Guest Speaker

The guest speaker from Thursday's class was definitely interesting and her line of work would be one to give you an interesting perspective on life. At first I was a little confused as to what her line of work was, but when she showed us the play on domestic violence in El Salvador it clicked. She was literally taking everything we have learned in our gender and conflict class and portraying it on stage. For example she showed scenes on domestic violence, males as aggressive beings, and conflict between being a father and living a tough life on the streets of Philadelphia. What the I thought was interesting was that she used the actual people involved in those real life situations and asked them to act out their life story on stage in front of an audience. My question throughout the class was how does she get people to come and watch a show like that? For example she did a story on a homeless man who would just get passed each and every day by the general public. But when she brought his story to life, the audience was filled with the same people who overstepped him while he lay on the ground in the park, and at the end of the show they were on their feet. Also where does the funding come from for something like that? The only aspect of the class that I did not agree with was when she showed the scene of the men in prison. The way she made it sound was that we were supposed to be sorry for those men in some way. I do not understand how I am supposed to be sorry for a man who killed someone. She was trying to justify this by saying how they come from tough and violent areas of a cities, but so do thousands of other people, but they are not killing people. I was by no means going to feel bad for those men in prison even if they were not the ones who pulled the trigger, they were still involved somehow. The most compelling story was the story of the young black girl whose father was in prison her entire life until he passed away. It was sad because she had no say in the situation and had to grow up without a father because of the situations he put himself in. She made a good point when she said "how am I supposed to grieve for a father I never knew?" She understood that yes he gave her life but he was never there for her when it matter most. Overall the guest speaker showed me something that I never have heard of before and I found her line of work interesting, but also very sad.

Gender Identity Presentation

The presentation today in class was informative but yet I felt as though it was a little sporadic. I liked that they made the difference between cross-dressing and trans-gendering clearer because I thought that if one cross-dressed, they were a transgender. A point was brought up in discussion today about men not having many options when it comes to dressing themselves. It is true that if a man is seen with a pink shirt on, people may look at him and question his sexuality. The area in which a person lives also plays a large role in those perceptions, for example what is socially unacceptable here in central PA, may be acceptable on the West coast. There are not very many articles of clothing, for men that are brightly colored because they are seen as flamboyant. It’s just the opposite for women, I feel as though I can wear a sweatshirt and sweatpants and still look feminine, and not have my sexuality questioned. This is probably because I generally wear makeup and earrings even if I am wearing sweats. I feel as though my gender identity was one for me to construct for myself growing up. My mother did not place a lot of restrictions or guidelines for me to follow when it came to dressing. She allowed me to be a tom-boy in middle school and then do a complete 180 going into high school. I feel so fortunate to have a mother who understood when it came to that stuff. To this day I still hate wearing a dress or high heels, because it is not comfortable to me.

Double Bind

The idea of oppression is most often heard about when talking about women, and their place in a society.  Women will say that they are "oppressed" and it is systematically against them to be better and do more than what they are doing.  I agree with this statement to a point because there are plenty of women throughout history who have been successful, regardless of women being in an oppressed state.  Marilyn Frye compares oppression of women to the situation of a bird in a cage.  She defines oppression as "living of one's life is confined and shaped by forces and barriers which are not accidental or occasional and hence avoidable, but are systematically related to each other in such a way as to catch one between and among them and restrict or penalize motion in any direction. It is the experience of being caged in: All avenues, in every direction, are blocked or booby trapped" (Minas, 2000, p. 11-12).  The best example she provides is of women and their sexuality.  Younger women are in a double-bind whether they are sexual active or inactive.  For example of a heterosexual girl chooses to be sexual active, she runs the risk of being called "loose," or a "whore" (p. 12).  But guys can go around and sleep with whomever they desire, and they are called "stud," the "man".  If a young woman denies sexual activity, she can be called a "bitch," uptight or frigid. These criticisms are only ones typically being made by peers, and the parents are a completely different situation.  As a girl it is a juggling act what to say to her parents and how they will react to it.  Then the whole idea on women dressing themselves in a provocative way and then being raped; someone comes back and says, "oh she was asking for it".  They is probably one of the most disgusting things I have ever heard, just because as a woman I choose to wear a tight skirt and high heels, does not mean a man who can't control himself is able to come after me.  It is a double-edge sword that women have to deal with on a daily basis.  We are constantly being compared to men in anything we do, and it isn't fair.  I can't think of any situation involving a man and a woman, does the woman come out on top.

Gender in Athletics

This topic hits close to home being a female college athlete, as well as being on a team that is currently not one of the most winning teams on campus.  I thought the presentation on Thursday was very insightful for those who are unaware of the issues surrounding women in the sports world.  Not only are women's sports not played on the major sports networks, there aren't very many female commentators on the networks.  I watch ESPN daily and follow the progress of the show on a very detailed level, because I was upset at the fact that there were not more women commentators on the show.  I noticed that up until about 2 years ago, ESPN had one female broadcaster on the mainstream show.  There were females as co-anchors for the branch channels, but as far as reporting on ESPN SportsCenter, there was one.  As of this year there has been an increase in the number of female broadcasters, both on SportsCenter and as reporters.  This move against the norm of women not knowing sports was bold on the behalf of ESPN.  What also is fantastic is the women are not wearing low cut blouses or tight clothing while reporting.  Most of the women wear pants and a shirt that covers their cleavage.  I think it's great what they did and I find it great that women are able to stand up to the stereotype placed against them when it comes to sports.  I don't know for sure if this brought along the airing of more women's sports, but that would be interesting to find out.  I doubt that is the case, but hopefully women's sports teams will find a larger audience and be more appreciated because there is no doubt they are just as good as men.

Reproductive Rights for Women

I thought the presentation on Tuesday was in perfect timing especially with the new presidential election.  There are many issues surrounding women's reproductive rights and what they really are.  Many of the rights to women come along with a social stigma, for example, abortion.  I thought the group did a nice job at mediating the discussion because of how controversial abortion is between groups of people.  The only thing that I thought could have made the presentation more in-depth was to look at not only abortion, but also how reproductive rights are for women laid out in the law.  For example the Affordable Care Act proposed by President Obama does provide some avenues for women to receive contraceptives and well-woman visits to their doctors at little or no charge.  I would like to learn more about this and feel as though it is much gendered, and in this time in favor of women.  I think for those who are grounded in their religion and believe that women should not be on any form of birth control, will find issues with the act.  The majority of women, including myself and my friends, find the access to contraceptives for free and doctor's visits to be free a great resource.  Throughout the discussion on Tuesday it was concluded that many factors come into play when talking about abortions, but the big one was health education.  I know in my high school we were taught abstinence rather than what should be done if a person chooses to become sexually active.  By that point in time, about 25% of the girls in my class were pregnant, and I'm sure many students had already had sex.

Politics Presentation

Overall I feel as though our presentation went well today, I felt as though the class got involved which was really great.  I enjoyed listening to Dr. Plane talk during our presentation because he further solidified what our presentation was about.  He highlighted the main points that we wanted our presentation to focus on the stereotypes those women in the political arena face.  I think doing the box exercise showed that for women who are trying to obtain power; it is based a lot on their appearance, and maybe not so much on their credibility.  It is a shame to me to see Mrs. Obama downgrade from such a powerful position such as a lawyer, to the wife of the president, where yes she does have respect, but she is not known for being a high-power lawyer.  She is now known for being a mother and an advocate for childhood obesity.  I'm not saying that identity isn't a good one; it is just shows how most first ladies had to give up their careers to become the wife of the president.  I know we never got to the question as to why feminists were not fans of Hillary Clinton, but I do not think I know that answer to that question.  It would make sense to say that they are 100% in favor of Hillary Clinton because she advocates for equality for women, in a sense, because she is fighting every day to be recognized for her abilities, rather than her being a woman.  She is finally giving women a voice in politics, and then many feminists want to say they don't support her, I just don't understand.

Liberia Presentation

I found the presentation today on Liberia to be very interesting and informative.  Generally speaking I know that woman in different countries and cultures have treated much differently than women in the United States.   I had no idea to what extent and was unaware of the gender issues going on in Liberia.  The horror that those woman went through was terrible and it was very uncomfortable to me to read/hear their confessions.  Even though in this class we talk about woman being degraded and still having inequalities; it is nothing compared to what those women went through everyday during the various wars.  What we do have in common with the woman of Liberia are that we are degraded by men, in ways such as rape and violence, because that is the way men show dominance.  I thought it was fantastic that the women of Liberia stood up for themselves and armed themselves to level out the playing field.  I don't believe it should have been something that was portrayed as being negative it was just against the norm of what is expected of woman.  I believe that the woman bared arms not only to protect themselves, but as a sign to the men saying that yes we can do exactly what you are doing.  The gender issues that many countries face is sad and it really makes me appreciate the life I have as a woman in America.  While I still have small battles and inequalities to face, it is nothing compared to what the women of Liberia went through during the war.

Rape Culture Presentation

Overall I enjoyed the presentation in class on Thursday on rape culture.  The definition of what rape is one that is viewed differently by people and cross-culturally.  My definition of rape was changed after their presentation because I was more informed as to what it entails, and that there are different types of rape.  What really surprised me throughout the discussion was the number of guys in the class who had no idea the degree to which women are paranoid about being rape or sexually harassed.  I know personally it is one of my biggest fears and I would have not known what rape was until high school.  I watch a lot of Law and Order: SVU which specifically deals with rape cases and sexual mutilation.  Other than that my mom never talks about being afraid of it happening to her, but she has started to carry pepper spray.  I think a sense of venerability to something like that is not a bad thing because it makes you more aware of your surroundings. It would be naive of me to walk around and think that nothing like that could happen to me, because it can happen to anyone, anytime.  I feel safe on campus but as soon as I step off campus and even in my hometown I get very nervous and become more and more aware of my surroundings.  I have contemplated taking a self-defense class because no one knows if something like that could happen to them.  It is better to be prepared in my opinion, even though Celia mentioned about women who have taken self-defense become more worried because they realize everything that could happen.  I understand that and it is a valid point because being under-educated on the subject may be a good or a bad thing depending on the person.  For me I think I would rather be prepared than not know how to deal with it when the time comes.

Sexism and Violence

Violence against women is one that is not taken lightly and receives a lot of attention in the public eye.  There are shelters and programs targeted specifically to women who are battered and abused.  The question I find myself asking is "why are these only targets towards women? Why are there not programs such as these for men?"  Is it because violence against men is not as prevalent or is it because it is not talked about as much as violence against women?  I believe that the degree to which women are beaten is more severe than that against men and it receives more attention.  I'm not saying that there aren't programs for men but I am unaware of such programs.  These programs are funded by the government and therefore may view women as being more unstable when it comes to combating the violence against them.  I believe the government feels as though women will struggle financially and emotionally to get help, and therefore are provided assistance.  In the reading "Feminist Movement Against Violence", Hooks emphasizes an idea called "cycle of violence" (p. 119).  This is used to describe violence done by men and it starts in the workplace.  Men who are put down at work, or if their masculinity is tarnished in some way, they may act out at home.  Unfortunately for women, the majority of the time it is women who they are coming home to.  In my opinion in order for men to get their masculinity back, they may act out in a violent way to assert their dominance.  In my opinion there is not justifying this and no reason for men to act out against a woman.  Just because they get berated at work does not mean they can take it out on someone who is there.  It is just another reason men are more violent than women because as a sex they feel as though they need to "assert their dominance" over everyone else.  Couldn't women in power positions go around doing the same thing?  So why don't they?  In my opinion it’s because women have better self and emotional control.

Chromosomes and Femininity?

Part of this week's reading uses biology to go against the normative ideas of what femininity is.  Angiers chapter 2 focused on chromosomes and began to explain the difference between the X and Y chromosome. There are two characters Keith and Adele, and Keith is read somewhere that the X chromosome is fat and floppy, while the Y chromosome is diverse.  He believed that this is reason for differences between men and women.  This is ridiculous in my opinion; one cannot base a sex of a human being on the bases of what the chromosomes look like!  He went on to say that men demonstrate at a microscopic level their edge over women because their chromosome is "diverse".  He also states that the Y is a "genetic innovation" that escaped the normative of the X chromosome.  In general what he was saying that X chromosome is dull and Y chromosomes are interesting.  Clearly he does not know much about biology because the X chromosome is more dominant and the largest of the 23 chromosomes (about 5-6 times larger).  Yes males add a change when their sperm bring to the egg the Y chromosome, but they can easily add an X chromosome as well. If the chromosome debate is to come into play as a determinate of masculinity and femininity, I say it’s a little ridiculous.  To look at it from that level is small but it does play a large part in development.  In my opinion many of our ideals of femininity and masculinity stem from society, and the way it is portrayed.  So for all the women out there, the X chromosome is larger and more dominant than Y, so we have nothing to be ashamed of! 

What Does It Mean to be a Woman?

Sojourner's Truth's "Ain't I a Woman" speech was one of the most powerful speeches in the 1850's.  Truth was born a slave and gained her freedom in 1827.  She became a well-known antislavery speaker and gave this speech at a women's rights convention in 1851.  When Truth first walked into the room among the other women at the convention, everyone was very uneasy about her presence.  One women quoted "Don't let her speak, Mrs. Gage, it will ruin us.  Every newspaper in the land will have our cause mixed up with abolition and niggers, and we shall be utterly denounced." (Stanton, p.1).  This was a normal reaction to see a black women come in to speak on the behalf of women's rights at that time.  At that time black women were under more oppression than white women because of the color of their skin, and for at one point in time being a slave.  Sojourner Truth really put into question at that point of time what it truly means to be a woman? Is a true woman the female who is in the kitchen at the service of their husband; or is it the one who is in the field working and plowing just like the men in the same position?  Truth's opinions on what it means to be women lay a basis for women's rights, because they are based off of being a "woman".  In my opinion what it means to be a woman in the 1800's was working out in the field with the men and then being expected to bare children.  If women at that time were doing the same work as men, why were they not treated equally?  To this day women in society run into this problem and the answer is still unclear.  One answer that is given is that women are less valued than men.  This is an unfair statement because women were doing equal amounts of the workload, yet receiving half the credit so therefore they should be been seen as more valuable.

Masculinity

After our class discussion and reading Valenti's "Boys Do Cry" I found myself having a better understanding of masculinity and what it truly means.  The problem with defining masculinity is that is based off of what society feels is the "ideal man" and how that is enforced into young boys. There are many forms of masculinity and I keep an open mind about what is masculine and what is not.  I think it is important to keep an open mind because no one persons' idea of what is masculine is 100 percent correct.  I don't define masculinity based on appearance, masculinity in my mind is stability, having goals, how one presents themselves, and maturity.  Maturity plays a large role in masculinity.  For example my father when he was in his early twenties was rough housing at the bars.  Though now he is fifty years old and he cries when I give him a sentimental card for father's day.  My father's emotions nowadays may be due to him being comfortable with whom he is, but when he was twenty he felt as though he needed to prove himself to others.

Boys are taught to be tough and to show no emotion, but this can detrimental to their mental health, as well as their overall well-being.  Boys share the same emotions as girls, yes they can and do cry, but I feel bad for men when they are told it is "unmanly" to cry.  That is ridiculous and I feel as though that is the reason why men are more violent than women.  They hold in all of their emotions and then when they are at the edge, they act out in ways that are violent and damaging.  I see no problem if a guy cries over something that is upsetting to them, or if something made them happy; it shows that they are human beings who feel emotions.  Valenti made a great point by saying masculinity has a large impact on the way women are treated.  This comes into play when men feel as though they need to be dominant, when all a woman wants is someone to talk to and be there for her.  It’s a mind game for women when men try to be dominant because women then have to guess and figure out what they are feeling.  I don't understand why men just can't open up and say how they feel!  Life in relationships would be much easier that way.

Masculinity and Violence

The movie we watched today in class was about masculinity and how it is related to violence.  I found the movie to be very eye opening and very interesting.  I learned a lot of new things about males and just how violent they can be.  The question that was raised in my mind was "what is the cause for males perpetrating most of the violence that occurs among the sexes?"  According to the movie violence is a "guise" to shield men's vulnerability.  It is a front that emphasizes the notion that being a "real man" is being aggressive and violent.  In my opinion this is a narrow box that defines manhood and it is the pressure to conform to be "one of the guys".  Males learn from community and from the media.  The assertion that U.S. culture constructs masculinity as violent is a good one I agree with.  The media is a large influence over this by the way in which the strong, dominant male is portrayed.  These males have large muscles and carry big weapons to show their dominance to everyone else around them.  The one aspect of this notion that I do not agree with completely is if the media is a large influence on males to be violent, more men would be violent towards others.  There are a lot of men around that do not resort to violence to show their dominance, who watch video games and the same movies as those men who commit violent acts.  Therefore there have to be other factors or something to do with their psyche that makes them commit the act.  Some of the other factors could be who their role models are.  For example if they see an older male figure in their family being violent, they are more willing to be violent as well.  Violence is definitely a gender issue and it affects the relationship between them.

Marxist Feminists

In "Feminist Thought" Tong analyzes Marxism and socialist feminism as a way to explain the oppression of women.  The general idea of Marxist feminism is that oppression of women is best explained by looking at it through a capitalist lens.  Social feminists move beyond relying on class as the sole category for understanding women's subordination to men.  I find myself on the fence with the ideologies of Marx and social feminists.  This is because according to Marx material forces, the production and reproduction of social life are the prime movers of history.  Therefore this clumps domesticated women into a category of not being "prime movers" and contributing nothing to society.  Domesticated women do not receive wages for their work, even when their work for example, raising children, may be one of the most valuable occupations.  Women are preparing the next generation of men and women to be successful, so why that is not considered important?  While under Tong's general reflections, she quotes Margaret Benston who believes in order to bring women into productive workforce without simultaneously socializing the jobs of cooking, cleaning, etc., is to make women's oppressed conditions worse (p. 109).  I agree with her on this statement that in order for women to have full liberation, there work at home needs to be recognized and not swept under the rug.  I also found the analysis of Juliet Mitchell and Alison Jagger to be of interest.   Both women to some degree believe that regardless of Marxism revolution, women would still maintain being oppressed until the minds of men and women change from the idea that women are somehow less valuable than men.  Patriarchy is the biggest factor when it comes to the oppression of women.  I support Jagger's statement that to overthrow patriarchy is the only way women will truly be "full persons"(p. 115).  I am a firm believer that stereotypes against women are constructed by males, and they become ingrained in a society.  Once they are in and used these stereotypes are difficult to get rid of, forcing women to go the extra mile to prove people wrong, that they are worth more than just being domesticated beings.

Third Wave Feminism,

This is a continuation of my previous blog on postmodern feminism.  I found myself disagreeing with the ideas third wave feminists propose.  I agree with the fact that they are more comfortable about women enhancing their bodies (i.e. wearing makeup and dresses) and still being a feminist.  I do not agree with the second half of the statement that says it is okay for women to do those things to suit social norms and cultural expectations about what counts as beautiful.  This is a contradiction in my mind because the first wave of feminism it was all about in powering women and to have them not conform to society's norms that are set for them.  If all women were to conform to these norms there would still be inequality for us because we would just be here to pass the genes and something to be looked at by men.  By conforming we would be lessening everything that was set for us during the feminist movement.  Another thing that is accepted by third wave feminists is that all women are accepted, even those who are involved in the porn industry.  In my opinion this goes completely against the notion of what it means to be a feminist.  Regardless if a woman is "economically depressed" that is no excuse to degrade yourself, or women in general, to make a couple bucks.  There are women everywhere who are economically depressed but find other ways to provide for themselves, rather than degrading themselves by sexual means.  There is not line drawn with what is considered to be feministic and what isn't.  It can confuse people because it does, on a large scale, contradict early establishments of what it means to be a feminist.  

Postmodern Feminism

In Tong's book, "Feminist Thought", I found the chapter on postmodern feminism and third-wave feminism to be very interesting.  Postmodern feminists, according to Tong, reject any mode of feminist thought that aims to provide a single explanation as to why women are oppressed.  I agreed more with postmodern feminism in the sense that it is accepting of diversity and change.  Postmodern feminists are eager to understand the ways in which gender oppression and other kinds of human oppression co-create and mix together. For example a black woman faces not only oppression because she is female, but also due to the color of her skin.  Diversity is accepted with this new idea of feminism and therefore women of any ethnicity can speak on the behalf of their oppression.  Unlike the first establishment of feminism there is no single formula for being a "good feminist".  Both for postmodern and third wave feminism, a woman is able to wear makeup and dresses and still be considered a feminist; which goes against what most people in society believe to be a feminist.  Tong reviewed a piece by Judith Butler in which Butler believed that sex is constructed from the very beginning.  For example she stated "when the doctor or nurse declares 'It's a girl/boy', they are not simply reporting what they see....they are actually assigning a sex and a gender to a body that can have no existence outside discourse" (Tong, p. 282).  There isn't even a possibility that baby could become a lesbian or be a transsexual.  I agree with Butler's statement because as babies our parents told us what sex we were going to grow up to be.  Many individuals who do not feel like their natural-born sex have difficulty telling their parents if they decide to switch sexes.  This is due to our parents' expectations and them setting the stage for us to be who they want us to be, and who we are "born to be".  I find myself more agreeing with this notion of feminism because it is so accepting and inviting for every woman to be the kind of feminist she wants to be.

Violence Between Genders

Whenever I think about violence and aggression and how it relates to gender, I automatically say to myself, "oh by far men are more aggressive, without a doubt."  In chapter 2 of "Bodily Harm", the author gives many examples to back up the notion of violence between males and females.  These examples include evidence from genetic research that was performed, as well as hormones being indicators of increased violence.  These hormone levels, for example in males who take steroids, are increased and may cause them to be more violent and aggressive.  Along with genetics there are neural and physiological factors that come into play with violent behavior.  In the reading for example, the author states that "...differences in serotonin levels, are thought to be linked to aggression as well" ( Hatty, p. 55).  One section of the reading I thoroughly agreed with was the evidence Anne Campbell argued.  She argues that male violent acts are "to reaffirm a positive self-concept, enhance self-esteem, and reclaim interpersonal power" (Hatty, p. 57).  Whereas females view aggression as a failure to control emotions and feel guilty after the act is performed. This is not always true of all males, but studies have shown more violence is done towards women, than violence is done towards men.  After having Dr. David Widman lecture in class today I began to wonder, does evolution play a role in the increased aggression and violence in males?  There are a couple factors I thought of that could explain why this may be the case.  In the past men had to fight for a woman in the sense to have their genes passed down through generations.  This may have led to violence and certainly aggression, because the better genes were the ones chosen to be spread.  Another reason could be just like with male animal species, they fight for the protection of their family.  Males nowadays are thought as the "bread-winners" of the family, and set that expectation for them.  This has always been the case that men go out and hunt for food and women are usually the gatherers (there are a few exceptions).  Therefore it is like a dog-eat-dog world for males because they always want to best next best thing, and to be above everyone else around them.

Pop Culture

After reading Valenti's "Pop Culture Gone Wild" I have aspects of the reading that I agree and disagree with.  Valenti definitely makes her writings one-sided; therefore you have no way of choosing to go against what she is saying.  For me, that is okay but for others it may be more difficult to read based on that reason alone. She writes about what society classifies as "pop culture" and how it greatly influences people's perspectives of women.  She employs the concepts of "being sexy, yet virginal" as well as "being available, but never attainable".  These are two contradictions that make no sense and, in my opinion, are not reality but acted out.  She gave the example of "availability and unattainable" when it comes to women on Maxim magazine.  They allow their bodies to be available to the general public to do whatever with, but men know that the woman on the cover is unattainable.  If we were talking about the reality of this, if a man were to chase a woman in real life and if the woman kept being unattainable, the man would get frustrated and give up.  One of the issues I have with Valenti's writing is that she generalizes women into "us" and the thing she speaks of applies to everyone.  Many of the stereotypes of women do not apply to me personally and I couldn't be happier with who I am.  I agree with the majority of Valenti's proposals, specifically when she talks about her opinion on Playboy and Maxim.  She does not understand why or if women who choose to participate in these magazines realize what they are setting themselves up for.  If women do not follow this trend throughout their lives, such as getting jobs in the porn industry, they may be setting themselves up for failure; just for some male attention?  This may be true if future employers depending on the employers views on magazines like that.  I completely agree with Valenti on what women are thinking when they decide to do something like that.  While feminists are trying to prove women to be strong and provide themselves with equality, you have women laying naked and exploiting themselves to men.  This annoys me because women who are in the porn industry also want equality and to appeal strong and independent, but they are putting the wrong message out there.  This also allows the pop culture stereotypes to seep through generations, causing young teenagers to believe that is how women are supposed to act and be portrayed.

Militarization of Gender

Militarization is a societies' way of preparing for war or conflict.  This can be gendered in the way in which men and women are viewed through combat.  In Western society war is not viewed as a place for women to be, because it is seen as unfeminine and is therefore frowned upon.  I believe this contrasts the idea of women being nurturing, but follows the belief that men are inherently aggressive.   A section of the reading "Feminist Theories of War and Peace" talks about women being more reliant on groups and men being more autonomous.  The author of this piece believes that because men are taught to be more independent, may adapt men to kill in war.  I do not believe in this idea whatsoever because men who choose to participate in war, are taught to kill.  They are also taught to hate the group in which they are at combat with.  Where is the line drawn between fighting for one's country and killing innocent individuals on the bases that they live in that country, and should therefore be killed as well.  In my opinion war is conflict with violence used as a means of power control.  If women are thought to be nurturing, then of course people are going to believe that they have no place of being involved in war.  But this is a sexist belief because women can, and do fight in combat; they are no longer just nurses or a part of the clerical aspect.  According to "Towards a Gendered Understanding of Conflict" many feel as though women become "de-sexed" and are no longer looked as feminine because they fight in combat.  In my opinion this may be true for them while they are fighting, but I'm sure it does not take away from them being feminine whenever they are not fighting.  For a woman being in the armed forces, she has to be tough because it is not a norm for a woman to "fight like a man" so to speak.  Women in the military have to change their ways to not become ridiculed for fighting, but it does not take away from them being less feminine, because what truly defines someone being feminine?

Feminism, Conflict or Misunderstanding?

Throughout our discussion in class on Tuesday I wondered if the idea of feminism has been completely misconstrued throughout history, which may be just one big misunderstanding among the general population. The definition, according to "Feminism is for EVERYBODY" is "a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression" (Hooks, 1).  Therefore everyone knows the clear definition of feminism and can't say that it's "anti-male" or woman want what men had, as stated in the article.  It is none of those things and therefore has been misunderstood and exaggerated throughout its history.  I believe feminism is both a conflict as well as a misunderstanding due to people's opinions, as well as what they have been told to believe about feminism.  Conflict is a universal principle but I have never understood the actually definition, which was provided for me in class.  With that definition from class is the definition of conflict from "Bodily Harm".  It stresses conflict as "incompatibility of interests, goals, values, needs, expectations, and/or social cosmologies (or ideologies)" (Hatty, 3).  Therefore people who may not agree with the idea of feminism or what it stands for, is at a conflict with it.  Conflict can also be either functional or dysfunctional in the consequences (positive or negative).  It is functional for the women who support the feminist movement, as well as those who are by standards and benefit from their work. There may also be negative consequences such as the work being done and time spent being for nothing; or if the conflict were to escalate to violence. The line can be drawn with which conflict and a misunderstanding meet, is in my opinion, if violence ensues. 

Violence Against Women

Violence against women is a historical issue that, in my opinion, until recently has been swept under the rug and not worried about. This issue has been the underlying factor of the inequalities woman face in their everyday lives. In the reading, "Women's Rights Are Human Rights" it states that violence is a way for men to control women and to instill fear in them to do whatever they say.  I strongly agree with the reading in which the amount of violence enacted against women is directly correlated to too women's social and economic inequality, as well as relations between the sexes. To add on top of being a woman, those of a different race, ethnicity, sexuality, and class system have an added level of violence against them; based on just those factors alone.  Every type of violence a woman can face is terrible but in my opinion sexual violence is one of the worst, and most demeaning types. It not only gives a woman a false sense of security, but it is used by men in order to assert their power but it also degrades, and brings shame to women everywhere.  I completely agree that women's rights are human rights and feel so strongly for that.  That is why I enjoyed reading this article because it put into perspective how woman deserve to be treated as what we are, human beings. In order to find peace for women, many feminist groups have advocated and have succeeded in having violence against women become a governmental issue. While this does not alleviate the violence, it gives women hope that if it is happening to them, there are ways for them to receive the help they need; even if they are unable to afford it.

Feminism

After reading both selections I found the "Full Frontal Feminism" to be one of the most unique and honest pieces of writing I have ever read. I not only enjoyed Jessica Valenti's writing style, she included her own unique experiences, as well as firmly stating that she has no problem calling herself a feminist. I know I personally struggle with the idea of calling myself “the f-word" because it can carry a negative connotation. In my opinion it is looked at by others, the majority being men, as being headstrong and being a "man-hater"; when that is not always the case. In Valenti's piece she gives the definition of feminism, which is "belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes" (Valenti, 13). With that she goes on to talk about how feminism has nothing to do with man-hating or "hairy legs". I conquer with this statement because there is a large misconception that feminists are hairy, lesbians, and would not care if they had a man in their life. I look at these opinions as social constructions of what society and politics has created feminism to appear negative. This ties in with the other reading, "Making Gendered People", because in it discusses the agendas of change of the 1970s feminists brought about. Some agendas of change included educational change, media changes (to change sex-role models), and new forms of psycho-therapy (to provide support for those changing roles) (Connell, 2). I agree with the propositions of early feminists when there was a clear distinction made between sex and gender. That distinction being sex is biological and gender is the social side, which is the difference between male and female roles and personalities. My opinion is that gender is socially constructed and may only have the slightest bit to do with biological factors. "Making Gendered People" talks about bodies being plural and diverse, and one sentence enforces my opinion of gender being a social construct. "In gender (as in other social structures) social practice draws bodies into a historical process in which bodies are materially transformed" (Connell, 3). This implies that just because you have a male body, does not mean you can't become more feminine due to outside factors and social influences.

Unique, or Socially Constructed?

In chapter 6, "Issues of Subjectivity and Identity" I strongly agreed with one point that the author made right from the very beginning.  Subjectivity is how we are constructed as subjects as we are developing.  As human beings we are "subject to" different social processes for development, depending on when and where we grow up.  Much of our development is constructed on the bases of the environment around us, and who we are have as role models.  Subjectivity is culturally specific because identities are formed and cannot fit the norm outside of the culture they were brought up in.  The author makes a good point by saying that the ideas of uniqueness and self-identity are more commonly found in western societies than in those cultures where identities are based on family bonds and cultural requirements.  In my opinion this may be because of the emphasis put on individuals to be unique, and to not conform to the social "norm".  Throughout schooling students are taught to think in different ways, as well as to express themselves in the ways they choose.  The concept of uniqueness is not universal and is not practiced world-wide.  This connects with the idea of originality which is the allocation of cultural resources of the self and how they are arranged.  I agree with this statement to a point because there are some cultures in which no one has originality because those individuals are taught to follow the words of the culture.  But what makes someone original is the unique patterns of friendships, relationships with family members, and at work.  In my opinion everyone is unique in their own way and deserves the right to express their originality but within reason.