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.