocative and then on the other side, when women do fallow these trends, they are considered to be slutty and men feel like it is ok to sexually harass or otherwise violate slutty women. It is never alright to harass or perform any violent act towards a woman. This needs to be made clear to men, who also get mixed messages from society about how to treat provoactively dressed women differently from women who may appear to be more conservative. These messages about how to view women often come from the media and from porn.

Welfare reform should be considered a Feminist issue becasue women are disproportionately more impoverished than men, and women, especially single mothers have been disadvantaged by welfare reform. Policy makers who are prodominately men who have created welfare systems and welfare reform have done so in a way that isn't sensative to the problems faced by poor women. One huge problem for many poor women is the fact that domestic work and child care are unpiad and undervalued. This becomes a huge problem for single mothers under welfare reform who must work in order to stay on welfare. In one of the articles we read, it mentioned a woman who was forced to start working before she was given assistance for day care. This left her without any way to care for her children. She had to work, becasue without doing so she would be taken off welfare and wouldn't be able to provide for her children. She was forced to leave her baby in the care of its alcoholic father (who she had left which was the entire reason she was on welfare) until she recieved assistance for childcare. She came home one day to find the baby crushed by its drunk father who had fallen asleep and rolled over on the baby. They mentioned another woman who was forced to start working eventhough she didn't feel her 2 month old was ready to be fully weaned off breast feeding. She offered to actually work more hours with shorter split up shifts. They wouldn't allow her to do this, and her baby was hospitalized because it couldn't properly digest formula. These senerios show the types of problems that arise from the fact that welfare reform is mostly focused on making sure people get jobs. Those who designed these policies think that getting jobs is the most importnat solution to poverty for everyone. Although this may be the case for some, it over looks the complexities of poverty for many. It also overlooks that fact that domestic work and child care is actaully work. There is a steoreotype of people on welfare as being lazy and leeching off the system. People think that since that's all welfare recipients want to do, the solution is to make sure they work, and get them off welfare as soon as possible. Those who are on welfare that don't want to work are seen as trying to pull on over on the government, or mooch off our tax money. These sterotypes overlook the fact that for some people, staying at home isn't being lazy. For some people, staying at home is working. If doemstic work and childcare were recognized as real work and more highly valued in our society, then we may be able to come up with a welfare policy that works better for women. If domestic work was actually valued, then there might not be so much pressure for people to get jobs right away when they are on welfare. What if taking care of one's children and other domestic work was actually seen as a job with real economic value? The issue of childcare has been considered when creating welfare reform, and there are programs designed to help women with dependent children. However, I don't think the full complexity of the issue has been taken into consideration by policy makers. This could be due to the fact that policy makers are mostly men or that poor women of all ethnic backgrounds are definately not involved in policy making and their experiences with welfare and other programs may not be accurately understood. I think more attention needs to be paid to the actual lives and expereinces of those in welfare, and less attention to stereotypes in order to create a system that can actually benefit poor women.

The perception of certain work as feminine affects women's work inside and outside the home. As we learned in our lecture, women do much more work in the home than men. We learned that they do 2/3 of the work. We also learned that the work men do is more highly valued, and that women do more repetitive tedious work and tend to multi-tast more. Women are often considered better at house work. There are tons of jokes about how women belong in the kitchen and about how it is there job to clean the house and take care of children. There is also a notion that they are doing house work for someone else. They are supposed to be doing it for their kids, or for their husband. There is also a notion that it is natural for women to be doing such work and that they are inherently more nuturing, clean, and better at household tasks. However, women don't end up with the brunt of house work becasue they are naturally better at it or naturally enjoy it more than men. Things work out this way becasue of gender norms. Women are taught from a young age whether directly or subtly that it is there responsibility to care for children, clean and cook. Boys are also taught this, which is why in a lot of cases, they either think that they can't do housework, or if they really aren't very good at it, they haven't had as much practice or as much experience watching and modeling after adults as they were growing up. There is also somewhat of a social stigma attached with men doing housework or childcare. They don't want to be seen as femminine. Some fathers may be upset at the thought of their son playing with dolls or putting on an apron and playing with a toy kitchen set. This shows how deeply rooted our ideas about gender roles are. Even though on the surface many men and women would say that they think that housework should be shared equally when it comes to the gender norms that children are taught and ideas held about domestic work, people's actions don't always match what they say. There is also the idea that was mentioned in the lecture that men often are considered to be "helping" with house work. This implies that it is naturally women's work, and they are just helping out, as if it is going above and boyond for them to be doing such work. I think that the division of domestic work could become more equal if ideas about gender norms were changed. I don't think its enough to just say that work should be equal, children actually need to be taught from a young age that men can and should perform domestic work and childcare. We also need to get rid of the idea that men who perform domestic work are somehow weak or whipped.

A big part of the problem is the value put on domestic work. In many cases it isn't considered work at all. "Real work" is considered the kind of work that people do outside the home. This means that work done inside the home often has little value. It often goes unnoticed. This is part of why women are more likely to experience poverty than men. Women's jobs outside the home are often jobs in the service industry that are based on women's traditional domestic jobs. Since these jobs aren't highly valued by society they are usually low paying. Even though the law says that women and men must be paid equally for the same job, women are often kept at lower positions than men within the same field, or clustered in lower paying fields which means that they earn less money. The fact that domestic work isn't highly valued also means that it isn't paid when it is performed in the home. I won't go too much into this becasue it relates more to the next module. However this is a huge problem for single mothers. The fact that domestic labor isn't valued is also a problem for other women because women who are full time doemstic workers are viewed as not working at all. This could be very hard on a person emotionally. They don't receive recognition for the work they and they are often viewed negatively for not working outside the home. On the other hand, women who do work outside the home are viewed negatively for supposedly neglecting their families even though they often have to perform a double shift. They work outside the home which is paid and considered actually working, but then they have to come home and perform household work and childcare which isn't paid or highly valued which can cause stress and emotional harship too. The strict gender norms about who is supposed to perform certain domestic tasts may have different consequences for women in lesbian relationships or singel women. Work may be divided more evenly between roomates or female romantic partners, or there might be the problem of who's going to take out the trash, or fix the leaky foscet, since those task are typically conisdered male. I'm not sure exactly how the division of labor would work out in these situations, but it is importnat to recognize that these issues don't only occur in heterosexual situations.

Feminism can get past the identity problem when it comes to the category of "woman" by recognizing that every woman's experiences are different. Women can experience oppression in a variety of ways, as we have learned when discussing intersectionality. Women also experience what it means to be women in the context of many different cultures, religions, social groups and other contexts. All of a person's identities interact to shape their experiences. Within that all women have very different individual experiences. Many women in "developing" countries don't like to use the term feminism, even if they are working towards agendas that fall under feminist goals, because they feel that feminism is for white western privileged women. There is a tendency to try to "normalize" the idea of how women experience oppression and what feminism is when in reality there is a lot of difference in women's experiences. Instead of focusing on one big idea of what feminism is and one concept of how women experience oppression, feminism could get past the identity problem by looking at individual experiences and needs as well as understanding the cultural and religious contexts that women experience their lives in when dealing with global feminism. This could be done by simply listening to women on an individual basis and taking their experiences into account, instead of assuming what they must be experiencing based on pre-established feminist theory. One great example of how this can be done is the website we read with many different women's stories from around the world. The website had a link to click on for anyone to add a story. In this way they were encouraging women to take an active part in building feminist knowledge and they were allowing people to see a variety individual experiences. Another thing that can be done is to understand the cultural, religious, historical and societal context that women live in before trying to understand how they are experiencing oppression. Everyone is raised within these contexts and trying to understand someone else's experiences through the eyes of your own culture, religion, ect. can be misleading. It is important not to try to try to impose U.S. ideals of what feminism is on other people, because these ideas were formed within a particular social structure based on particular issues and may not fit with the situations experiences by other women. I really liked how the lecture mentioned that although we shouldn't impose our ideals on women from other cultures, we can help start discussions about issues and work with others towards a common goal of liberation. I like that the lecture said that it is important to work with other women because it will help all of us. This shows that although there is much difference within the category of women, we can still work together. I think those interested in global feminism shouldn't "help" women from developed countries as if they are inferior and incapable of helping themselves, they should learn about their experiences, have discussions with them and work with them on the plans they have developed. I think it is important to always make sure that the women who are experiencing the oppression are chiefly involved in working towards their own liberation and that it is their needs that are being addressed, not the needs that others think they might have. If others were telling them what they needed and what they should think, that would just be one form of oppression replacing another. On the other hand, bringing up issues for discussion can bring up things that may not have been carefully considered before. Once they are out in the open, women who experience the issues being discusses can put forth their opinions about how they are being affected and use or create feminist frameworks within their own society to address them. At that point others can help work towards the goals that that group has put forth for themselves. Basically I think the two best ways to deal with the identity problem are an understanding of differences and willingness to recognize that the historical U.S. feminist ideals may not work in every context.

homophobia and femminism

Homophobia was discussed in lecture and our readings. Although the lecture touched on this a little, I want to talk about how homophobia is used to discourage heterosexual women from being feminists and becoming involved in women's studies at the University level. I'll admit that although I was very interested in this class and excited to take it, I felt weird telling certain friends and family members that I was taking it. Even though I have a serious boyfriend for some reason on some subconscious level, I didn't want people to think I was a lesbian. Some of my friends made lesbian jokes. My family didn't make any jokes, but as I was listing the classes I'm taking this summer my parents made surprised faces and noises when I said women's studies. It's hard to describe their reaction, but it was obvious that they thought there was a certain stigma attached to women's studies. The funny thing is that the people who show the most discomfort when I talk about women's studies or feminism in general are women. I get the sense that some of my female friends don't know how to feel about it because on the one hand, they don't want to be traders to their gender, but they don't want to be considered a lesbian either. Back in one of the earlier modules, there was a slide that said I'm not a feminist but..... I can relate to that slide a lot because I believe in all those things, but I never considered myself a feminist. I've even literally said "I'm not a feminist but...." several times in my life. I guess this is because feminism actually has a stereotype of not being femmine at all, but as being masculine. This is a strange paradox. I was all about the equality of women, but I really want children and to get married and I aspire to be a teacher. I didn't think I could do any of these things and be a feminist, I thought I had to be a man hating "masculine" looking and acting person. I now know that none of this is true.

Another thing I thought is kind of interesting is that there is kind of a dualism/maybe double standard with lesbians. It is considered "hot" or "sexy" sometimes, and ugly, manly or undesirable other times. I think this is related to the idea of women gender roles being to fulfill the sexual desires of men. When lesbians can still fulfill the sexual fantasies of men (which are usually more in porn or the media than real life) then being a lesbian is a good thing. When high school and college aged girls make out in public settings like parties it is considered a positive thing as long as they are attractive and men are able to watch. On the other hand two "butch" lesbians making out are considered gross. In the minds of many people, there is the "lip stick lesbian" and the "butch" lesbian. I think it's interesting that although many lesbians today are trying to stay away from recreating gender norms, others who view them still try to fit them into pre-existing gender norms.

disability

Disability isn't just a physical condition, it is also a social construction. I had never really thought about it this way, but it makes sense. Certain things are only disabilities because society is designed in a way that makes people who have them less able to function in society. For example, if all buildings were wheel chair accessible and if everyone knew sign language, or if all documents were available in brial, then these disablities would still have disadvantages in some ways to the people who have them, but they may not come with as much social stigma. If society was designed to have these things, and if they were seen as standard, instead of kind or going above and beyond, people who are "disabled" wouldn't be looked at as in need of special care, or less productive. I do however think that it's important to keep in mind that there is a biological component to many (but not all) disabilities. Although society does play an importnat role they both need to be considered. (Things like being blind, or paralized are good examples.)That being said, what is culturally constructed is which biological conditions are considered "disabilities" and how people who have them are percieved as being less able to function in soiety because of how it is set up. The obesity example is a really good example of this. People who are obese do have real medical problems and they really do have a harder time doing lots of physical acticities, but the consideration of this as a disability is social.

On the other hand some "disabilities" don't necessarily have a biological component but are only percieved to. An example of this is the throwing like a girl example. If girls are taught to throw the way boys do, they are able to. (If you don't believe me, come meet my 13 year old sister who throws so hard she hurts my dad's hand when they play catch) There isn't anything biological that stops them from doing so. The physiological differences in men and women that make a difference in throwing ability are probably minimal. Therefore, although the best male might be able to throw a ball faster than the best female the difference is probably minimal. Also, many females who are trained as well as males to throw can still throw better than most males. Differences in skill are more individual than on an overall gender basis. By realizing that disability is socially constructed, we can deconstruct it, kind of like I did with the throwing like a girl example.

Is there such a thing as "white" culture?

Is there any such thing as "white" culture?
I have spent most of my life thinking that there isn't a "white" culture. I remember going to a high school that was pretty divirse with people of all different kinds of backgrounds, religions, and from places all over the world. It seems crazy but I used to with that I had an ethnicity, or a "race" because I felt like I didn't have one. Now that I've listened to the lecture on white privledge I think the reason that I felt like I didn't have a race was becasue white people are taught not to see white priveldge. I has taught (in a subtle was, through enculturation, and other social forces) to believe that I didn't have a race, so that I wouldn't realize the privledge that I had over other races. Privledge can't be changed unless people recognize it exists, which is why it is kept under wraps. Another reason that I felt like I had no race was becasue we are taught to belive that "white" is the defalut race, the natural dominant way of being. All other races are supposedly just in comparison to the "white race," and thus inferior.

The idea of privledge is so heavily denied that the people and social institutions that were teaching me these ideas about my race most likely had no idea they were doing it. My parents always taught to treat people of every skin color the same, and since elementry school I have always had friends of different races and ethnicities. In school we learned that everyone was equal, and in church I learned to "love thy brother (not going to get into that one)." Yet somehow even with all this outward expression of equality, I can still see that there were people in my community that were oppresesed. This could be due to the fact that like Frye's bird cage anaolgy, opression doesn't happen just as one metal bar that a bird can easily fly around. It is an interlocking system that isn't just the sum of its parts. It isn't just each individual act of opression, it is how they all work toegether. So for example, my teacher at the public school I attended may have treated all the kids equally becasue she didn't believe in being racist. However that was just one bar, she couldn't see the entire system of bars that made up the whole cage of some of the students in her class. People who are naturally quite capable of doing well in school may have done poorly in her class, not because she was racist, but becasue of a complicated system of factors that goes far back into history. This can be very disadvantaging to them becasue there is no obvious opression going on, so it will seem like they are just dumb or lazy, when really they were set up for failure from the beginning. The cage is hard to see unless one steps back from it, which is why it often isn't recognized.

Inscribing gender on the body

I agree with our lecture and some of the articles we read that consumerism and major corporations have a huge influence on how women view their bodies. Companies make huge amounts of money by convincing women that we need to wear makeup and have the latest fashions (which don't stay in style as long as men's cloths) and that we need to buy the best hair and skin products so that we will look our best. Not only are we taught that we need theset things to "look our best", but we are also taught that it is importnat to look good (by society's definition of good) becasue if we don't we won't get jobs, have friends, find romantic partners, ect. Although companies profit from these ideas in our society, they aren't the only ones who reinforce them. Parents send strong messages to their daughters that they need to keep up with these standatds of beauty, as do peers and the media. Parents will buy girls certain clothes and beauty products and put strong pressure on them if they don't keep up with normal beauty rituals like shaving, doing their hair properly, or maintianing their weight. Peers put extremely tough pressure on girls to fit the proper gender standards of beauty, and when girls don't they are socialy punished. The media protrays girls and women that are unrealisticly thin and have expensive time consuming hair and makeup that the average women could never afford or be able to fit into her schedule. Their images are also often airbrushed. The ideal of what women are supposed to look like is so unattainable that almost all women have something about themselves they want to change. Even those who supposedly fit the mystical norm of what women are supposed to look like often have problems with how they look. These unatainable standards teach women to be selfconscious. They also give men unfair advantages becasue they are judged less harshly on their looks and are required to spend less time and money on their looks. The expectations for women's appearance can also lead to dangerous consequences in the form of eating disorders and dangerous practices such as excessive tanning, and plastic surgery.

Also on the topic of gender on the body, I really liked the article “Reading the Slender Body,” by Susan Bordo. I liked what she said about how our attempts to control all the fat spots on our body and to tighen up are our attempt to balance our conflicting expectations to be controllers of production and consumers, and how having a well controlled body is a sign of success in our capitalistic society. I also like the point she brought up about how men want to control women's bodies as an attempt to control our hunger/desire that can be threatening in times of changing roles and that women are trying to move away from a body that emphasizes maternity and fertility. I thought this brought up some very interesting points and a different way to look at this issue than has previously been presented to me. Great article!!!

Relationships

I think that gender scripts and gendered communication have a big impact on heterosexual romantic relationships. Gender scripts teach men and women to expect certain things from their partner of the opposite sex while dating and in relationships. This can be seen on dates like in our reading where the guy is expected to pay and pick the girl up. The gender script for cohabiting relationships (whether they be marriage or not) is for women to do the cleaning. In many cases the man might not tell the woman she has to clean, or know that he expects her to. However, traditionally men tend to care less about cleaning and when they do clean they tend to do less of a through job. Women on the other hand have traditionally raised to care about being clean and having a clean house. This often results in the man not cleaning and although he might not expect the woman to clean up after him (becasue it doesn't matter to him if it stays dirty), she will because she wants the house to be clean. Luckily there are many men who don't fallow this gender script. There are guys out there (my dad being one of them) who do participate in their equal share, if not more of the housework. The problem is that although this happens it is not considered the norm. Eventhough there are men that do housework, that isn't part of the gender script. Gender scripts can also create problems in relationships because couples of our generation are told that relationships are supposed to be egalitarian, but we still have the same norms for dating and realtionships that there have always been. This creates a conflict. If on dates the man is supposed to be the one who askes the woman out, and pays, this sets the stage for men to make the decisions and to be the economic providers. Relationships that start with dates like this may face problems later when all the sudden the woman expects to be able (as she should) to make major decisions and be an economic provider. Luckily this too is not always the case. Most couples I know mostly just "hang out" when they are getting to know eachother, there is not the official situation where the boy asks the girl to dinner and then pays for her. However, when couples do get food even just on the go at a sandwhich shop, the boy does tend to pay, so the script is still influential.

The way boys and girls are raised to communicate can also create problems for realtionships. Girls are raised to use communication to solidify relationships where are boys are raised to use communication to get attention and assert power as well as express ideas. Girls are raised to be better at intimacy and interpersonal communication and boys are raised that intimacy is "sissy." Girls also speak more politely and ask questions instead of making commands. Boys talk more assertively and tend to interupt girls more. This can cause men to assert more control and power over women when communicating with them. The fact that women value intimacy and men are taught to shy away from it can also cause problems in relationships.

privledge

In the article we read by Peggy McIntosh she listed how white privledge in present in her life and how it puts her at an advantage. I have been privlidged throughout my life without realizing it too (I'm also adding class privledge). 10 of the ways I am privlidges of being white and middle class are are:

1. I can talk back to cops without being seen as threatening or dangerous and I am more likely to be given a warning when i get pulled over

2. No one supects that I got into college for any other reason than my academic ability

3. I can get away with things at work that are against company (company being aramark...aka the JMU dining halls) policy such as eating on the job, showing up late, taking more breaks than I'm supposed to and staying longer than I'm scheduled to to earn more hours. Eventhough I do all these things on a regular basis, I'm still viewed as a good employee. When people who aren't white do those things they always get caught and always have negative consequences, usually getting written up or fired.

4. When I go out to the bar, the bar tender will come to me sooner than someone who isn't white becasue they assume that I am going to tip them better.

5. My family is able to pay for me to go to college and when i graduate, I will start off with a clean slate. Other people who don't come from families who have enough money to pay for college will graduate with debt putting them at a disadvantage eventhough they recieved the same education as me. Many people who come from families who don't have much money also grow up with the idea that they will never be able to afford college so they never try to get in eventhough they are inteligent and hard working enough to go. They have still been taught through sublte cultural messages that college is not an option, eventhough scholarships and loans exits.

6. I went to UVA before I transfered here and knew people who were in black fertanities and sororities. Most of the the parties held by these organizations didn't have alcohol. They were dry dance parties. Most white fraternities on the other hand had large amounts of alcohol, mostly consumed by underage students. Their kegs were out on the front lawn, beer pong was played on the front porch, and the parties were so big that they spilled outside of the house onto the lawn and side walk. I have been to one of these white frat parties, stood on the sidewalk (public property mind you) with a beer in my hand and seen a cop drive by look at what was going on and keep driving. I was told that cops around here don't really care becasue they assume that UVA students were "good kids." In fact they were suprised to see a cop car at all. However I'm told that at black frat parties where little if any drinking goes on that there is always a cop car parked outside carfully watching people enter and leave the party. Clearly there is a white advantage.

7. I can drive a nice car or wear nice jewelry without anyone assuming that I'm a drug dealer.

8. If I ever get down on my luck and have financial problems, people will actually feel bad for me and assume that it was becasue of unfortunate circumstances, not because I'm lazy

9. There aren't very many deragatory terms for my race and I'm not offended by the ones that do exist

10. I am able to question authority safely

intersectionality

I think that diversity issues are lost in all encompassing identity of women approaches because no one has just one identity. We are all members of different socioeconomic classes, different ethnicities, religions and family histories. Different women have different concerns. When many feminists were fighting angst women who felt trapped as housewives, they were ignoring women who had been working outside the home trying to support their families. These women were struggling with other problems, like day care, equal wages, and problems that may not even have been specific to just women such as class and race issues. We read about Asian-American, Puerto Rican, and African American women who have gender issues that were different from those that some middle class white women were fighting for. Some women felt that they didn't want even to be called feminist, even though they did care about women's rights. They said that if they had to choose sides, they would choose to fight for the rights of their ethnic group. They didn't want to leave out men in their struggle for equality and they felt that if they were to join the mainstream feminism movement that they would have to. I think the second wave would have made more progress if people had been more sensitive to the gender issues of all women. If they were truly united in sisterhood, African American women would be fighting for middle class white women's liberation from the home, and white women were fighting to get better wages and day care programs for African American women, Asian American women would be fighting to end sterilization and the testing of birth control on Puerto Rican women, and Puerto Rican women would be fighting angst stereotypes about Asian American women.

module 7

The "Bitch Manifesto" and thinking about what I could talk about if I were at a conscious raising group got me thinking about gender roles at JMU. In most of the reading we have done for class, gender roles have been discussed as wife, mother, or the gender roles of young girls. We have read about women's fight to ensure that we have the chance to go to college and enter the work force. Now that it’s perfectly normal for us to be in college, what about the gender roles of female college students? I definitely feel strong pressure to look and act a certain way because I'm a girl. I am expected to wear makeup (I get A LOT of crap for not wearing makeup. Surprisingly, the people who bug me the most about it are my parents), to "do my hair" to wear stylish clothing and to dress up when I go out. I notice that especially when we go out on weekends, "getting ready" is a social bonding experience for my roommates. I'm weird when I want to go out in my jeans and whatever shirt I happen to be wearing. People will even ask you in class that morning, "hey what are you wearing tonight?" I have one girl friend who will call me when she is on her way to my house to tell me what she's wearing. I feel bad that I don't really care. I often just borrow their makeup and sometimes their clothes, not because I really care if I look right, just to take part in the social experience and bond with them. It also seems like girls have been socialized to love to shop. I don't even mean just shopping for clothes, for girls, shopping is an event. If they need something, anything, they will usually say "Hey I'm going to target, wanna come," and then we all go to target and instead of just walking in and getting whatever it was that one of us actually needed, we walk around the whole store and look at stuff we have absolutely no need for and instantly feel like we have to have it. I'm sure some boys are like that too, but from what I've seen they don't seem to be socialized to consider shopping a fun group activity and then tend to just go in and get what they need. When I was in high school I used to try to fit gender norms, I wore make up, tried to have stylish clothes, went tanning twice a month, ect. Then I started to become more spiritual and concerned about the environment and I started wanting to be less materialistic (actually using my clothes until they were no longer functional and not buying so much stuff that has to be made in factories) and I also wanted to be less vain (which meant not wearing make-up all the time, although I do put it on every now and then, and not wasting electricity on a hair dryer every day.) People who knew me when I did care about how I look don't understand why I wouldn't want to do those things anymore, and some people actually get angry with me about it. My mom is always trying to buy me clothes and make up. She is very concerned about my disregard for my appearance. Yet she has no problem with the fact that my brother, who also goes to JMU, has shaggy untamed hair, a patchy attempt at facial hair, and wrinkled baggy clothes. I also notice that people look at my love of nature, science, and rugged outdoor activities differently than they look at those interests in guys. No one has a problem with the fact that I'm into those things, but they are more noticeable traits about me than they are about guys who are into those kinds of things. I don't feel pressure to be the "occupation house wife" of the 50's but I do still feel pressure to fit gender roles. At the same time however, I don't think that there is anything wrong with girls who like to be "girly." I can be really girly sometimes too. I like to have the option to be whoever I want to be and not to have to fit female roles, or to feel like I should try too hard not to fit female roles. I think those who are interested in women's issues today should just encourage girls to be who they want to be whether that happens to fit traditional female roles or not.

module 6

I think that suffrage and women's rights in general aren't "on the radar" for people today, especially for white middle class women, because we feel like we already have equality. White middle class girls of my generation grew up being told that we can be anything we want to be and that "girls can do anything boys can do." It is now politically incorrect to speak of men and women as unequal. However, all this talk of equality might be masking underlying issues that are still empowering men over women. I personally grew up thinking that women have already achieved freedom, and wondering what all the fuss regarding women's rights was about. I now know that there are still problems for women, and that there is a disconnect between what is being said about the equality of women and what is actually happening. One of the biggest issues with women's equality is that minorities and women who are in poverty still face huge amounts of gender inequality and adversity. In fact women in general are more vulnerable to becoming impoverished than men.

We learned in our lecture about the first wave of feminism that although African American and white women were both very involved in the women's right movement, white middle class women were willing to denounce equal rights for African Americans if it helped their own cause. During the time of the passing of the 14th and 15th amendments, there was a split in those fighting for civil rights between those who didn't want African Americans to have the right to vote if women didn't have it also, and those who were willing to let African Americans have the vote first. Although today most feminists are also concerned about the rights of all people and are well aware of the adversity faced by all classes and ethnicities of women, the general public is unaware of these issues. Despite the many African American feminists of the first and second wave, the women's rights movement has the stereotype in the eye of the public as being a white middle class issue. This is a problem for two reasons. First of all, just because some women have economic security, the opportunity for higher education and to work outside the home doesn't mean that they are equal to men in all ways. Secondly, just because many women today have these rights (mostly middle class women) doesn’t mean that all women have equal access to these things. Both of these facts are largely overlooked by women and men in our society.


Another reason why many people don't understand why all the fuss is about when it comes to women's rights is because many people don't know about the long and arduous fight that women went through to achieve suffrage in the first wave. It took 70 years of activism to achieve the right for women to vote. Until taking this class I had no idea how long women were fighting for this right, and how many people were involved in the struggle. I think that women today should know more about their history, then they might have more of an appreciation for the rights they have now and the rights they have yet to gain.


The one thing I don't have much respect for in regards to the women of the first wave is how some (though not all) of them were willing to abandon those they had been working with for the equal rights of all people at the first sign that others were going to get the right to vote and they weren't. I think they should have stuck by them and fought just as hard for other socially disadvantaged groups as they did for themselves. If they truly believed in equality, that would have been the way to go.

module 5

The circumstances that lead to the creation of The Minneapolis Pornography Ordinance involved a belief by people living in powderhorn park that the rise in the pornography industry in that neighborhood was hurting its value and charm. The Neighborhood Pornography Task force was formed to fight angst this encrouchment. Most of the materials for sale in the pornography book and video shops violated the standards for obcenity made by the supreme court. In 1973 Miller vs. CA defined obcenity with in the context of pornography as being obscene if it lacked any serious artistic or social value, protrayed sexual conduct in a blatantly offensive way and was considered obscene using contemporary community standards. The courts also created difficult procedures for taking civil or criminal action agnst pornographers to aviod too much censorship. Pornographers also had good lawyers, so people agnst pornography had trouble fighting it. They city tried to keep porn away from residential neighborhoods with zoning laws, but they were considered unconstitutional. The Neighborhood Task Force got together with MacKinnon and Dwokin who were professors at The University of Minnesota (Mackinnon of law and Dworkin of women's studies). They co-taught a class in the law school about pronography. The Neighborhood Task force encouraged them to testifyin front of the city's zoning and planning commette about how pronography affects the local community. A member of the city council liked their testimony and told them to write an anti-pornography ordinance for the city. They made this ordinace an additional section on the Civil Rights Ordinance, so it took a civil rights approach on pornography, and considered it an oppressive form ofpower that violates women's rights and encourages sexual violence.

MacKinnon and Dworkin are radical femminists. They see sexuality as a social construct and reject porn because they see it as a way men can institutionalize their power. They think that porn implies an inbalance of power and exploits women. Radical femminist believe that it is a women's rights to be safe from the harm of porn should take precedence over the first amendment. Liberal femminists on the other hand, don't like porn, but they see censorship as directly violating the first amendment. They are willing to tolerate porn to protect the first amendment.

Aside from radical femminists and the Neighborhood Task Force, the ordinace was also supported by conservatives. They however supported it because of moral reasons, while radical femminists supported it becasue they thought it degraded women and supported sexual violence which they see as political as well as moral reasons.

In addition to liberla femminists, it was opposed by other femminists that were afraid it would support government-enforced sexual repression. They feared the distinction between public ad private would be blurred. They saw sex as private and didn't want to support the government making laws about choices of sexual behavior. They also didn't want to support Dworkin and MacKinnon becasue they didn't share the view that hetrosexuality is anti-femminist. Members of the male gay community were agnst the ordinace because they thought it threatened sexual expression of gay men. They needed places where they could feel safe and where they could recognize eachother and the porn shop was one of those places. Lesbiens who were radical femminists however, did support it. Civil Libertarians including the MCLU were agnst the ordinance. Matt Stark, the director of the MCLU siad that he didn't like that the hearings were biased. The audience was unwilling to hear people who were agnst the ordinance. The pornography industry was obviously agnst the ordinace, but didn't worry about it too much becasue they felt if it was passed they would be able to get around it or it would be considered unconstitutional.
The Minnapolis political climate in the 1980s had a lot of progressives who were Democratic-Farmer-Laborers. The conservatives in Minnapolis were moderate republicans. Fraser, the mayor was a progressive politition who was a strong supporter of the first amendment. During the hearings, although conservatives on the committee were involved, conservatives in the community were shut out of the process by radical femminists. They didn't get very much notice about the hearings. The hearings mostly involved testimonies for the ordinance to get passed. Those that did testify agnst it were booed out of the hearing. The council voted quickly on the ordinance so it could be voted on before next term but, the Civil Rights Comission (who would be in charge of seeing cases about it if the ordinance passed) didn't have time to look it over carfully. The council also didn't have time to review the constitutionality of the ordinance. However the council passed it and it went to be signed or vetoed by the mayor. The mayor vetoed it becasue he felt it violated the first amendment of the constitution.

more on theory

I wanted to edit my last post, but I wasn't sure if that would change the date (making it late). I had trouble figuring out why I liked the theory I liked, but I thought about it some more and I think I can explain it better now. I think I like the socialist theory the best, because it believes that capitalism and patriarchy are responsible for the inequality of women. The reason I don't like the marxist theory is becasue I don't believe that capitalism is the only reason, and I disagree with the solution of having a revolution. Patriarchy needs to be included because before the industrail revolution, gender inequality still existed. The reason I think capitalism contributed to the inequality of women is that it creates inequality in the work place, and in the public sphere in general. The way the public sphere and private sphere are set up in our society creates inequality because the public sphere is more highly reguarded in our society and it is the place with all the power. Since we live in a patriarchail society, men get to be involved in the public sphere, and women anre involved in the less highly reguarded private one. There are some societies (I think there are some Native American examples) where women are involved in activities that are part of the public shpere such as making important political decisions. Capitalism makes it so that work is done outside the home for wages. Since work is done outside the home, if both women and men work, someone still has to take care of domestic work and caring for children. This creates a problem. Often the solution to the problem is that women do both, meaning that even when they do work oustide the home they are still at a disadvantage. One solution could be to have men do domestic work, but then they would be disadvantaged. If we lived in a subsistance economy (just as an example to compare agnst capitalism) both men and women would be working in the private shpere to survive and children would be with them so there wouldn't be the issue of who has to stay at home to take care of them. The work of men and women would have to be valued equally (for this type of economy to create equality). We would also have to understand that what's considered "women's" work and what's considered "men's" work is arbitrary. This would make people relize that the two sexes are equal and would also create more equality for lesbian couples. It would mean that two women can function just as well as a woman and a man can. It would also be more advantagous to single mothers becasue they would know that they don't need a man to survive, they can do the same jobs he can. They might need help from friends and family but not becasue they are a women, just becasue there is only one of them trying to raise a family. A single father would have the same disadvantage.
Another part of the public sphere that women has less power in is politics. The patriarchial nature of our society has left women out of politics for most of our history, because it was believed that women were inferior and unfit to be involved in important decision making. I believe that capitalism has reinforced that motion, becasue in a capitalist society, the ones who have all the power are the owners of production. Although today there are women CEO's and executives, the majority of them are men. Even with the same education oppritunities, there are women business majors, but far more of them are men. Ofcourse, changing the gender norms that girls are raised with would probably create more women business majors. However, I think that if the aqusition of profit wasn't the most important thing in our society, it would make equality of gender and class more likely. There is also the fact that since men were the ones with all the power during the industrail revolution, they are the ones who made all the big decisions that shaped our economy. If we created a new kind of economy, or atleast a new way of operating the one we have, and women are involved in the process this time, perhaps it wouldn't result in so much inequality. This would require a revolution, which I already said I'm not sure is such a good idea so I guess I'm back at square one. That's why I don't really know what the solution is. Maybe by if we keep studying the problem, we'll be albe to come up with one.

module 4

I also had no idea how many differend forms of femminism ther are. I can identify with many differend types and I feel conflicted about the on I like best. Some types of femminism I can relate to is either marxist feminism or socialist feminism. I don't agree with all parts of these models, but I do think that capitalism is a big cause of issues for women today. Although before the industrail revolution women were clearly opressed, many of our issues today have to do with trying to find a place in the capitalist job market and also trying to take care of work needed to be done at home. Gender roles need to change so that men and woemn do equal work in the home. However I also think that the nature of jobs need to change to accomidate women being in the public sphere.

module 3

In our lecture for module 3, we were asked to make a list of words to designate men and women. I noticed that for many of the words I could come up with for women, there was a corresponding word for men that had a similarly negative or posative connotation. For example, bitch and asshole, jock and sporty ect. However I noticed that even though there may be a similar word for men and women, such as slut and man whore, and they both have a negative connotation, it is still more acceptable for a man to be a man whore than for a woman to be a slut. In a similar way, although it is negative for a man to be an asshole, it is still more acceptable for him to be so than for a woman to be a bitch. Men who are assholes are usually considered funny or assertive where as women who are bitches are annoying or crazy. This is an example of how language describing gender difference can create privledge.

I would also like to comment on the child x article. I work with young children and this article made me realize how differently male and female children are treated. I teach gymnastics and pre-k sports classes, and I have noticed that teachers consider the boys to be more violent and hyper. They get yelled at more for hitting pushing ect and for not listening. At first I thought this was because they really did act this way naturally. However, girls do hit and push sometimes (although not as much) too. The teachers tend to look the other way more often when they do so, or tell them in a soft kind voice that they shouldn't do that, instead of punishing them. The instructors have the notion that if a girl hits someone they must have done something really mean to them, but if a boy hits it's just becasue he's wild. The article also made me wonder if the girls hit less becasue at home their parents tell them that little girls don't hit and if boys hit more becasue at home their parents consider it normal for them to hit. I have also noticed at work that there are almost never boys in the dance and cheerleading classes. In fact when parents come in to see what we offer, the person at the desk doesn't even mention these classes if their child is a boy. There was however, a boy in the dance class one session. He loved both the tap and ballet part of the class. He was always very excited when he got to class and you could tell he was having a great time. He was also really good at learning and remembering the skills, in fact, he was one of the most talented kids I have seen in that class. He didn't seem to mind that he was the only boy in the class. I remember wondering what his parents must have done to raise him to be so comfortable with being in a "girls" class. Looking back, they probably did many of the same things as the parents of child X (although not as extreme). They probably gave him toys that could be for boys and girls and let him play with whatever he wanted, whether it be a doll or a football. I think it's great that he was able to do whatever he wanted reguardless of whether it had traditionally been considered for girls becasue he may grow up to be a very talented dancer. He might have never known what a gift he had for dancing if his parents had kept him to activities that are "for boys."

module 2

Until I began taking this class I was torn about whether or not I considered myself a femminist. Listening to the first lecture and reading the articles has cleared up a lot of things that have troubled me with women's issues. I have always considered it a given that I am equal to men and that all other women are as well. I never questioned the fact that I would be able to go to college. I always assumed that i would be respected and earn as much money as men that I work with at the jobs I have now and in the future. It was brought up in the lecture that some people think "we're already liberated." However I am glad that I have been reminded that there is still a struggle. I have learned in sociology classes, and been reminded in this class that there are still problems for women. Poverty was beifly mentioned in the lecture and it made me remember the many problems relating to women and poverty i have learned about in sociology and in relation to global issues (issues about such as problems for single mothers who must work and care for their children, some of which have a hard time finding jobs becasue they have been out of the work force for a while) . Another issue I was reminded of is that many women today have full time jobs, as do their husbands. However when they come home at the end of the day they are the ones stuck doing all the house work. I tend to forget about this problem becasue in my house my mom works part time, my dad works full time. However, my dad still makes dinner and does the dishes when he comes home at night, and my mom does other household chores. I have seen in other households, and read that this is not the case in many families.

I mentioned this in one of my discussion comments but I'll mention it again. I think that for women to be equal to men, the system needs to change instead of women trying to change. I guess that was an issue I had with femminism, becasue I only knew about the sterotype of femminism. I thought that women were trying to be more like men and that they were trying to change to fit into a system created for and by men. (which I've always thought was a bad way to go about things. What's wrong with women? Why not be femmine?) Although we haven't gone into detail on this concept I get the picture from the sterotypes that our lecture and readings tried to clear up that I had the wrong idea about femminism. I now know that femminists consider it important for men to understand the privledge they have and to try to find ways of gaining equality by recognizing society for how it is. This could be a good chanel for evaulating things like the work place, and seeing how they are set up to advantage men and disadvantage women. One example I've heard about is that some companies have what' s called flex hours so that an employee must work 40 hours a week, but those 40 hours can be whenever they want, and they can also make up hours later. So for exmaple if someone needs to stay home sick with their child, or leave early on Mondays to pick them up from school (in fairfax county elm school gets out early on Monday) then that's no problem.

Another issue I had with femminism that has been cleared up is the issue of choice (and no i'm not talking about pro-life vs pro choice, that's another issue). I have seen some people who may have been misguided femminists look down on women who choose to be stay at home moms (also on women who wear a lot of make-up, wear heels like in one of our articles, you name it). Especially on well educated women who choose to do so. I personally believe that it is just as honorable to be a full time mom as it is to be a full time mom and a full time career woman (and yes they are both still pretty much full time even if your child is in daycare). Some people don't like day care for whatever reason, and that's ok. I think that it's wonderful that we have a choice what we want to do with our lives. I think that was the point of the femminist movement, to give us choise so that we don't HAVE to do anything. Hearing in the lecture and reading that femminism doesn't look down on motherhood and that it strives to make it better made me realize that maybe some people who I've talked to that claimed to be femminists didn't fully understand the purpose of the movement. I now realize that femminism could actually even help draw attention to women's issues that have to do with raising children, pregnancy, and child birth. I don't think many people think of these things when they think of femminism.