NEU Intro to Women's, Gender, & Sexuality Studies

The community of Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at Northeastern University invite you to join us as we explore feminist issues.

[addisonla]

@ straight girls: are u sure

[freshprincesubs]

[bitchimbry]

me coming home from college for thanksgiving after my intro to women’s studies course + being introduced to womanism

[neuwgss]

im not in this class anymore but i thought this was funny 

[neuwgss]

One in 2000

In this documentary, they say “today in the United States, five babies per day are operated on to change the appearance of their genitals”. The key word in this is the word ‘babies’. The parents and doctors have no ability to communicate with these babies to see what he or she really wants. The parents are picking the babies’ bodies for the babies. The problem with this is that as the child grows up the parents pretend like the surgery as a baby never happened, thus if the child feels out of place they may blame themselves and try to fit in as their parents tell them to even though it just doesn’t fit who he or she really is. The child may feel different on the inside vs what is shown on the outside, yet their parents picked to do the surgery when the child was a baby and choose that baby’s body without the actual consent or feelings of that child. The video even says that “there is no medical evidence that these surgeries are beneficial to the child”. Hida in the video feels very happy that she did not have the surgery as the child because it gave her the chance to explore her sexuality. So my question is what is the best way for a parent to go about things when they first have a baby that is intersex? Should they allow doctors to do surgery on the babies or not? Is it right for the mother in this video with the new baby to be giving her hormone shots?

[neuwgss]

In my opinion, the best way for parents to respond to the news that their child is intersex is to find a reputable doctor who will be candid and kind about the situation, who will not advocate for genital surgery, but will give information about all the possible options for an intersex child so that they grow safely. 

In my opinion, performing a painful, nonconsensual, nonessential surgery on a baby is wrong. It should be up to the child later if they wish to have a surgery at all. Assigning sex, and with that, societal ideas of gender, at birth is wrong, and can have emotional, physical, and psychological ramifications for the child long after childhood. 

The mother in the video is making what she thinks is the best decision for her child. In the video, it was unclear if the hormone shots were to ensure that the child matures appropriately, or if it was because the mother wanted to ensure she matured as what is societally known as a “girl”. If it is for the child’s safety, I could consider it to be acceptable. Like vaccinations - they are necessary for a child’s safety and while they are painful and cause momentary suffering, they are for the child’s own good. 

I read a book called Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides this summer. Eugenides is intersex, and grew up the child of Greek-American immigrants in Michigan. the book details his family history, his childhood, and while embellished to make more enjoyable, it closely describes his struggles with gender and his status as intersex. It was a compelling read, and his story taught me a lot. I fully recommend it.

[neuwgss]

One in 2000 was a very interesting watch, I learned a whole lot about what it means to be intersex and the various problems and difficult decisions an intersex person and those around them may face. This video really sunk in what we had learned in class about sex and gender and what happens when a person lies outside of what is perceived as normal. The largest implication with a person who is born as intersex is what happens to their body when they are a baby. It seems like cosmetic surgeries on intersex babies which provide no medical benefit are a serious problem in the intersex community. There is a lot of issues with informed consent in this case, where the intersex baby being operated on is not old enough to be able to make any decisions or have any input at all. The doctors are not well informed enough about what intersex means or are willfully doing these surgeries knowing that they’re not medically necessary but have preconceived notions about what a human should look like and want the baby to conform to this notion. Then the parents are often not well informed enough to make a decision, or also have the same desire to have these surgeries performed because of these preconceived notions. The overwhelming issue seems to be a lack of knowledge about intersex people in general, the problems that they face, and how harmful some decisions/surgeries can be on a person.

The most important question then is: How should one treat a baby who has been born intersex? The best organization to look to for an answer to this question is the Intersex Society of North America. (See http://www.isna.org/faq/patient-centered) On their website is a list of frequently asked questions, starting with the basics of what is intersex, what causes someone to be intersex and how common intersex is. Each question in their FAQ is thoughtfully answered and well sourced.

An interesting side note is their answer to the question “how common is intersex?”, as the answer to this question is where the “one in 2000” title came from. Their answer starts by stating that this answer depends on having a clear definition of what counts as intersex, which is difficult to do. This is because sex is a spectrum, and deciding where male ends and intersex begins and intersex ends and female begins is difficult to do. The number that they provided by asking experts at medical centers “how often a child is born so noticeably atypical in terms of genitalia that a specialist in sex differentiation is called in” and this comes out to be about 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 births. Thus, the title of the documentary is taking the conservative of the estimate.

Coming back to what the Intersex Society of North America has to say when it comes to recommendations for intersex children in their FAQ. Their answer is structured with many bullet points, the first by stating that children with intersex, adults with intersex and the parents and others involved should be treated in a shame-free, supportive and honest way. This involves being truthful and providing medical records as soon and as often as asked. They also advocate the provision of trained psychologists and social workers as well as the ability to meet other intersex people to give peer support.  A particularly interesting and important part to their answer to the question is that newborns with intersex should be given a gender assignment – boy or girl. This assignment depends on which gender the child is most likely to feel as they grow up. It’s stressed that this assignment does not involve normalizing surgeries. “Genital “normalizing” surgery does not create or cement a gender identity; it just takes tissue away that they patient may want later.” They absolutely advocate medical procedures and medications necessary to sustain physical health of the child, and are particularly adamant that they do not recommend “doing nothing”.

Overall, I feel this answer from their website is a very well thought out approach to how to treat a newborn who is intersex. Only procedures which are necessary for medical health should be performed – normalizing procedures are not okay. Assigning a person a gender at birth is also something that they advocate, as assigning a child as a “third gender” is overall detrimental to the child. This is to avoid giving the child a stigma and also the problem with defining what “third gender” is, due to sex being a spectrum.

[neuwgss]

The Egg and the Sperm

In this reading, Emily Martin makes a very important point: she demonstrates how easily personal bias can hide in the wording of scientific papers by analyzing medical literature on the most basic parts of sexual reproduction: the egg and the sperm.

Beginning her article, Martin points out that in the textbook Medical Physiology, the egg’s movements are described as passive while the sperm is active. I realized this wasn’t just because of biology - the egg “drifts” and “is carried,” she quotes.. She points out much more “active” or “aggressive” words used to describe sperm - they have velocity, energy requirements, movement. I am reminded of our previous reading - the male Western anthropologists could not understand the Native American cross-gender individuals - and were especially lacking in understanding and describing the cross-gendered women. She references a study by Gerald Schatten and Helen Schatten who likened the event to a prince searching for sleeping beauty - a metaphor I found deeply sexist; an example of how opinions in an original source can shape facts. Martin then discusses some breakthrough research in the peculiarities of conception: at the molecular level, how much work each are the egg and sperm really doing?

She cites an example of biologists who discovered that the old notion of “the sperm must be strong enough to penetrate the giant egg” could be more described as “the sperm bridges out to, and is captured by the egg who must hold it so the sperm may access the nucleus.” I was shocked that even after discovering so much to show how the interaction is mutual, the researchers still chose to portray the sperm as “latching on”, and did not reflect the balance of work involved in the meeting. I find this strangely reflects the ideas we talked about during class: the relationship between the egg and sperm as we know it is more of a [gender] asymmetry, whereas the scientists who still put the sperm (for their ability to propel themselves, which was discovered to be weaker than previously though) first, in a [gender] hierarchy.

The article mostly left me wondering about other sources of science that we read and benefit from every day. How have those been written with bias? Is science about matters of gender and sexuality most affected? How subtle is this effect, to the point where it instills within us a bias that was not evident in the data? How does wording and connotation affect our opinions?

[neuwgss]

In this reading about “The Sperm and The EFF”, Emily Martin talks a lot about how scientific papers can insert a lot of biases into their findings through their wording. This bias manifests very strongly when it comes to typical explanations for the different roles that sperm and eggs play in the act of fertilization. I had a very similar reaction to the reading, with surprise about the extent of projection of gender roles and stereotypes onto both the sperm and the egg throughout the examples in the reading. It seems like even with evidence, the desire, whether conscious or not, to assert ideas about the gender roles onto other things. At the end of the day, sperm and eggs are just haploid cells, they do not think, feel or have any kind of mental capacity. Descriptions which anthropomorphize them run into the risk of adding bias and self-projection into descriptions about their functions or what they do or don’t do during the fertilization process. I think anthropomorphizing things and making things simpler than they really are absolutely part of human nature, as this is the way we try to make sense of the very complex world around us. Using gender roles to help do this simplifying is absolutely something which is very common generally, and is something scientific papers can be guilty of doing. So, to answer your question, yes, everything that we read including writings of a scientific nature has biases stemming from the culture which the writing is a part of. Seeing how gender is something which is so ingrained in our culture, there is a lot of bias in what we read.

 Another example of this bias due to the assertion of anthropomorphic gender roles onto other things in scientific research is with studying animal behavior with sexual conflict and sexual selection. The imposition of conventional sex roles onto animals by a researcher was studied in a journal article “Active males, reactive females: stereotypic sex roles in sexual conflict research?” in the journal Animal Behavior. This can be found through science direct: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347211000510 . This paper was also discussed in an article by Science Daily: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110318112022.htm . The crux of the research is based around the concept that researchers would assert their own perception of males and females with sexual conflict in animals. Sexual conflict is where the two sexes have conflicting strategies when it comes to the means and frequency of mating. The main concept here is that each individual animal is acting in its own interests, and sexual conflict can have a negative effect on the other partner. A quote from the Science Daily article which talks about this bias is as follows: “In the literature, the male is described more in terms of activities to promote his own interests, while the female is described in more passive terms, such as that her behavior is merely a reaction to that of the male. This is despite the fact that the behavior of both sexes has a negative impact on the other partner while promoting the partner's own interests.” What this is saying is that what we saw with the Egg and the Sperm is the same here that researchers use terms which make the males seem like the active participants while females are the passive ones. This is not true, and both play an active role in the sexual conflict involved. In a case of sexual conflict literature often implies that males are the offensive ones in the evolutionary arms race, and are said to be “the ones first acquiring an antagonistic adaptation, which females then react to.” [from the Animal Behavior article] This is a case where bias is being asserted, as “In true coevolution it is not possible to disentangle who acts first; the idea that males take the first step may thus be caused by a sex-stereotypic preconception.” This long paper is full of examples where this bias is seen in research about sexual conflict.

[neuwgss]

This White Feminist Loved Her Dreadlocks - Here’s Why She Cut Them Off

In this article, the author Annah Anti-Palindrome, writes about cultural appropriation and demonstrates how relevant it is in our society. She states that when she started wearing dreadlocks, she didn’t even consider how anyone except for patriarchal men could find it offensive. This is an interesting point because it shows how often times people can be appropriating culture without even realizing that they’re doing so. Therefore cultural appropriation is difficult to combat because it becomes so mainstream that those participating have no clue that it’s offensive and inappropriate.

This leads into Annah bringing up the differences between appropriation and appreciation. She says how when one appreciates something, they show respect and listen, rather than just exploiting it for their own gain. Often times, people don’t understand the difference between these two, so how do we educate people on how to show their appreciation for a culture without appropriating it? Browntourage magazine published an easy to understand illustrated guide for deciding if what one is wearing is appropriation. (http://interruptmag.com/article/appropriation-vs-appreciation). These guidelines include questions such as, “What culture does this style reference,” and “Why am I wearing it?” While these guidelines are really helpful, how do we go about teaching them to the general public? Is school the place to teach people about diversity and how to appropriately respect others cultures? Is mainstream media by the help of celebrities and popular magazines/television/websites the best route to take? Or is a cultural movement needed in order to insure everyone’s culture is shown respect? 

[neuwgss]

I think your proposed questions are interesting, because the last two places in which to teach respect for other cultures, I believe, would see a change if public schools taught from a very young age to respect cultures.  Of course, Annah’s situation is deeply intersectional (her initially growing out dreads in contrast to the “oppressive heteronormative femininity” that she was pressured to fit into, the central theme of cultural/racial appropriation, etc.), but if public schools instill at least some of the general concepts applying to these issues, there could be a cultural shift having implications on magazines, websites, television, etc.  Annah wrote that she didn’t know what cultural appropriation meant, and she needed her friends to recommend readings on the topic; if public schools drill home a base level of understanding of social issues, then someone like Annah may not have to look up a concept like cultural appropriation, because the words themselves may make the concept clear.  In short, I think that the cultural revolution you suggested would inevitably come from a reform in public schools’ approach to social issues.

[neuwgss]

Commodity Feminism

As a Marketing major and Women’s Studies minor, I found this reading to be particularly interesting because it highlights the intersections of both of these areas of study. I plan on going into advertising after graduation and I think that it is so important to keep a text like this in mind, especially if you are working in the industry. 

In this text, Goldman expands on the concept of “commodity feminism”, which is essentially the way that certain feminist principles and ideas are used and manipulated in advertising especially, which removes the political significance of these ideas and instead offers it to the public in a more commodified manner.

Something interesting to keep in mind while reading this article is that it was written in 1991 and that most observations are drawn from the 1980s. So much has changed in the last 25 years especially in the realm of advertising, however it’s also interesting to see how advertising can still so easily manipulate certain concepts and how important advertising still is in our world despite the time difference. For example, in the 1987 “Mademoiselle” September issue, Goldman states that there were “150 separate ads larger than one half-page”. Although this magazine’s final issue was in 2001, it can still be compared to a magazine like Vogue, whose 2015 September issue featured 615 ads (http://fashionista.com/2015/08/september-ad-pages-hand-count)! These advertisements not only propagate unrealistic beauty standards, but use very interesting techniques to increase consumer attention. For example, Goldman talks about the use of “YOU” in magazine cover pages and article titles, which shows that “magazines proclaim themselves as the voice of expertise, addressing us in both an imperative voice as well as that of an intimate friend engaging us in personal dialogue”.

How do we think that advertising will evolve in the next 25 years with the increasing importance of media but also the rise in conscience when it comes to people being able to identify the presence of commodity feminism?

[neuwgss]

I agree with you that those in the field of marketing should have a more complete understanding of how influential these ads can be especially in terms of influencing the feminist movement. Although I agree with your point about advertisements changing drastically since the 80s, I do believe that it is important to understand that although on face value these ads may seem more progressive, the same underlying objectification and suppression of women is still being pursued. In an article by Gail Dines titled Gender, Race, and Class in Media, she discusses how commodity feminism seeks “to appease women’s anger and to suggest that advertisers share their disgruntlement with images of thin women, airbrushed to perfection.” I think this quote is still applicable to advertisements today that send the message that women have to be skinny but not too skinny, healthy but not obsessive, fit but not too strong, etc. etc. and that advertisers and companies are profiting off products that seek to enhance or change a woman's appearance. Women are constantly being objectified, told how to look, eat, dress, and pushed to this unhealthy, unattainable end point that is generated though the male gaze. Personally, I see this issue in advertisements and pop culture all around us in my everyday life. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=kNu3KMA73nwC&oi=fnd&pg=PA255&dq=commodity+feminism&ots=3aESuLGfOW&sig=G6r-CWzcaYjSs0HnANhBFA69MWM#v=onepage&q=commodity%20feminism&f=false

[neuwgss]

Sexuality and Gender in Native American Tribes

The author discusses that in the Western tribes, there was no need to have gender inequalities because there were a wide range of tasks that were not gender specific (i.e. making canoes, food preparation, hunting), and therefore doing such tasks didn’t threaten the gender system (33). Having this type of system allowed women to assume the gender roles of a male, and it was acceptable. What if this type of society existed today? What kind of impact would our culture and what we know about gender roles have on this type of society? Would it survive? Would there be more cross-gender women/ men? 

[neuwgss]

I think if our society mirrored indigenous Western tribes our culture would not be what it is today. I perceive much of our culture based off of patriarchal ideals that steam from European expansion and colonization. If we were to live in a society that allowed for this type of acceptance I believe that gender roles would be less about labels and more about individuality. Personally I believe that creating labels comforts those who are ignorant or uncomfortable with divergence from the “norm.” I believe that we would be an extremely productive society as people could live freely and expressively without fear of societal backlash, therefore, there would be a larger visible LGBTQ community. Native Americans strive today to decolonize from Western culture in order to revert back to equal treatment of gender, class, sex, etc. This coincides with the distancing from mainstream white feminism. I think a quote that best summarizes this movement is from Lorelei Means. She states:

“We are American Indian women, in that order. We are oppressed first and foremost as American Indians, as peoples colonized by the United States of America, not as women. As Indians we can never forget that. Our survival, the survival of each and every one of us—man, women, child—as Indians depends on it. Decolonization is the agenda, the whole agenda, and until it is accomplished it is the only agenda that counts for American Indians. It will take every one of us – every single one of us—to get the job done. We haven’t got the time, energy or resources for anything else while our lands are being destroyed and our children are dying of avoidable disease and malnutrition. Se we tend to view those who come to us wanting to form alliances on the basis of new and different or broader or ore important issues to be a little less than friends, especially since most of them come from the Euroamerican population which benefits most directly from our ongoing colonization.”

[neuwgss]

I came across this video today, and I was strongly reminded of Shelia Watt-Cloutier’s speech on the Inuit “right to be cold” which we watched in class. Like Watt-Cloutier, this young man is an Indigenous person speaking out for climate justice, emphasizing how the negative effects of climate change disproportionately affect people of color, women, and children. Xiuhtezcatl is youth director of the Earth Guardian climate justice organization. At only 15 years old, he shows that one’s potential for making a difference through activism is not limited by one’s age. He calls on the leaders at the United Nations General Assembly to implement changes with urgency, as effects will be even more catastrophic if our impact on the environment continues to be left unchecked.

Something that also struck me was that this video is very recent, from June 29th of this year, while Watt-Cloutier’s speech was given back in 2006. The  points made in both videos were eerily similar, which shows how little progress we have made on the issue of climate change worldwide in the past decade.

[neuwgss]

One in 2000

In this documentary, they say “today in the United States, five babies per day are operated on to change the appearance of their genitals”. The key word in this is the word ‘babies’. The parents and doctors have no ability to communicate with these babies to see what he or she really wants. The parents are picking the babies’ bodies for the babies. The problem with this is that as the child grows up the parents pretend like the surgery as a baby never happened, thus if the child feels out of place they may blame themselves and try to fit in as their parents tell them to even though it just doesn’t fit who he or she really is. The child may feel different on the inside vs what is shown on the outside, yet their parents picked to do the surgery when the child was a baby and choose that baby’s body without the actual consent or feelings of that child. The video even says that “there is no medical evidence that these surgeries are beneficial to the child”. Hida in the video feels very happy that she did not have the surgery as the child because it gave her the chance to explore her sexuality. So my question is what is the best way for a parent to go about things when they first have a baby that is intersex? Should they allow doctors to do surgery on the babies or not? Is it right for the mother in this video with the new baby to be giving her hormone shots?

[neuwgss]

In my opinion, the best way for parents to respond to the news that their child is intersex is to find a reputable doctor who will be candid and kind about the situation, who will not advocate for genital surgery, but will give information about all the possible options for an intersex child so that they grow safely. 

In my opinion, performing a painful, nonconsensual, nonessential surgery on a baby is wrong. It should be up to the child later if they wish to have a surgery at all. Assigning sex, and with that, societal ideas of gender, at birth is wrong, and can have emotional, physical, and psychological ramifications for the child long after childhood. 

The mother in the video is making what she thinks is the best decision for her child. In the video, it was unclear if the hormone shots were to ensure that the child matures appropriately, or if it was because the mother wanted to ensure she matured as what is societally known as a “girl”. If it is for the child’s safety, I could consider it to be acceptable. Like vaccinations - they are necessary for a child’s safety and while they are painful and cause momentary suffering, they are for the child’s own good. 

I read a book called Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides this summer. Eugenides is intersex, and grew up the child of Greek-American immigrants in Michigan. the book details his family history, his childhood, and while embellished to make more enjoyable, it closely describes his struggles with gender and his status as intersex. It was a compelling read, and his story taught me a lot. I fully recommend it.

[neuwgss]

I agree with the above responder, I know that my first step would be to find a specialist. Many parents believe that it would be best to go through with an initial surgery, but they fail to realize the risk that they run into of effecting their child emotionally. They think that having the surgery as baby will allow them to lead a normal life, when in actually it may just confuse the child later. The child may grow up believing that they were born in the wrong body, because their parents chose their body for them. I’ve included an interesting article telling the story of a child who was born intersex and was operated on before going through the foster care system. The surgery caused more harm then good.

I believe that the mother in the video is doing what she believed to be best for her child, but I also think that she is misinformed. Had she had the proper tools/knew more about her child’s condition, she would have allowed her child to make this decision for themselves when they were old enough to do so.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/07/should-we-fix-intersex-children/373536/

[neuwgss]

I agree with the two above people, in that the first step to figuring out how to respond to having an intersex baby is to go to a specialist. This person’s role, to me, seems like it would provide a complete response as to what intersex really means, and then details about their individual baby’s circumstances. After parents receive a fulfilling amount of information, it makes sense to me that parents would have the ability to decide which direction to go. By all means, the doctor may give suggestions on what he or she thinks would be best, but parents are the ones who should decide how to actually act. 

This is a tough problem to just combat and for me to give a complete response as to whether doctors should be allowed to perform surgery on the baby. I have heard stories of parents not allowing surgery to be done on their child, and instead have their child decide how they identify as they grow up and move throughout life.

I think the biggest obstacle that would get in the way for children’s early lives if they do not have surgery performed on them would be how others perceive them. I understand that other kids may ask questions if they believe something is “different” among the intersex child if they see something they are not familiar with. Children are very curious. But in the end, I think childhood development is such a key part of someone’s life, that more times than not, people would be disappointed to find out they were “altered” or “fixed” when they were a baby, meaning they had surgery just because their anatomy was not defined within society’s female or male anatomy at birth. But really, who cares? If their deviances from the norms are not life threatening or causing health risks, why would it not make sense to let the child grow up as they genuinely want to?

Each person is an individual, and with that, deserve to live individual lives and make their own decisions on how they live their lives. As a newborn, babies can not make decisions. Parents should keep this in mind and allow their child to identify as they wish, realizing their child is their child and however they end up to be, they will love him or her with all their hearts regardless. 

Since that may have been a double-sided response, I will clarify and say that I believe first and foremost for parents to go visit a specialist, but after that use their judgement on how to act, keeping in mind how essential childhood development is and to keep a fair choice to not perform surgery (unless life threatening) to allow their kid to genuinely identify as themselves during their life. 

According to the Intersex Society of North America, “Surgeries done to make the genitals look “more normal” should not be performed until a child is mature enough to make an informed decision for herself or himself. Before the patient makes a decision, she or he should be introduced to patients who have and have not had the surgery. Once she or he is fully informed, she or he should be provided access to a patient-centered surgeon.”

This statement makes complete sense, because the child whose body may have surgery performed on should be the one to decide how he or she wishes his or her body to be. 

[neuwgss]

I think this is really heart-warming! Thinx makes underwear that you don’t need to use any other menstrual products with, and their slogan has been “For Women with Periods” since they started. They recently came out with a boyshort to be more inclusive of trans men and non-binary people with their periods, introducing it with this video and this link: http://www.shethinx.com/pages/people-with-periods

[neuwgss]

This is a documentary I couldn’t figure out how to fit into my article, but you all might like it! It follows a group of ‘aggressives,’ lesbians who live their lives as men and strive to be as masculine as possible. It reminds me of a more contemporary example of the Cross-Gender Female article. It’s not perfect, but I think it’s an interesting parallel.

[neuwgss]

Fighting Bodies, Fighting Words: A Theory and Politics of Rape Prevention

In this article, the author Sharon Marcus tries to stray from discussing the actual rape event but rather on to understand rape as a language. This is so that we can stop seeing women as raped or future targets of rape but rather focus on preventing it. She then highlights the ways in which the legislative system doesn’t help the situation as much as it should. By proving someone guilty of rape doesn’t change the fact that someone was raped in the first place. And even when this incident is taken to court, not always do the victims get the justice they deserve. In fact, the legal systems work in favor of white males and against inferior genders and races. Men of color often get convicted of rape the most, especially when against a white woman but all women regardless of race, often have great difficulty proving a white man to be a rapist. This only adds to the idea of white male supremacy and reminded me of the ways in which legal systems don’t work in favor of minority groups suggested in the article we read, “Law Enforcement Violence Against Women of Color”. However, one thing I noticed was the fact that she didn’t mention once that men are victims of rape and they too can be neglected by the law. According to NCLR, nearly ½ of bisexual men and 2/5 of homosexual men have experienced rape and due to their oppression, they too don’t get the justice they deserve. 

Throughout the article, Marcus tries to portray rape as a linguistic fact, highlighting a variation of points that I hadn’t thought of prior to reading this. One point that stood out to me was when she said that the language of rape makes women seem fearful and vulnerable, acting as an invitation for men to use them for sexual purposes. She then continues to say that rape is a tool for enforcing misogynistic inequality which I was a great point that I hadn’t given much thought to. Another interesting matter I thought she brought up is the ways in which our reproductive organs play a role in our inferiority. On page 398 she says, “The entire female body comes to be symbolized by the vagina, itself conceived of as a delicate, perhaps inevitably damaged and pained inner space.” I find this strange considering how strong the vagina actually is. In fact, there is a rare event that can happen during sex called Penis Captivus which allows the muscle of the vagina to clamp down on the penis making it impossible for the penis to come out. Other than the fact that a vagina is able to stretch 10 cm in diameter during labor, this is just another way that proves how strong it is. However, male sexual organs are seen as superior as suggested by the portion when she says police manuals fail to mention male genitals as weak points on a rapists’ body. This then leads me to my first question: Why is it that the vagina is seen as delicate and the penis isn’t?

My last question is concerning the techniques suggested by the author to prevent rape. Throughout this article, she presents different ways in which women can prevent rape. She suggests things like proving to be fearless and speaking up when in situations instead of showing how scared we may really be. She also makes suggestions for the ways in which the law can help prevent these occurrences through enforcement of stricter laws and penalties. However, she doesn’t give any ways in which men themselves can work to making this situation lessen. She even says, “We will be waiting a very long time if we wait for men to decide not to rape”(page 400). To what extent do you agree with this statement? Do you think there are any ways in which we can directly prevent those who have the urge to rape rather than targeting the victims?

[neuwgss]

It is true that it will be a long time before rape becomes less of an accepted part of our culture, but there are definitely ways to speed up this process by encouraging men not to rape. One thing that the article did not adequately address in my opinion was the fact that most rapes take place between people who already knew each other. I think even the article portrayed rape as a violent assault between two strangers, to some extent. In general, it is easy for people to see how violent assault cases are wrong, and a lot of the time there is physical evidence to prove what happened. However, it is usually more difficult for people to see cases where the people knew each other as rape. The first step in diminishing rape culture is to accept a definition of rape as simply non-consensual sex.

            Currently only a quarter to a third of women whose sexual assaults met the legal definition of rape consider themselves rape victims. The fact that date rape is not seen as rape upholds the patriarchy because male dominance in relationships is accepted. If we inform both men and women that rape spans a broader spectrum, we can start to end the amount of victim blaming that occurs today. Right now women are expected to prevent themselves from being raped, but if we form a society where men do not control relationships then we can flip this. It is not very difficult to simply educate people that you must hear enthusiastic consent from both parties for sex not to be considered rape.

           There is also an idea of what a credible survivor of rape looks like. If the victim was unable to fight back and submitted, then it is seen as if they wanted the sex because they did not do anything to stop it. 84% of male students who had committed acts that met the legal definition of rape said what they had done was not rape. If we changed the expectation that it is not rape if the victim does not fight back, and instead accepted the ‘yes means yes’ idea, then everyone would have a working definition of rape and there would not be such a large gap between what rapists consider rape and what the law considers rape. We would be more inclined to trust the survivor if everyone knew the definition of rape.

           This seams like such a simple suggestion, but we see astonishing statistics like the fact that 25% of men believe that rape is acceptable if: the women asks the man out; if the man pays for the date, or the woman goes back to the man’s room after the date. There is just a basic acceptance of the patriarchy, and therefore rape culture.

           On the topic of LGBTQ+ rape cases, I think a lot of the time they are left out of the picture because attacking rape between a man and a woman is already such an immense problem, and people think there is no time to fight for those who are oppressed in multiple ways. This can be connected to the intersectionality of racism, sexism, classism, etc. and the media’s assumption that only one problem can be tackled at a time.

To truly tackle the rape culture in our country, we would have so somehow overthrow the patriarchy, which is not going to happen anytime soon. But instead of waiting for men to stop raping, we should give our society an understanding of why rapes occur and tell them that rape is a much broader term then they might think.

Some chilling statistics: https://www.k-state.edu/media/webzine/Didyouhearyes/daterapefacts.html

[neuwgss]

It isn’t a mistake that women and their body parts are described as weaker while men are describes as stronger. I think it goes back to The Egg and the Sperm, and actually fits her argument really well; if women are supposed to think of themselves as weaker than men across the board, they’ll probably be less likely to fight back.

To answer your last couple of questions, this is why I struggled with this reading. Like we’ve talked about in other cases (like with race) I don’t think it should be up to the oppressed to magically fix the problem. I really think that the end to a lot of violence - sexualized or otherwise - is to look at the way masculinity has been constructed. Jackson Katz’s Tough Guise (available to watch on the library website) talks about how men are taught to overemphasize violence as an answer. When you combine that with the way women are depicted (and here’s a fun Google image search oversexualized women in ads!) I think it’s pretty logical to think that rape is the result of how we socialize boys.

I think the way that Michael Kimmel puts in in the section Sex and Violence - Reducing Men’s Violence in the Gender of Desire (also available with a quick search on the library’s website) presents an interesting counter-narrative to Marcus’ piece. He talks about how violence is often a response to men feeling powerless, like they aren’t privileged (similar to the discussion we had in class about how white people often point to their personal hardships in life to say that white privilege doesn’t exist). I think this makes a lot of sense - the men’s rights responses to feminism and the Isla Vista shootings are two examples that show how violent rhetoric or actions are used to reassert masculinity. I think that we need to tackle how messed up popular constructions of masculinity are if we’re gonna be successful in actually doing anything about violence.

[neuwgss]

Commodity Feminism

Even though this article was written several years ago, the concept of commodity feminism still rings true today. As feminist ideologies and actions became popular, the natural reaction of mass media and major industries was to take hold of this “trend” and market it towards women. The unequal balance of power between capitalism and feminism continues to plague society. These advertisements exhibit feminism as a “commodity”, further giving power to the capitalism system. These institutions in turn represent feminism as a “commodity”, meaning that a woman must turn to the fashion or beauty industries to be a part of the feminist movement or uphold her feminist values. Today, however I see a countless number of ads that have feminist themes that are targeted towards women or young girls. I wonder whether the incentives of these companies connect to feminist ideology, or if they use these ideas primarily for capitalist interests.

[neuwgss]

This White Feminist Loved Her Dreadlocks - Here’s Why She Cut Them Off

In this article, the author Annah Anti-Palindrome, writes about cultural appropriation and demonstrates how relevant it is in our society. She states that when she started wearing dreadlocks, she didn’t even consider how anyone except for patriarchal men could find it offensive. This is an interesting point because it shows how often times people can be appropriating culture without even realizing that they’re doing so. Therefore cultural appropriation is difficult to combat because it becomes so mainstream that those participating have no clue that it’s offensive and inappropriate.

This leads into Annah bringing up the differences between appropriation and appreciation. She says how when one appreciates something, they show respect and listen, rather than just exploiting it for their own gain. Often times, people don’t understand the difference between these two, so how do we educate people on how to show their appreciation for a culture without appropriating it? Browntourage magazine published an easy to understand illustrated guide for deciding if what one is wearing is appropriation. (http://interruptmag.com/article/appropriation-vs-appreciation). These guidelines include questions such as, “What culture does this style reference,” and “Why am I wearing it?” While these guidelines are really helpful, how do we go about teaching them to the general public? Is school the place to teach people about diversity and how to appropriately respect others cultures? Is mainstream media by the help of celebrities and popular magazines/television/websites the best route to take? Or is a cultural movement needed in order to insure everyone’s culture is shown respect? 

[neuwgss]

I had similar questions when reading this article. It was also weird timing when we read this article because my high school aged cousin had just worn a Native American style headdress to one of her school’s football games, and she was voted “best dressed” by fellow students. I asked her to send me pictures of other people’s ensembles, and they were much worse (some even had racially charged face paint). I was taken aback and asked if she had heard of cultural appropriation, to which she replied with “If the Kardashians are doing it, I’m definitely doing it”. I know she was half kidding, as she is extremely strong-willed and not easily influenced, but she is a 16 year old who looks to the Kardashians for fashion trends. She also looks to them for validation of what she’s doing, or so it seems.

It’s because of this instance that I think it’s important for celebrities and other people with influence need to be on board with educating the public about cultural appropriation. And this starts with celebrities taking responsibility for their choices. We see celebrities becoming more and more outspoken about issues that matter to them, including Zendaya and other women of color. But until we get other mainstream influencers to understand the harmful effects of cultural appropriation, I think it will be really hard to reach the public, including girls like my cousin, who need to hear this information.

[neuwgss]

I thought that the first point that you made that “it shows how often times people can be appropriating culture without even realizing that they’re doing so” was significant because it made me think about my hometown. Our high school’s mascot is a “Warrior” and of course it was used synonymously with Native American. We had the “Warrior Head” as the called it, which of course was a depiction of a Native American with a traditional headdress, and then we had tomahawks on all of our apparel, it was everywhere. And between my sophomore and junior year’s of high school, they removed all of the tomahawks and replaced all of the “warrior heads” with a large W for Windsor (or Warriors). And I remember there being so many parents that were against it, upset that the school board was changing tradition. I heard so many comments from other students and their parents about how people should stop being so insensitive and how there weren’t even any Native Americans in our town so who was really offended by our mascot, etc etc.

I’m interested to hear your thoughts on this article about the so called “Dos and Don’ts” of cultural appropriation. It references many celebrities in mainstream media. It make some think how these situations would have differed if the celeb spoke out about what they were doing/used it as a platform to start the conversation. 

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/10/the-dos-and-donts-of-cultural-appropriation/411292/

[neuwgss]

This White Feminist Loved Her Dreadlocks - Here’s Why She Cut Them Off

In this article, the author Annah Anti-Palindrome, writes about cultural appropriation and demonstrates how relevant it is in our society. She states that when she started wearing dreadlocks, she didn’t even consider how anyone except for patriarchal men could find it offensive. This is an interesting point because it shows how often times people can be appropriating culture without even realizing that they’re doing so. Therefore cultural appropriation is difficult to combat because it becomes so mainstream that those participating have no clue that it’s offensive and inappropriate.

This leads into Annah bringing up the differences between appropriation and appreciation. She says how when one appreciates something, they show respect and listen, rather than just exploiting it for their own gain. Often times, people don’t understand the difference between these two, so how do we educate people on how to show their appreciation for a culture without appropriating it? Browntourage magazine published an easy to understand illustrated guide for deciding if what one is wearing is appropriation. (http://interruptmag.com/article/appropriation-vs-appreciation). These guidelines include questions such as, “What culture does this style reference,” and “Why am I wearing it?” While these guidelines are really helpful, how do we go about teaching them to the general public? Is school the place to teach people about diversity and how to appropriately respect others cultures? Is mainstream media by the help of celebrities and popular magazines/television/websites the best route to take? Or is a cultural movement needed in order to insure everyone’s culture is shown respect? 

[neuwgss]

You brought up the possibility of using mainstream media as a resource for educating the public on cultural appropriation. In the past, celebrities have been used to call attention to important issues like domestic abuse or gun violence through the creation of campaigns. These campaigns often feature videos or commercials that are used to educate the wider public, and they have been successful in doing so. However, in these cases, the celebrities were not committing acts of domestic abuse or gun violence; whereas more often than not, celebrities today are most definitely guilty of culturally appropriating. Huffington Post wrote an interesting article about it, discussing how “every time we turned on the television, computer or radio, it seemed pop culture was saturated with songs, dances or trends that originated in the African-American community and all of a sudden people were praising and paying close attention to things that had existed for years” (link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/23/2013-year-in-cultural-appropriation_n_4468583.html ).

So, are mainstream media and the use of celebrities the best way combat cultural appropriation? My inclination is to say no, based on the track record of huge stars like the Kylie Jenner or Katy Perry, for example…

If it is up to celebrities to fix a problem that they have essentially created and continuously contributed to, I don’t see cultural appropriation coming to a halt anytime soon.

[neuwgss]

Somehow through the original article I stumbled upon this one about cultural appropriation through the eyes of a Native woman. One of her points particularly stood out to me and I think ties really well into the original article. 

“You titled your photo “Appropriate Culturation” which means you are aware of the concept of cultural appropriation, and knew that Native peoples would be hurt by your choice, and you did it anyway.”

Those who choose to appropriate a culture are usually doing so consciously. This disturbs me because no one should think “Oh, I shouldn’t do this”, and then proceed to do so anyway. 

The author also makes an incredibly poignant point from the perspective of a Native woman. She points out that while it may feel innocent to wear a headdress or traditional garb, it is offensive. Not because it isn’t meant to be worn by anyone else, and not because Native people don’t want to share their culture. But instead because white men who immigrated to the USA forced Native people to remove their traditional wear and were punished if caught clothed in their very own clothes. When an American person puts on those clothes without any sort of education or real purpose it is just rubbing this mistreatment in the face of Native people’s. 

Just food for thought. 

[neuwgss]

I absolutely agree with what the second respondent said. Cultural appropriation is so present in our mainstream popular media that it is extremely difficult to ignore it. Often seen in videos or in highly publicized concerts, the attire that performers and celebrities choose to wear will be seen all over the world thanks to the power of the Internet. Halloween is probably the most problematic night: young, impressionable people often see celebrities dressed in an offensive costume but think that it is appropriate to do so just because a certain celebrity did it. For example, when Kylie Jenner dressed up as an “eskimo” this year, she corrected herself by calling herself a “snow princess” because she came under fire from her fans especially on Twitter (http://starcasm.net/archives/333313 see bottom tweets). Kylie Jenner is one of the top 30 most influential teens in the world... the fact that she uses her fame to promote an anti bullying campaign but then turns around and dresses up as something that is culturally insensitive is a big problem. Just because celebrities do something doesn’t mean we should too!

Additionally, something that stuck with me from Annah Anti-Palindrome’s article was the idea that dreadlocks were her own form of rebelling against feminine beauty standards. She speaks about having this whole phase of rebelling against all of the beauty standards that she was expected to achieve. I think that it is very alarming that our cultural beauty standards are having such an effect on women from all ages and that it brings some to a “boiling point”, a culmination of all of the anger, frustration, and desperation associated with these unreachable standards. 

[neuwgss]

Medical Violence Against People of Color & Law Enforcement Violence Against Women of Color

In Durazo’s Medical Violence Against People of Color and the Medicalization of Domestic Violence and Ritchie’s Law Enforcement Violence Against Women of Color, both authors bring to light the problems that law enforcement based responses to domestic violence cause for women of color. Durazo highlights the medical industrial complex (MIC). The MIC is the relationship between medicine, capital, and the state, which prioritizes profit and maintaining the dominance of the western medical model which “perpetuates racism, classism, and heterosexism”. Durazo explains that the care for women of color is an afterthought for the MIC, as the white male body is the archetype of the western medical model. This exclusion from care as well as the MIC’s failure to address domestic violence as a consequence of oppression helps to maintain domestic violence, not solve it. Similarly, Ritchie cites that law enforcement upholds and reinforces race, gender, and class structures; social norms like the gender binary system. This leaves women of color and the LGBT community at risk for increased vulnerability to violence by law enforcement when seeking assistance.

Both authors call for “community based alternatives” to the law enforcement involvement in domestic violence disputes and violence in general. “Let’s call out and stop relying on violent institutions to attempt to solve violence,” a quote by Durazo that really stuck out to me. Ritchie asks for alternatives that provide safety, prevention, and transformation of gender relations. So what would these community based alternatives look like? Are shelters an effective community based alternative?  

[neuwgss]

Shelters would fall into what Durazo referred to as “non-profitization.” I personally wish that she would have gone more into detail about non-profitization because I saw a lot of the effects of it when I was on co-op in the spring. I worked in the victim services field, and a lot of the trainings that we held had to acknowledge burnout and self-care because the nature of the work really starts to weigh on advocates very quickly. Since shelters are set up as a part of this system, I think it would fall into the category of criminalization - as it is a way to respond to a crime. 

When I was on co-op, one of my bosses sent this out to the office, which is a snapshot of services for DV in one day throughout the United States (and this link for Mass). Housing is biggest unmet needs for domestic violence. Shelters as they stand are not able to accommodate all of the people who require their services. In face, most of cause for unmet services nationwide (and state-by-state overall) is for housing. As it stands, even if shelters were able to become more community-based by a tweaking of the system overall, they are still not currently able to help all the people who need them.

In case anyone’s interested in seeing the results of other states, the link is here: http://nnedv.org/projects/census/4481-domestic-violence-counts-census-2014-report.html 

[neuwgss]

The Forgotten “-ism”

             I found “The Forgotten ‘-ism’” to be a powerful piece discussing the silencing and policing of Arab women in the United States for their expression of resistance against the violence of the Israeli state and U.S. support of Israel. A collaboration of Arab women conducted research based on how Zionism is contributing to sexism, racism, and the overall invisibility or stereotyping of Arab women in America. They concluded that any state which bases their national identity on race and privileges members of one race over another, is in fact a racist state. They argued that Zionism promotes this idea, and maintains it by claiming any criticism of Israel or Zionism is “anti-Semitic”.

         Three important images were identified that contributed to the racist portrayals of Arab women in the United States:

1)    The “Inadequate Palestinian Mother” – This image is portrayed and maintained by representing Arab women as “violent agents of terror” who have been brainwashed by Arab men.

2)    The “Super Oppressed Arab Woman” – This image creates the need for Arab-American women to justify their person experiences and represent Arab women as a whole.

3)    The “Nameless Veiled Woman” – This image is either depicted as a crying/screaming woman, or a woman who is “passively accepting her oppression,” and marks Arab women as either out of control or having absolutely no control.

           These images are shown in the media consistently, and are further perpetuated by the Zionist movement. In order to resist Zionism, racism, and sexism of this kind, the authors suggest three main strategies. First, expand the scope the oppression to include critiques of Zionism while critiquing racism, sexism, and classism. Second, prioritize the voices of the American Arab women so that they are audible in social justice movements. Lastly, link the struggles of Arab and Arab-American women to the struggles of all other forms of oppression, including those based on race, gender, sexuality, or sex.

           After reading this piece, my questions are based on the images and strategies that were outlined in the piece. Other than the aforementioned images, are you able to identify any other images in the media that are used to represent and stereotype Arab women? And also, what other potential strategies could help resist the racism/sexism that Arab-American women face?

[neuwgss]

This article and your questions about representation in media reminded me of a short video about Linda Sarsour, a Palestinian-American Muslim woman who is the executive director of the non-profit Arab American Association of New York. In this video she shares about her experience being a Muslim feminist, the assumptions she deals with living in America and wearing hijab, and breaking down the stereotypes that surround Muslim women.

She explains how humility and wearing hijab is empowering to her, and that these don’t mean she can’t be visible or outspoken - she presents herself modestly so as to be judged by her character rather than her looks. She’s neither “super-oppressed” nor “nameless” behind her veil. She shares how she’s not an anomaly or unique as both a feminist and a Muslim woman - there are millions of Muslim women across America and across the world who make a difference in our society.

When media outlets give a platform for people of underrepresented populations to share their perspective like in this video, I think this is an effective strategy for helping combat negative stereotypes, particularly when the piece of media uplifts the person’s own voice and point of view. Especially when posted on social media platforms, it can reach millions and educate people who may otherwise not encounter people of marginalized groups, or who may otherwise not hear their stories. Every accurate, positive representation contributes to shifting the dominant, stereotypical American attitudes about Muslim women (and Islam in general). The link to the video is posted below:

https://www.facebook.com/refinery29/videos/10153838722547922/

[neuwgss]

I love what you say here about the Hijab and I find it very frustrating how muslim women have to explain themselves in regards to wearing the Hijab and it really brings the article’s point to the forefront. Why when a muslim woman chooses to wear the hijab she is immediately put into category of being an oppressed? Why is it a struggle for her when she has to wear the Hijab. I’m sick and tired of ignorant western people who know nothing of the Hijab and nothing of Islam, judging a whole community based on snippets of what they see on the internet and I couldn’t agree more than with what Hana Yusuf had to say on the subject in her interview with Teen Vogue http://www.teenvogue.com/story/hijab-feminist-statement

She really does make it possible for women who identify as muslim women who choose to wear the Hijab as feminists because the hijab has nothing to do with oppression and what ever other notions the media and western powers have affiliated with Islam.