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.