GenderStudiesAndSociety @genderstudiesandsociety - Tumblr Blog

Response to Gay New York

I think this article depicts a different light on the gay world and the tolerance of the gay community in NYC at one point. Back in the 1890's gay and straight men were less divided and often hung around the same neighborhoods, not because of lack of patronage or spacing issues, but because it was more at ease between the two groups. New York itself was more tolerant and acceptant and the gay community was more comfortable and open. The Bowery itself was an interesting spectacle at this time because it was an openly gay neighborhood surrounded by straight neighborhoods. Thus, often both groups intermingled and came in contact with one another regardless of sexuality or sexual interests. The Bowery provided support to gay men ostracized from their social groups and aided them in escape from the judgements of their harsh contemporaries. Additionally, some straight men just like the bars and the scene in the Oiwer East Side at the time. I think the Bowery is a perfect model of the change in NY tolerance of sexuality and differences. Comparing the Bowery from this article to the current one further underscores this analysis and makes the title, Gay New York, both clearer and more ironic.

Gay Men Of Color and Questioning the Terms

I had no idea that the term homosexuality was coined by a writer and not a doctor, but somehow I'm not entirely surprised. I think this reflects our desire to continually categorize things and people. Additionally, the further categorization of the categorization I think continues to underscore this belief. Additionally, this categorization is full of fallacy because as noted, "homosexual" and "heterosexual" groups, identities, and even experiences that are time specific and likely to change historically. This I find is another good point I had yet to consider, but am now aware of because of the Katz article, Questioning the Terms. Moreover, the Han article, Gay Men of Color, discusses another phenomenon. For me this article was most similarly relatable to This Bridge Called my Back, in the sense that both articles discuss what it's like to be a minority within a minority. To be colored and gay, and to experiences both marginalization form mainstream society (being homosexual) and from the subculture within the society (racism in the gay community).

Transgendering

Transgender in the westernized setting is an interesting one. There are other transgender-esk titles in different cultures except they are worshiped and not marginalized. In both the Native American culture and the Indian culture transgenders are looked at as spiritual leaders in the community. In regards to the article, I agree that our westernized approach to transgenders stems from our deep rooted religious affiliation (as a culture). Transgender is an interesting topic because it challenges the rigid gender system we have placed upon our culture. Additionally, there are many subcategories to the category of transgender. Many authors have different explanations, understandings, and meanings associated with the term. An interesting example of that in the article, was regarding the transgendered community of the 1990's. This group gave a new meaning to transgenderd, by treating "trans" literally as transition- meaning beyond or through. Similarly, this also is reflected in the film Paris is Burning.

#gender #genderstudies

Wannabes Goths and Christians

I think this article offers an interesting insight on how sexual choices can be used as either a gain of acceptance amongst others. The unity Christians, though technically not being accepted for their lack of exhibiting their hegemonic masculinity have found a resourceful out. Through their opting not to date and withhold emotional and physical relations, they have found a less burdensome out for not being accepted and or desirable. They have set their own guidelines and expectations and deviated from the norm of an American Youth.

Household Labor and The Routine Production of Labor Response

Coltrane makes a lot of interesting points in her study. Marriage is indeed one of the least scripted or most undefined interaction situations, and the marital conversation is particularly important to a couple's shared sense of reality. There is no exact script to marriage and no particular guidelines to follow, however, patterns can be seen as to what gender should do what chores. In her study, though she chose a lot more "modern thinkers" (in the sense that they shared a conscious belief in dividing household chores and child care), the study still reflected a lot of gender in regards to who does what task. With the exception of some couples dividing straight down the middle, general everyday house tasks were still done by the woman. And additionally, more praise was given to the father when he did more "motherly" tasks. I think this observation is particularly interesting as well. Fathers who did more around the house were more praised and admired than mothers. Some mothers were even seen praising their husbands for tasks and more noticeably, outside families more familiar with the traditional ways of parenthood deemed the men as extraordinary, and the women as 'lucky' to have them. Whereas, the men were never told how 'lucky' they were to have a wife so involved in child care and home chores. However, conclusively, I think dual responsibilities between the parents allowed for both participants to be more emotionally and physically connected to their children. The study shows that this generally occurs between well educated couples, who decided to wait until their late twenties to conceive. Though more difficult in the sense that it deviates from the norm as well as how they were raised as children, I think the attempt of the exclusion of gender in household tasks creates a better home life.

#genderstudies #gender #genderdivision

Domesticating Masculinity and Masculinizing Domesticity in Contemporary U.S. Fatherhood Politics Response

The article basically describes the male movement: Fatherhood Responsibility Movement (FRM) and what the group stands for. Though some fatherhood movements are very anti feminist, this one deviates from that stereotype. The movement overall seems like a it would be a good thing for our culture. Basically opting for fathers to have a more active role in their children's lives and changing the stereotype that domesticity is a feminine quality. Promoting that domesticity and caregiving doesn't have to be gender biased or looked on a less masculine for that matter as well.The article also mentions that in the 17th and 18th century fathers were actually the prime care takers of children and gave both a majority of the physical and moral support the children needed. Moreover, I think the movement would not only help feminism but also our society as well. It will challenge the norms we've created and help fuel equality among the sexes, both in home life and in professional life.

#gender #genderstudies

"Dude don't be a faggot"

Though gender studies does focus a lot on femininity and the injustices directed toward the structural system regarding gender issues, masculinity is also a key factor that are sometimes overlooked. Not only are the factors directed and imposed by men, but also by women as well. A lot of this "training to become a man" has been conditioned in us since childhood. In the recent article, this can be observed in the high school setting, by both males and females. From the very start of the article Pascoe makes some very interesting observations. "The relationship between adolescent masculinity and sexuality is embedded in the specter of the faggot. Faggots represent a penetrated masculinity in which 'to be penetrated is to abdicate power'.Penetrated men symbolize a masculinity devoid of power, which, in its contradiction, threatens both psychic and social chaos. It is precisely this specter of penetrated masculinity that functions as a regulatory mechanism of gender for contemporary American adolescent boys." Calling another male who does not identify as gay, a faggot- is a way teenage boys self patrol through these gender guidelines. Through derisive laughter and a joking nature they evade awkwardness, uncomfortablity, and even stress- and perhaps that's why faggot is so embedded in their lexicon. Whereas females rarely ever get insulted through their sexual preferences. Another reason I liked this article a lot is because it also discusses race as well as gender. "The fag discourse is radicalized. It is invoked differently by and in relation to white boys' bodies than it is by and in relation to African American boys' bodies. While certain behaviors put all boys at risk for becoming temporarily a fag, some behaviors can be enacted by African American boys without putting them at risk of receiving the label." I like that the researcher has incorporated all these various factors into her study.

alexander-jade

This is so liberating, whenever I feel bad about myself and how I don’t “fit” I should look at this.

jjcunygender

Break your box! There is no box!

Act Like A Man Box

I think this article is one of my favorite of the readings. I've read this for a previous class and what I like most about it is that it distributes the blame. Often in gender related classes my male colleges feel attacked as a gender in one way or another and I think this differing perspective is refreshing. Rather, instead of saying this is a "male issue", it becomes this is a "societal issue". The act like a man box isn't a box we're physically constricted in or even one that boys are directly told to obey, but instead is a box they are bullied into. From childhood to adulthood, it establishes the guidelines of how to be a successful man- not by a step by step basis but more on what not to do. Why is it that as a man it is expected to be in total control all the time? Control over emotions, finances, feelings, physical control? As the article mentions- why do we expect them to be less human? We want them to be workers, enforcers, controllers, bosses, managers, offices- but why? And why do we insist on being emotionally these exact clones in order to succeed in these areas? Moreover, it is not just male on male abuse, but it's also enforced through women. From both parties boys are shunned and ostracized if they venture too far from the guidelines. Even as babies, we've heard before that you don't want to show too much affection to a boy because we need to prepare him for the real world. Whatever that world is.

#genderstudies #gender #genderissues #actlikeamanbox

The Bridge

I think this article is particularly interesting because its from an entirely new perspective than our previous readings. This article, and subsequently, this book is from the perspective of not the middle class white feminists that we've previously analyzed, but rather from feminists of color and different economic standings. Though I didn't find the exert long enough to fully divulge what the book was entirely about and major concepts of it, I did find select paragraphs that gave me a good idea. The main goal of the book was to, "express to all women - especially to white middle-class women- the experiences which divide us as feminists;we want to examine examine incidents and experiences of intolerance, prejudice and denial of differences within the feminist movement. We intend to explore the causes and sources of, and solutions to these divisions. We want to create a definition that expands what " feminist" means to us." Additionally, I think the book brings the term feminists into a cross culturally aware perspective. Stating that, "each woman considers herself a feminist, but draws her feminism from the culture in which she grew." Upon analysis, this is a completely true statement and further underscores how gender is socially constructed and how it can indeed vary. Just as so, the perspective of the white feminists can vary from the black feminist, or how the rich feminist can vary from the poor feminists.

The Problem That Has No Name

How do we address a problem we can not name? We can not come up with any real solutions for? We can barely understand? The article discusses the distraught women felt nationally in the 1950's and thereafter despite reclaiming all their rights of equality. Though women could now vote, and obtain equal educational opportunities, and work in the same field as a man- many women opted to become the suburban housewife. They were enculturated to believe that if indeed they wanted those things, they were less feminine, jeopardizing their future marriage arrangements, they were an outcast. Instead she was taught to be content with having a family and a husband and food on the table and a nice house of her own. Her husband would worry about the finances and politics and she could be freed the burden of science and evils in the world. And yet, we find that during the time period more women had become depressed, discontent, and feeling empty. Having no true identity of self because she was either defined by her husband, her children, or her home. There was no name for it, people barely discussed it. And when it was recognized- the solutions were laughable. Most just shrugged off the situation and accepted that to be a woman in American society is to suffer. Personally, I think the "problem that has no name" can be dubbed- purposelessness. All these American housewives, have lived under the idea that if they obtain this house or this man or this many children she will be complete. But, as we see in the article- most of these women feel discontent with their lives because there is no purpose to them. It's the same humdrum routine on a daily basis, none of which consisting what she actually wants to do. Her world revolves around others worlds and others needs. The problem, is recognizing that its okay to want more than a husband and children and to still be a woman.

The Second Sex, Woman as the Other

What exactly is a woman? Is it her femininity? Her physical features? Her biological anatomy? And does her anatomy “imprison her”? I think that concept in its own is an interesting one. That you are an imprisonment of what you have. Not things that your have acquired but things you’ve came into the world with. And even if you have changed your anatomy (in terms of sex) you are, in a way, still imprisoned by your past sex. Is a woman’s body seen as a type of prison? Weighed down by the peculiarness of it? And what is a womans body without a mans in juxtaposition of it? Traces of these thoughts are seen in the modern world but have also stemmed from past institutions weather they be governmental or religious. Look at the story of Adam and Eve. Eve was created only because of Adam- therefore, her own sex isn’t necessarily one of its own- just something stemmed from man. Is this thought process one applied for all instances between man and woman?

The Egg and The Sperm

In all honestly, I've never considered this possibility before reading this article. That perhaps "there is a possibility that culture does indeed shape how biological scientists describe what they discover about the natural world." I never considered stereotypes to still be applied to our scientific standings. Additionally I feel like its not talked about that much. In comparison to racism, we're all well aware of the stereotypes in medicine (an example being the Tuskegee Trials) but I feel like when it comes to the stereotypes in medicine relating to gender, the issues are kind of swept under the rug (as like how you mentioned about insurances covering more Viagra than contraceptions). It is interesting how science describes and looks upon the female cycle as a waste, and glorifies the male cycle. Additionally, the words used to describe both the male and female cycles in scientific books are exponentially different underscoring the inequality between the sexes. Overall, I think the different definitions and paintings pictured for each gender amplify the kind of stereotypes we already have in society. How women (and their cycles) are idle or treacherous, and how men are active and heroic.

The Five Sexes

How would our culture be if there were five accepted sexes? I've read articles from previous classes exploring these ideas, the biology of the sexes, and the politics involved in recognizing only two of the five, and I still don't quite have an answer. I think, as Faustosterling remarked, a lot of this "dedication to only two categories of sexes" has a lot to do with Western cultures idea of discussing sexuality as taboo, the cultural need to maintain clear distinctions, and in a way a mode of disciple. Michel Foucault makes some interesting points in some of his writings, discussing biopower and biopolitics. Biopower, as defined in the article, as "the practice of modern nation states and their regulation of their subjects through an explosion of numerous and diverse techniques for achieving the subjugations of bodies and the control of populations". Whereas biopolitics is defined as: "being derived from the notion of biopower, and the extension of state power over both the physical and political bodies of a population." Examples given were, "ratio of births to deaths, the rate of reproduction, the fertility of a population, and I would include issues of medical management over intersexuality as well. Could an intrusive surgery be an issue of human rights? Or is that sparing someone from the difficulties of fitting in? Perhaps if our society was more open to different gender roles our solutions wouldn't be so narrow. Other cultures recognize more than two sexes. The Native American culture has The Two-Spirit, which is a third gender role in the community and seen as a healer and keeper of traditions, rather than someone who is ostracized from the group (as like Western culture). Could Western culture be accepting of this as well?

Gender Stereotyping in the English Language

I think this article was the most interesting yet, only because it acknowledges something so common placed that, as a society we just accept rather than question. Language in general, is something we're taught from a younger age through exposure, repetition, and memorization. However, we are never taught to question it or reinvent it. As Richardson mentions in his article, language reflects the dominant culture, and as this article describes, particularly we can see how this reflects in gender. Richardson describes, that though the English language has not been entirely analyzed there is a theory describing six "general propositions concerning these attitudes and feelings about men and women". I'll spare us all from reiterating the complete article, but I will mention the proposition I found most interesting. "Men are defined by their relations to the world at large, whereas, women are defined by their relations to men." It's interesting how the terms mister and mistress have evolved over time. Mister, stagnant in its definition of "power over something", continues to reflects the cultures social interests. Whereas, mistress has evolved from holding the same meaning as mister, to a sexualized redefinition of it; that being, sexual power over a man. How and when did this occur? And how do we reclaim the title of power holder, rather than unwed sexual partner to a man?

#gender #genderstudies

The Feminist Theory

I think the most interesting part of this article was the section dealing with the Feminist theory and language and how language directly corresponds with the persistence in the gender inequality not only in our culture but in most. Language is something so easily taken advantage of because its so easy not to question it. Appropriately, Betty Friedan in an article for “the Feminist Mystic” called it ” The Problem That Has No Name” because most do not give language, and how it deals with gender roles, a second thought. But really, as authors Miller and Swift have suggested “the words we use daily reflect our cultural understandings and at the same time transmit through the next generation to an agency that subverts the cultures needs.” In an effort to combat this, feminist theorists have been reclaiming and reinventing our everyday language. From challenging job titles (mailman, stewardess) to redefining derogatory words like bitch- language is slowly being redefined. Lastly, an interesting point made in the article was a questions Virginia Wolfe posed decades before, ” is there a female sentence, and is language distinctly marked by gender?”

jjcunygender

There’s a long history of study into the relationship between body language, gender, and power. This is an interesting article about that history, and an addition to our knowledge.

Psychologist Andy Yap and his colleagues tested whether “expansive body postures” like the ones associated with masculinity increase people’s sense of powerfulness and entitlement. They did. In laboratory experiments, people who were prompted to take up more space were more likely to steal, cheat, and violate traffic laws in a simulation. A sense of powerfulness, reported by the subjects, mediated the effect (a robust finding that others have documented as well).

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

GenderStudiesAndSociety