Short Post 11/2

I found all of the readings very enlightening, but I was particularly struck by Maria Cristina Rangel's article, "Knowledge is Power." I find it terrible that Welfare organizations seem to be blaming the individual, who needs help, for the situation that they are in. As Rangel tells us, in the waiting room in a TAFDC (Transitional Aid to Families with Dependence Children) office, there are posters that say "Mommy, will we always be on Welfare?" "Work Works!" "Think of your children...Whose footsteps do you want to see them follow in?" (191). This is incredibly condescending. As Rangel claims, they make poverty seem as if it is "a matter of personal failure" and "ending poverty a matter of personal will" (192). While it is true that some Welfare recipients might be in their current conditions because of their own work ethic (or lack there of), for most people, this is simply not the case. Most people have all the will in the world to get out of their current condition, but simply have never had the means to do so. Work ethic and attitude can only go so far. And others might be so beaten down by living in poverty for so long, that they simply have lost this will and "right attitude," and is that really their fault? What do we expect? Making poverty into simply a matter of will, work ethic, and attitude ignores the fact the problem, in most cases, is the SYSTEM, not the individuals.

Media Project (Tip Drill)

Rap music is both loved and hated in today’s society. Rap crosses both racial and socioeconomic lines. African Americans started rap as a way for there voice to be heard and give others insight into their lives. Rap music videos consistently cause controversy for the sexual content and demoralization of women. Since rap music is highly sexual then it only seems natural that its music videos would also be hyper sexualized. Rap music takes a lot of the blame for how women are objectified in today’s society. Nelly a popular rap artist came out with a song in “Tip Drill” in 2003 that completely revolutionized hip-hop and the objectification of women. This video completely takes objectification to a new level by disregarding women’s faces and solely judging them based on their bodies.

By definition a tip drill is a woman that has a nice body, large breasts and a big butt, but has an ugly face. The chorus is:

I said it must be ya ass cause it ain't ya face

I need a tipdrill, I need a tipdrill

I said it must be ya ass cause it ain't ya face

I need a tipdrill, I need a tipdrill

I said if ya see a tipdrill point her out, where she at

Point her out, where she at

Point her out, there she goooooes

I said if ya see a tipdrill point her out, where she at

Point her out, where she at

Point her out, there she goooooes

The Video is full of half naked black women dancing around being groped by men. The video first aired on BET, the video was so controversial that BET began only airing the video after 2 am. The video tells young men that it is ok to judge women simply on their body and it tells young girls that men only want them for the bodies. This is a dangerous message to send to young impressionable girls, because they see a video like this and if they have low self-esteem and are not receiving attention from men they may try and present themselves like some of the girls in the video at an attempting to garner attention from men. Douglas talks about how the ideal body that young girls try to attain is that of a twelve year old boy with Pamela Anderson’ breast. In class we talked about how the “ideal body” differs from race to race. Women of color usually want a bigger butt where as white woman want bigger breasts.

It’s hard for someone who may not be socially aware to believe that these women are being mistreated. They may argue that they are being paid and are not forced to participate in the videos and actually have to audition to even be considered for a part. However as Susan Douglas points out women who present themselves with sexual desires equal to those of a man, or simply a women proud of her body and not scared to show it off, no matter their intent, are giving permission for men to objectify them. While one may make the argument that the women in the tip drill video are making a desperate attempt to liberate themselves through their sexuality Douglas would say that they are just giving men permission to objectify them and call them sluts enlightened sexism is more “virulent for African American woman because it intersects with the new subtle racism and with misogyny in some sectors of the black community.” (131) Douglas also talks about the wide range in which African American women are portrayed in the media. You have the half naked gyrating women in the tip drill video and then you have arguable the most famous woman on tv Oprah.. Douglas even references the infamous Nelly video and talks about a particular scene in the video were a credit card is swiped down a woman’s butt. Douglas does not go into much detail about the video but she does talk a little about some of the backlash the video received. The women of Spellman refused to have Nelly on their campus unless he engaged in a dialogue about the sexist views portrayed in some of his videos. Many would argue that rap music videos have been detrimental to the experiences of young black women, however the severity of these effects are difficult to measure.

Entertainers and rap artists are put in a difficult position. They obviously want to make money and sex sells. Men are the key demographic considered when making a music video. The men watching these videos do not want to see women in formally dressed ball room dancing they want to see them in bikinis humping each other not to mention that in order to have a good music video the video has to somewhat coincide with the lyrics which are usually sexual. I think people sometimes get confused and blame rap for the objectification of women rap music did not create this notion of objectifying women however it does reinforce it. Rap music videos, glamorize the negative aspects of the everyday lives of black women and strengthen the stereotypes. The strengthening of the stereotypes in these music videos puts the young black woman in a box in which mainstream society views them.

There is not one clear-cut solution to this problem. However the blame should be more evenly distributed with some of it falling on the shoulders of the distributors of these music videos, who are often white. White people are benefiting from marketing these negative stereotypes of African Americans, especially women but somehow receive none of the blame. Women also need to step up and start refusing these roles in music videos or at least demanding some changes. It’s hard for men to refrain from objectifying women when you have women who willingly participate in these videos. Since women are objectified in the media it seems almost second nature to objectify them in everyday life. I believe it has to start with women demanding more respect for themselves and then this will have a trickle down affect, affecting society in general and how men view women.

Media Project: "Baby Got Back"

“I like big butts and I can not lie, you other brothers can't deny, that when a girl walks in with an itty bitty waist and a round thing in your face, you get sprung!”. We have all heard the song; most of us know the lyrics, and most of have sung (or danced) along at some point to Sir Mix-a-Lot’s hit 1992 single, “Baby Got Back.” However, what most of us do not realize is that there is a powerful force at work behind this song: enlightened sexism—the media illusion that equality has been reached between the sexes, women are powerful, and therefore, feminism is “done”—outdated and unnecessary. Through an analysis of the music video, I hope to show how “Baby Got Back” exemplifies what Susan Douglas means by the term “enlightened sexism” and the power this force has over people’s views of sexism, particularly in making us view sexism and the objectification of women as a joke, which we all should participate in.

The media (particularly through film and television) is constantly feeding us images of powerful, successful women: from Grey’s Anatomy’s authoritative, “won’t take any of your crap” Dr. Bailey to Sex and the City’s powerful and prominent PR executive, Samantha Jones—we even saw a woman as president on the show, Commander in Chief. As Douglas claims, the media “overrepresent women as having made it—completely—in the professions, as having gained sexual equality with men, and having achieved a level of financial success and comfort enjoyed primarily by the Tiffany’s-encrusted doyennes of Laguna Beach” (4-5). Enlightened sexism conveys the idea that in light of the fact that women have made so much progress as a gender and sexism is an ancient way of the past, it is both okay for men to stereotype and objectify women and for women, themselves, to enact these objectifications and go along with them. Enlightened sexism “insists that women have made plenty of progress because of feminism—indeed, full equality has allegedly been achieved—so now its okay, even amusing, to resurrect sexist stereotypes of girls and women” (Doulas 9). Since equality has been reached, both men and women can join in on the fun, which is sexism. However, the truth is that we have not even scratched the surface on reaching full equality between men and women. While much progress has been made, we have not reached our final destination, and women are nowhere close to being equal to men in terms of power in today's world. If we have achieved gender equality, then why, as Douglas points out, would women today earn only 80% of what men earn one year out of college, and a mere 69% ten years out of college? Why would the most popular jobs for women still be subordinate and less powerful positions, such as secretaries, nurses, elementary school teachers, cashiers, and retail sales-persons? So while the media may tell us that women’s liberation is a “fait accompli” (Douglas 5), if you look through the media haze, you will recognize that the media is simply producing “fantasies of power”—sexism is not dead, and we must continue to fight for gender equality.

Now it might be a little clearer where Sir Mix-a-Lot’s “Baby Got Back” fits into this whole picture. If you watch the music video, you will witness what must be one of the most blatant examples of the sexual objectification of women that we have around today. The video consists of black women (unsurprisingly, with rather large behinds), clad in tight and revealing garments, aggressively shaking their butts, sensuously rubbing their butts, slapping their butts, patting their butts, patting each others’ butts, and more generally, dancing very provocatively. At the beginning of the video, during the famous “oh my god, Becky, look at her butt,” segment, there is even a women in an extremely short, skin-tight dress standing atop a revolving stand, caressing her curves. The image of this woman being on display on what essentially is a pedestal is very noteworthy and telling. The accompaniment of a few seconds of what sounds like “godly” or “heavenly” musical voices completes the image of the woman’s body being on display and deserving of worship. The blatant sexualizing and objectification of women is also evident in many other aspects of the video. The set of the video consists of structures, which are unmistakably meant to look like butts. Also, erratically throughout the video, images of certain fruits and vegetables, such as tomatoes and lemons (as well as chickpeas, which are shaped like butts) are flashed across the screen. There was even an image of a banana thrown in, which in our society has strong sexual connotations as representing a penis. There is also a butt-like object on the record, which is repeatedly shown. The explicit sexualizing of women is also evident in how different words, which can be used to describe women’s’ butts, such as “rump, thick, rear, bubble, tail, dorsum, stuffed and much back,” are frequently flashed across the screen in huge, bold lettering.

The music video and the song lyrics are so transparently sexist and objectifying towards women and as feminist scholar, Rosalind Gill, claims, “the extremeness of the sexism is evidence that there’s no sexism!” (Douglas 13). The force of enlightened sexism makes people believe that since no one could actually be sexist anymore, the existence of blatantly sexist and degrading images of women, like the appalling ones in Sir Mix-a-Lot’s video, are completely acceptable. As Douglas argues, enlightened sexism “includes in-your-face sexism in which the attitudes about women that infuriated feminists in the 1960s and ‘70s are pushed to new, even more degrading levels, except that it’s all done with a wink” (13)—the wink, in the case of “Baby Got Back,” signifying that we, the audience, know that the song and video are meant to be viewed as over-the-top and exaggerating the sexualizing of women. We can think of this music video just as we think about MTV shows, such as My Super Sweet Sixteen, where Douglas claims the viewer is essentially being elbowed in the ribs and told by MTV, “we know that you know that we know that you know that this is excessive and kitschy, that you’re too smart to read this straight and not laugh at it” (14). We are all “in” on the joke about the objectification of these women and their big behinds. As Douglas argues, the mindset produced by enlightened sexism is that “it’s silly to be sexist; therefore, it’s funny to be sexist” (13), and it is even funnier to be over-the-top sexist, which is exactly what the music video of “Baby Got Back” is. The entire video has a humorous, almost joking tone to it. This comical tone can be seen in how literally many of the lyrics are acted out in the video—during the “you get sprung!” line, a slinky is shown stretching out; during the, “I wanna get with you and take your picture” line, a picture is literally taken and we are shown a picture of a woman’s butt; and during the “you can do side bends or sit-ups, but please don't lose that butt” line, the scantily clad dancers in the background are doing a dance version of a sit-up. In this way, the disgusting extent to which women are being objectified in this video is hiding behind the facade of its exaggeration and humor.

The blatant sexuality, extreme objectification, and overall humorous tone of “Baby Got Back” makes us feel like it is okay to have fun with the song and video and play along with the “joke” (since we all know that sexism does not actually exist, right?). I will be the first to admit that I go along with it—I know almost every single word to this song and at the age of twelve, was lightheartedly singing and dancing along to it with my friends. When this song comes on at a dance or party, it seems like every girl rushes to the dance floor with her girl friends to get in on the “joke”—it’s simply a fun song. As Douglas asserts, “enlightened sexism is meant to make patriarchy pleasurable for women” (12), and for many girls, what is more pleasurable than to scream the ridiculous lyrics and dance around with their friends shaking “what your mama gave ya.” We even see people doing this in the media. In “Charlie’s Angels,” there is the infamous scene where Cameron Diaz gets up on the stage of a club when “Baby Got Back” comes on and starts dancing, at first timidly, but then wildly, as her self-consciousness melts away. She looks to be having the time of her life, spurred on by the crowd and shaking her booty. In one Friends episode we even see Ross and Rachel singing “Baby Got Back” to their baby daughter, Emma, in order to make her laugh. The ending scene of the episode shows both of them singing and dancing to it in front of Emma’s crib, with Ross shaking his butt, Rachel slapping it, and them both loudly singing, “shake it, shake it, shake that healthy butt!”. In the background, the audience is roaring with laughter, and why not? It is funny (and entertaining).

The question we should be asking is how has it become acceptable and “cool” to joke about the objectification of women? When did we slip into a world where our humor governed our morals? Sure, we may say that we’re in on the joke, and deep down we know that the objectifying and sexualizing women is bad, but at what point do these images begin to actually seep in, shape our views, and govern our behavior? When does the joke become a reality? Based on the prevalence of sexual harassment and rape, I would say that we have already reached this point. Our mission, then, is to take on the “ongoing, never-ending project of consciousness raising” (Douglas 22). We must acknowledge the force of “enlightened sexism,” recognize how it is shaping our views by means of the media, and furthermore recognize that despite the media’s “fantasies of power,” women and men are not equal in the world today and we must keep fighting for gender equality.

Media Project

Rap music is both loved and hated in today’s society. Rap crosses both racial and socioeconomic lines. Rap music videos consistently cause controversy for the sexual content and demoralization of women. Since rap music is highly sexual then it only seems natural that its music videos would also be hyper sexualized. Since women are objectified in the media it seems almost second nature to objectify them in everyday life. Rap music takes a lot of the blame for how women are objectified in today’s society. Nelly a popular rap artist came out with a song in “Tip Drill” ( http://www.myvideo.de/watch/839263/Nelly_Tip_Drill) 2003 that completely revolutionized hip-hop and the objectification of women.

By definition a tip drill is a woman that has a nice body, large breasts and a big butt, but has an ugly face. The chorus is:

I said it must be ya ass cause it ain't ya face

I need a tipdrill, I need a tipdrill

I said it must be ya ass cause it ain't ya face

I need a tipdrill, I need a tipdrill

I said if ya see a tipdrill point her out, where she at

Point her out, where she at

Point her out, there she goooooes

I said if ya see a tipdrill point her out, where she at

Point her out, where she at

Point her out, there she goooooes

The Video is full of half naked black women dancing around being groped by men. The video first aired on BET, the video was so controversial that BET began only airing the video after 2 am. The video tells young men that it is ok to judge women simply on their body and it tells young girls that men only want them for the bodies. This is a dangerous message to send to young impressionable girls, because they see a video like this and if they have low self-esteem and are not receiving attention from men they may try and present themselves like some of the girls in the video at an attempting to garner attention from men. Douglas talks about how the ideal body that young girls try to attain is that of a twelve year old boy with Pamela Anderson’ breast. In class we talked about how the “ideal body” differs from race to race. Women of color usually want a bigger butt where as white woman want bigger breasts.

enlightened sexism is more “virulent for African American woman because it intersects with the new subtle racism and with misogyny in some sectors of the black community.” (131) Douglas also talks about the wide range in which African American women are portrayed in the media. You have the half naked gyrating women in the tip drill video and then you have arguable the most famous woman on tv Oprah. Douglas argues that women who present themselves with sexual desires equal to those of a man, or simply a women proud of her body and not scared to show it off, no matter their intent they are giving permission for men to objectify them. While one may make the argument that the women in the tip drill video are making a desperate attempt to liberate themselves through their sexuality Douglas would say that they are just giving men permission to objectify them and call them sluts. Douglas even references the infamous Nelly video and talks about a particular scene in the video were a credit card is swiped down a woman’s butt. Douglas does not go into much detail about the video but she does talk a little about some of the backlash the video received. The women of Spellman refused to have Nelly on their campus unless he engaged in a dialogue about the sexist views portrayed in some of his videos. Many would argue that rap music videos have been detrimental to the experiences of young black women, however the severity of these effects are difficult to measure. It’s hard for someone who may not be socially aware to believe that these women are being mistreated, they may argue that they are being paid and are not forced to participate in the videos and actually have to audition to even be considered for a part.

Entertainers and rap artists are put in a difficult position. They obviously want to make money and sex sells. Men are the key demographic considered when making a music video. The men watching these videos do not want to see women in formaly dressed ball room dancing they want to see them in bikinis humping each other not to mention that in order to have a good music video the video has to somewhat coincide with the lyrics which are usually sexual. I think people sometimes get confused and blame rap for the objectification of women rap music did not create this notion of objectifying women however it does reinforce it. Rap music videos, glamorize the negative aspects of the everyday lives of black women and strengthen the stereotypes. The strengthening of the stereotypes in these music videos puts the young black woman in a box in which mainstream society views them.

There is not one clear-cut solution to this problem. However the blame should be more evenly distributed with some of it falling on the shoulders of the distributors of these music videos, who are often white. Women also need to step up and start refusing these roles in music videos or at least demanding some changes. It’s hard for men to not objectify women when you have women who willingly participate in these videos. In order to bring about a change I believe it has to start with women demanding more respect for themselves and then I believe this will have a trickle down affect affecting society in general and how men view

Media Project- I Love My Hair

The media today is filled with advertisements, television shows, celebrity gossip, videos and more that place women in uncomfortable and compromised positions. Sometimes women are shown in a positive light by the media, but it is not often enough. Recently however, there was one piece of information that struck me as particularly captivating, especially considering the encouraging manner in which it actually supports and furthers the strides women are making in popular culture. While reading the daily news, I came across a video story on abcnews.com about Sesame Street’s newest character, entitled “Sesame Street Teaches Self-Esteem”.

http://www.6seconds.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/sesame_street_friends.jpg

Diane Sawyer, in this video, begins by saying: “As you probably know its something that African American girls talk about amongst themselves but not often out loud: hair” with a photo of the character, an African American girl puppet, in the upper right hand corner. As someone who grew up idolizing this show that brings together both education and entertainment, and is currently studying representations of women, I could not be more proud that this character was added to Sesame Street. It is steps like this video that begin the movement away from the concept of an “ideal beauty type” which is so often talked about and give all different types of women self-confidence.

http://celebritybabies.people.com/2010/10/22/sesame-streets-i-love-my-hair-skit/

The clip that this new character was in called “I Love My Hair” is the most ideal way of showing that African American females are beautiful and should love their hair. Sawyer calls the incorporation of this new character a “revolution of the heart” but personally I think it has a much stronger message. Because African American girls don’t have hair that is idealized and worshipped in our society: Barbie’s long, flowing blonde locks, they often feel left out and unsure how to feel confident about their own hair. This video is a way in which all women can feel proud of what they look like, and in my opinion can only help the young girls/women in America to feel a greater sense of belonging, acceptance, and self-assurance.

“Don’t need a trip to the beauty shop, cause I love what I got on top” is the opening line of the clip, "I Love My Hair". ABC News discusses with several African American girls and women the issues they face because their hair is “big” and “poofy”. This is contrasted with a picture of Barbie saying “this, by the way, is often our earliest lesson about beauty”. The video cuts to a clip of Whoopi Goldberg doing a standup routine in which a little African American girl puts a towel on her head to try and emulate Barbie’s “long, luxurious blonde hair”. As Susan Douglas says in Enlightened Sexism, “conforming to the Barbie aesthetic of femininity… is essential” (page 164). This clearly poses an issue for African American women who do not have blonde hair, nor those long flowing locks, and as Douglas writes on page 137, “exactly how were black women supposed to reconcile the pressures to conform to and succeed in white culture with the pressures, and desire, to keep it real?” It can be not only discouraging but, as the 5^th chapter in her book entitled “You Go, Girl” sums up, it also reinforces the “little power, in actuality, black women still have” (page 153).

The head writer of Sesame Street, Joey Mazzarino, just so happens to have an adopted daughter Segi from Ethiopia. He said that all she wanted was long straight hair that she could throw around and shake; it seems as though she wanted to be white, instead of embracing her culture. As any parent would feel, he became concerned. Thus, he decided to take a stand on this issue that undoubtedly extends much farther than his own daughter. Though Segi was the main inspiration for the muppet, it is obvious that while others have attempted to make these kinds of strides before, such as Sir Mix-a-lot who “sang the praises of black women’s backsides, made of fun the dominant white standard of beauty as promoted in Barbie dolls and Cosmo…” (page 134, Enlightened Sexism) this appears to be a powerful way in which young girls are convincingly addressed. Especially in considering Sesame Street’s phenomenal reputation, this, I believe, is a huge step forward for woman across the country. Not only African American women, but women of all cultures can connect.

There are still these stereotypes that many girls feel they must live up to, for example the seventh grader that Douglas refers to on page 217, saying that “there is too much pressure from the media to be ultra thin and to have big boobs and blonde hair…” I feel however, the adamant nature in which this muppet sings about her hair encourages young girls watching to embrace their hair and its uniqueness. She goes on to model several different hair styles and sings, “Wear a clippy or in a bow, or let it sit in an afro, my hair looks good in cornrows, it does so many things you know, that’s why I let it grow. I love my hair. I love it and I have to share.” Many viewers seem to agree. The YouTube user 4eva2bsassy states: “I’m twelve. I remembered seeing [the video] on the news a few days ago. I wear my afro to school all the time and I get made fun of. I get called afro lady mushroom head and its really annoying… this song kinda helped me a little and I’m tired of being told to straighten it!” User candymoon writes, “I am a black woman and happy that sesame street is teaching black girls to love their hair. This is way past due I see nothing wrong with the video. This video needs to be played in classrooms across the country. So that black girls feel good about the hair that they have.” Finally, xblackheart9 says, “this is so cute. I absolutely love it. Being blonde and white isn’t the only example of a pure beauty :)”

In general I feel that because this video has brought about a lot of publicity and conversation it has started to do its job. As of October 24th, one week after this particular video was uploaded, more than 3,300 comments have been made here alone, and the video has been shared more than 300,000 times. Although not all of the comments are positive, which I did not expect as white privilege, which Peggy McIntosh discusses, still exists, many do feel intensely inspired by it and make claims that “this is beautiful”, informative, empowering, and heartwarming. Though we live in a society where it is extremely hard to change people’s views, as a direct result of the media, small steps like this can be what brings about a change. At the very least, people should consider and take to heart the message that this video sends. Why continue to put women (and people in general) down when things like this receive such positive feedback? It is this action taken by Sesame Street that brought this very important issue amongst African American women and girls to a more global attention. Understanding that though people are different, they can still be considered beautiful is a big deal, and a necessary one. There is no reason that all women should be assigned to the same standard of beauty, and this video furthers the notion that there is a lot to love no matter what kind of hair you have and what you can do with it.

Also, there has been a remix made with the video clips from “I Love My Hair” and Willow Smith’s song, “Whip My Hair”.

short post

The chapter "Daughters and Generals in the Politics of the Globalized Sneaker." Was very informative. I have previously read about child labor and sweat shops in foreign countries, but never about working women in poor conditions. It seems these women got guilted into working in poor conditions through the globalization of sneakers and through this conceptualized their own idea of femininity. It is fascinating to me how these women were basically tricked into working for low wages and being content with that. I love shoes while writing this I briefly stopped to count how many shoes I have in my closet I counted 26 and that doesn’t count the shoes I get given to me and the shoes I have at home. Not once have I ever thought about the process that goes into creating the shoes or the labor behind it. It is ridiculous how much money we spend on these shoes that cost a fraction of what we pay. While Nike and Reebok and other shoe companies may have terrible working standards for its factory workers it is hard for me to be sympathetic because it does not directly affect me or anyone I know. Unfortunately I believe that is how most people feel even though they may say that they care what are they really doing about it?

Main Post 10/25

In Cynthia Enloe’s 3^rd chapter of The Curious Feminist, she discusses “The Globetrotting Sneaker”. This chapter basically explains the situation after the Cold War in countries such as Russia, South Korea, China and Indonesia where sneaker companies, Nike and Reebok had decided to expand. However, this has come with an enormous cost, particularly for women. Not only are the sneakers very expensive; for example, the average Russian made $40 a month while Reebok sneakers fall in the $100 range, but almost 60% of Russia’s single parents live in poverty, and most of these are women.

As she writes, “as the global economy expands, sneaker executives are looking to pay women workers less and less, even though the shoes that they produce are capturing an ever-growing share of the footwear market” (44). The companies feel that it is advantageous and increases their competitiveness by hiring these “docile” women to make their shoes. The root of this issue, she says, stems from the fact that trade agreements are made between countries governments. It is these politics that make the lives of the workers very difficult as they try to “pit working women in industrialized countries against much lower-paid working women in “developing” countries, perpetuating the misleading notion that they are inevitable rivals with each other in the global job market” (45). These practices have changed since the 1960s but still it seems that women are taken advantage of. Though woman workers have taken a stand against the government, such as in South Korea where women began organizing in response to harsh work conditions, low pay, and “humiliation”, this resulted in government riot police raping, assaulting and stripping the workers. Eventually the wage gap was closed but it still remained at around 50% of male counterparts. Many have had to determine whether or not it is better to have a low paying, humiliating job versus none at all. “Sexual service” jobs, around this time, started blossoming.

This is not only a problem for South Korean women, as women all over the world face similar painstaking situations. They have organized “unions” too, in an effort to eliminate low wages. Also, it seems that companies, such as Reebok, ignore the fact that their workers are doing so under such conditions. Nike spokesman Dusty Kidd said that “all is relative” so that even though women in Indonesia were paid only 75% of $1.89 a day (minimum wage), it was actually “the first rung on the ladder of economic opportunity” (51). A survey found that 88% of women who worked at the minimum wage (which was less than a dollar a day) were malnourished- clearly protests are legitimate, as networks like the Committee for Asian Women has tried to addressed women’s needs.

Chapter 4, “Daughters and Generals in the Politics of the Globalized Sneaker” focuses upon globalization, power and politics. She begins with a discussion about universities and their links to sportswear companies, thus linking “Michigan State University student athletes, administrators and fans to both the Asian women who stitch sneakers and the investment-hungry Asian governments that try to control these young women” (58).

The globalization of sneakers began in South Korea and Taiwan in the 1970s, as Nike, Reebok, Adidas, Puma, and others decided to move from the USA. But women have “shaped” globalization. As the author says, “Korean women who became the assembly workers were crafting their own conceptions of femininity and Nike became dependent on those women’s constructions” (60). It seems that their femininity and the later pressure to keep this femininity of the 70s and 80s as such, kept wages low. Women were encouraged at this time to be “patriots” and move to cities in order to help the progress of industrialization. It was said to be a “respectable” move for ones family and potential fiancées, one in which there was clearly manipulation by the government.

It seems that the women realized that they were being paid poorly, but felt that as “daughters” this is what was necessary in order to be considered loyal. This was also considered a way to “rise a rung on the Korean class ladder” (63) in order to bring decent dowries into marriages. Thus, women workers’ priorities and strategies were analyzed/developed and globalization tactics were then figured out.

In Korea, many factory owners set up dating services, in order to increase labor turnover, because newer workers can be paid at a lower, “training” rate. Plus, in promoting dating, would keep women focused on working to fulfill the expectation of respectable daughters and potential wives. Despite this, women in South Korea begin to consider themselves citizens in the 1980s. When this happened, executives closed many factories in the country and began looking elsewhere (e.g. Indonesia). Korean officials tried to tell women that this was best for the country/government and was, like before, an act of patriotism.

The concept of women workers in Indonesia is more related to militarization and political network formation. Women who were working for sneaker companies made it a successful endeavor in the 80s and 90s. But there were many resistances, and not all were solely composed of women. Women were recruited and told that this was the ‘daughterly’ and ‘patriotic’ thing to do. However, like in South Korea, this industrial “project” was insufficient (67).

This has brought about an issue in what is considered “respectable femininity”. It is this concept, because knowing the life goals of women make them easy to manipulate, that keeps wages low and women easy to manage. Overall, Enloe states that this is complicated system in that “while Nike, Reebok and other sneaker giants may celebrate the globalized girl athlete in their advertisements, they simultaneously rely on regimes to undermine the legitimacy of local feminist’ challenging critiques with claims that those women activists are mere dupes of Western neo-imperialism” (68).

Short Post 10/25

I found the two chapters we read very informative and enlightening, especially the second, "Daughters and Generals in the Politics of the Globalized Sneaker." I've definitely heard about the "cheap labor" abroad and the terrible conditions under which female employees (particularly in the sneaker industry) in countries such as Korea, South Korea, and Japan have to work under. However, I was never aware of the complexities behind the situation and how countries' ideologies about femininity support "cheapened labor." Women were essentially brainwashed to be content in their low paid sneaker factory jobs. They were encouraged to view themselves as patriots, migrating "from their small towns to cities in order to participate in the industrialization of their nation" (60), as well as "daughters" and "potential fiancees," needing the money to send home to their families and win over men with large dowries.

At one point, Cynthia Enloe claims that when women consumers in other countries (especially the United States) "see an expensive row of Reeboks or Nikes on the store shelves, there is more to weigh than merely the price listed on the tag" (56). When I read this it really struck home with me because I have bought countless pairs of Nike sneakers in my lifetime. The sad and pathetic thing is even after reading all of this about the terrible positions female workers, who create these sneakers, are put in, it still won't stop me from buying the sneakers next time. I wish i felt differently, but I don't, and it makes me ashamed.

Main Post 9/20

In Brumberg's article, "The Body Project," she outlines how women's perceptions of the ideal female body have changed from 1920 to 1990 and the different ways in which they tried to sculpt their bodies to fit these molds. Brumberg starts off by claiming that by starting in the 20th century, women (particularly adolescent) began obsessing over their bodies and "organizing their thinking about themselves around their bodies" (97), believing that the body is the "ultimate expression of the self." In the 1920's both fashion and film both started showing more skin and promoted the "unveiling" of women's bodies, and as a result, ushered in strict beauty and diet rules (many of which required money to follow). The new ideal female body consisted in being tall, skinny, and fairly flat-chested (as opposed to their voluptuous predecessors). Consequently, girls started intensely monitoring their weight and dieting in order to achieve this body type. This dieting shows the shift from external to internal control of the body. The story of Yvonne Blue shows the pressure girls felt to conform to this slender body type from the media, their peers, and society as a whole. Yvonne claimed that she was going to lose 30 pounds before school started or "die in the attempt" (103). She began intensely monitoring her weight--dieting, counting her calories. She even tried to limit her daily caloric intake to 50 CALORIES, eating only lettuce, carrots, celery, and tea. Yvonne viewed her body image as her identity, and thus thought she could recreate herself through her body alone. Brumberg next talks about breasts, and how in the 1950's both women and men became preoccupied with them (she refers to this preoccupation as the "mammary fixation"). In earlier times, not fully developed girls usually wore camisole that had no cups, which were designed to flatten the chest (which was ideal at the time). In the 1950's, however, there was a move from homemade bras to mass-produced bras, which resulted in the pervasive belief that if you did not perfectly fit into one of the store's bra sizes your body was abnormal and there was something wrong with it. "Training" bras now came on the market for younger girls, whose chests were still very flat. Doctors even began giving medical reasons for wearing bras at a young age. As a result of this societal need for girls to wear bras at much younger ages than they used to (or probably needed to), girls' bodies were sexualized earlier than they had been in the past. Brumberg then goes on to talk more about dieting. American girls became obsessed with their weight and used it as a measurement for their self-value. In the 1960's, girls mainly skipped meals and counted calories in order to lose weight. In the 1990's, however, the "fitness craze" emerged as the new ideal body type for women was not just skinny, but toned. The new focus of women became their lower body and having sleek and toned legs (particularly the thighs) and butts...no cellulite! In the final segment of the article, Brumberg discusses the rise in popularity of piercings in the 1990's for women. Once regarded as primitive, having piercings became the "latest form of self-expression for American adolescents" (130). Not just ear piercings, but naval, nose, eyebrow, and even genitals.

In Steinem's article, “Sex, Lies & Advertising,” she discusses how the women's magazine she worked for, Ms, immensely struggled to find advertisers, who would buy space in their magazine. Many companies were not willing to place their advertisements in this magazine because they thought their products would not appeal to women, and thus they would simply be wasting their money and time by advertising them. Among these companies were car and electronics companies, who stubbornly and stereotypically believed that women were completely uninterested in purchasing these items themselves, and if they were surprisingly interested, they would ask their husband (or a man's advice) of what to purchase. Steinem is also outraged by how the advertisements in women's magazine consume the magazine and make them "editorial extensions of ads." She asserts that we have to stand up for ourselves and other women and support only the women's magazines (as well as products) that take women seriously and write to those who do not and voice our complaints.

In the article, "Ruminations of a Feminist Fitness Instructor", Valdes discusses how she used to be a (prominent) aerobics instructor. She was making a lot of money, but felt pangs in her conscience as she felt she was betraying her feminist self by working in a job that was in a way promoting women's obsession with conforming to the ideal body type. While she tried to find some justification in what she did, like that "women had smashed the sex barrier that once excluded them from this 'male' domain [of vigorous exercise]" (29). However, she was not able to fight off her conscience and feminist beliefs, and she eventually quit her job as an aerobics instructor to go to Columbia for graduate school and later become a writer for the Boston Globe, in which she found her true source of empowerment. Even though she would go into debt from attending grad school, this was a sacrifice she was willing to take.

Short Post 10/20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ0x_X0xXgU

It was ironic that while doing the reading for this class, a Victoria’s Secret commercial came on television (The one above is not the exact one that I saw but it is similar in many ways). It could not have been more perfectly placed, because the messages of “Sex, Lies and Advertising” and “The Body Project” play directly to commercials like this. As Gloria Steinem says in her article, despite pertaining mainly to magazines, she says that the way to control the public is through advertising, and that there are clear rules pertaining to advertisements, “rules that are so clear they needn’t be written down: for instance, an overall “look””. This Victoria’s Secret ad above includes women dressed scantily, with stick figure bodies and huge chests. They walk through huge mansions, next to beautiful and expensive cars, and have their hair and makeup done impeccably. It is clear from the title and the words that keep flashing on the screen, “What is sexy?” that this is what is sexy; that in order to be sexy, one needed long legs, huge breasts and underwear that provides minimal coverage. This further relates to “The Body Project”, when the author talks about the “sex appeal” revolution beginning in the 1920’s and the fact that “modern femininity required some degree of exhibitionism, or, at least, a willingness to display oneself as a decorative object”. Victoria’s Secret’s advertisements are just another way that the media reinforces “the ideal body for women”, and a way to promote the status and sense of self of women. I know for a fact from a friend that Victoria’s Secret only carries sizes up to a DD, and it is fairly expensive, which makes it an exclusive place to shop for smaller chested and wealthier women. Furthermore, it is only adding to “anxiety about breasts”, making women who are larger or smaller feel inadequate and not sexy.

Who is to say what is sexy? Each woman and man should get to decide it for themselves.

Short Post

The online reading entitled “Body Project” talked about how young girls completely shape their identity around their body and how others view their body. The article talks about society’s shift from a religious to a secular society. Dieting first came into affect in the 1920’s young women started becoming more health conscious and began researching new ways to loose weight. Like Yvonne Blue many girls believe that by changing the configuration of their body that it will create a new image that would grant popularity and status in school for themselves. Last class we talked about the show the Swan that had a brief stint on Fox. A lot of the women that were on the show still had issues after being made over. The problem that I see with a lot of girls is that they think if they change something about there body then they would be happy but once they change it they are still unhappy. I think the real question should be, is self-esteem derived from ones self or from others? I have two brothers no sisters and few female cousins so with the exception of my mom I grew up without a female perspective. I believe that self-esteem to a certain extent comes from ones self but most of my female friends believe that their self-esteem is completely dependent upon others. I know we have the media telling us what Sexy or attractive should look like but I believe that if we could somehow make the shift from having others determine our self-esteem to creating it ourselves young girls would put less emphasis on their bodies.

Main post

Susan Douglas starts the chapter entitled Lean and Mean by describing what young women should aspire to look like. How they were told that they had to be a size zero with huge breasts and look like a Victoria secret model in order to be sexy. Douglas says that young women are suppose to desire the body of a twelve year old boy with the breasts of Pamela Anderson. The media perpetuates this idea that young girls need to have large breasts, on every magazine cover is a slim girl with large breasts. Douglas also talks about the rise in Anorexia and Bulimia. Fox’s show “Swan” that aired in 2004 is an example of how women are objectified and are primarily there to be looked at. Shows like this and Mtv’s I want a famous face glamorize plastic surgery to young girls without fully explaining the risks involved. These shows did not tell us that saline breasts implants can “ rupture, change shape, and shift position” (227) of breasts. Cocaine is an infamous drug that is known for keeping its users skinny. Kate Moss a renowned supermodel was caught using cocaine and briefly lost all her endorsements. Within two months she had resigned with Burberry and signed a one million dollar contract with Calvin Klein, telling young girls that its more important to be 95 pounds then having a serious drug problem. Virginia Madsen, the spokesperson for botox compared using botox to a healthy lifestyle choice like working out or eating properly.
it is funny to me how this woman can compare physically altering your face to something as simple as working out. The second half of the chapter Douglas shifts from what young girls striving to look like to how they are trying to act. Girl on girl bullying has seen a dramatic rise in recent years. Young girls try to emulate these women they see on Tv on shows like the hills and Real World, they see these girls engaging in cat fights and they think that is how they are suppose to behave. The movie Mean Girls premiered in 2004 and was an instant box office hit. Every teenage girl strived to attain this mean girl image

In the article Hormonal Hurricanes some of the myths about menstruation were hilarious. PMS was said to make women commit suicide, miss work commit crimes, and beat their children. A key issue in this article was clearly defining PMS what is PMS. Everyone experiences natural ups and downs so what makes this different. Historically, women complaining of pain or physical or emotional changes during menstruation were thought to be delusional, in fact despondent because menstruation had proved that they had failed to fulfill their duties as women. When women were finally taken seriously, the medical profession responded by finding biological/hormonal causes, proposing the need for doctor-supervised cures. Furthermore, as a syndrome it implies that women aren’t truly in control. The article concludes by stating that women are by nature abnormal and inherently diseased. Due to poorly done studies on menstruation and menopause, many of which express deep hatred and fear of women, can be a discouraging experience. One begins to wonder how it can be that within so vast a quantity of material so little quality exists.

Response 10/18

In the first half of Susan Douglas’ chapter entitled “Lean and Mean”, she details the way that women are told what the ideal beauty is from society and the media. From Victoria’s Secret, to magazines and television, movies, and advertisements, females are given the idea that skinny girls with enormous breasts are those who supposedly have the power and control because these traits turn men into “helpless, salivating dung beetles” (214). Douglas discusses in depth the number of reality television shows in which makeovers and/or plastic surgery are done, in which women at the end look “beautiful” at which point they no longer recognized themselves; but still were now empowered because all that matters is attaining the “Hollywood” standard of beauty, rather than being oneself (225).

I find it, in most cases, absurd that people can truly feel that their lives have changed for the better as a result of plastic surgery. Douglas does mention breast reconstruction as a means for those who have gone through breast cancer, and I have a family friend who has gone through this process. I can't help but agree that in these instances and others, for example a woman who has been mauled by an animal and her face has been destroyed, etc. sometimes plastic surgery is necessary. There are other situations, such as the one described in this video, “daytime in no time” on Yahoo.com, in which Christie Brinkley discusses how she wanted to get Botox to “like, spruce up for the big 5-0”, when she was turning 50. It turns out that she was taken by surprise by the needle, it moved in a weird direction, and her eyebrows got the brunt of it and apparently were affected. As she said on “The Talk”, a new daytime talk show, “when your eyebrows go like that it’s depressing”, and the commentator for Yahoo said, “the last thing any makeup company wants is a model with weird eyebrows…” Christie Brinkley was a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model in the 70’s and 80’s. I think that people would obviously understand if she looked a little bit older, even though you would never know she is 50 years old as she is absolutely stunning to this day.

http://www.purseblog.com/images/christie-brinkley-hermes-bag.jpg

I find it insane that even after having lived through some of the horrible side effects, like having “one lip up here, one lip down here, dribbling, a cyclops” and others that Douglas talks about in her chapter, Sharon Osborne and others still swear by Botox. Just knowing that I was having those foreign compounds being placed in my body would be enough to deter me in the first place, and I find it alarming that 2.8 million injections were given in 2007 alone, given that the ingredients of Botox are no secret.

Short Post 10/19

I found Susan Douglas's chapter titled, "Lean and Mean," very enlightening and on-point. We are obsessed with appearance in our society, especially women's appearance. Why do we have to be stick thin and have big breasts to be considered beautiful or sexy? Our society's obsessions with big breasts is extremely apparent in the media. Take for example, Keira Knightley, who plays Elizabeth in "Pirates of the Caribbean." Keira Knightley is known for being extremely flat-chested, yet in the film, she has cleavage galore. Why did Elizabeth have to have huge breasts in the film? If the stunningly beautiful Keira Knightley needs big breasts to be what society wants her to be, then what message is this sending the rest of us women, who aren't exactly Keira Knightley beauties?



I also found Douglas's discussion of cosmetic surgery very interesting. Although I would never get plastic surgery, I think people have the right to do whatever they want with their body. However, I think one of the main problems that is created by the rise of plastic surgery is that people forget about the natural ways they can make themselves look better and, particularly younger. I think many women are so consumed by the idea of cosmetic surgery that they forget that they if they want to decrease wrinkling (and decrease the risk of skin cancer) as they get older, they could simply wear sunblock, instead of getting a face-lift, or that if they want to get liposuction to remove some fat from their body, they could exercise more or eat right. The practice plastic surgery can cause women to not take care of their bodies as they should because they think that they can "fix" any part of their body through surgery.

Short Post 10/14

I found this week's readings very interesting. I have always been in support of gay marriage; the idea that allowing gay marriage could be harmful to gay and lesbian couples never even crossed my mind. I never considered the possibility that marriage might constrain gays and lesbians and force them to assimilate into the mainstream, what society deems as normal, and thereby go against one of the main goals of gay liberation, an acceptance of all kinds of relationships. After thinking about the readings, I realized that gay and lesbian couples, like women, face a double-bind: if they do get married (assuming that it is legal in their state), they might feel as they are conforming to society's notion of what the right relationship is and not making their relationship into something that they want it to be. However, if they don't get married, they are denied many basic protections and rights that are given to married couples, such as hospital visitation rights, health insurance, social security benefits, and home protection. Many same-sex married couples are often discriminated against when trying to adopt, however, non-married same-sex couples face even more discrimination. How are gay and lesbians couples supposed to win? Our social institutions and systems are designed for them to lose. How is it fair that same-sex couples are forced to choose between what they believe in and basic legal rights?

Main Post 10/13

For this class there were three readings regarding the topic of marriage. The first was a text providing some information by the Human Rights Campaign (www.hrc.org) about same-sex marriage and why people in same-sex relationships would want to marry, which seems somewhat obvious in that the author says “because they are in love, just met the love of their lives, or more likely, have spent the last 10, 20 or 50 years with that person and want to honor their relationship in the greatest way our society has to offer… etc). Primarily however, this article outlines the rights and protections that same sex married couples are denied by the United States government; including hospital visitations, health insurance, family leave, retirement savings, estate taxes, social security benefits, and immigration rights. It also discusses the reasons why civil unions “aren’t enough”, which is that, plainly, they are not the real deal, and are not protected throughout every state or by the same rights as married couples even under these state laws.

The second is a journal article, published in 2004 entitled “Queer parenting in the New Millennium” by Nancy Naples. She begins by outlining the ongoing conflict in the US government regarding the Federal Marriage Amendment. While many politicians believe that the Defense of Marriage act enacted by Clinton in 1996 “doesn’t go far enough in protecting traditional marriage”, others point out that its poverty and not marriage that contributes to the welfare of children and is a sign of society’s stability. Some people feel that same-sex marriage could diminish the importance or sheer existence of “legal rights from the institution of marriage”. However, overall, it seems that many members of the country feel passionate about this and other progressive issues in our country, bringing awareness to the constraints of marriage in our current heterosexist and patriarchal society.

Debates have surfaced regarding whether or not same-sex marriage would benefit only certain communities, however surveys have seemed to prove otherwise. And, in general, it seems that economic benefits would be enormous. Furthermore, it seems that the safety and security of children is often brought up as an issue. Many gay and lesbian couples have kids and some states such as Connecticut offer the option for parents to become “co-parents” despite the fact that they cannot be legally married. People feel that “queer” parenting weakens “gender essentialism” and other gender/sexuality, etc. “norms”. Nevertheless there are still many options for couples that wish to have children, although in some states lesbians and single women have been refused treatment. This author talks about her personal experience finding somewhere she and her partner feel comfortable in having their twins and her child birthing class. She also discusses how her partner, the biological mother, might feel more accepted and less “salient” in society now that she has given birth.

Naples details the difficult process of adoption here too, and furthermore the dispute between whether couples that marriages in Massachusetts, where same sex marriage is legal (now in other states it is legal too), will be recognized by their home states. This has led her to discuss civil unions in regard to adoption and the fact that this can make the process even more complicated.

The piece ends with a discussion of Naples feelings that she and her partner could go unnoticed in their lives without children, but will have to redefine once their children are born. She feels that this leads to the question of how politicians can curb their negative energy regarding same sex marriage and queer parenting. They feel that it will destabilize our society, but in reality how can anyone define what family can be and what is in the best interests of children?

The last piece is a short piece by Paula Ettelbrick entitled, “Since when is marriage a path to liberation?” This document discusses how marriage in our society is an institution that is “venerable and impenetrable” and “provides the ultimate acceptance in relationships in our society” and thus how it has repulsed females for quite some time. Because of the “ultimate acceptance” piece of marriage, many gay and lesbian couples want it, because honestly, who doesn’t want to be accepted?, she writes, saying that this would ease our problems and make everything easy and nice. Realistically, however, she knows that marriage won’t liberate gay couples, and it furthermore won’t change society from being as narrow-minded as it is now.

She feels that regardless of the fact that gay couples should have this right, rights don’t always equal justice, because ultimately, this would just set “an agenda for gaining rights for a few, but would do nothing to correct the power unbalances”, thus justice wouldn’t be achieved.

She links gay justice with female justice/liberation. She feels that the state nor another person should have control over her as a person, but our legal system supports this thoroughly. This is where there is a problem because realistically, gay and straight marriage would have to be equated and simply, they are not equal. She feels that this is a horribly terrifying thing, “de-emphasizing differences.” Our society should encourage differences. Gay marriage, she says, would hurt gay couples because it would outlaw all gay sex not in a marital context, and gay people would face further sexual oppression than they do already.

Her final point states that while we are all looking for acceptance and assimilation, marriage actually creates a system rather than destroys one. It will not address the unfairness in health insurance, etc. that this country places on many people. The benefits and rights that married people are allowed must be eliminated or offered at large if gay marriage is to really assist people. Right now (1989, when it was written) society lacks not only respect but legal protection. Now that the groundwork has been laid, to try and change society (perhaps she is implying through writings like this, etc.), gays and lesbians must have “broader goals than the right to marry”, and once they respect and accept the diversity that they bring to society, further progress can be made.

Short post 10/14

The readings for this upcoming class were very timely with it being National coming out week. Both Naples and Ettelbrick feel that gay couples are not equal in society and simply legalizing same sex marriage will not be the magic solution. “Comparing marriage to civil unions is a bit like comparing diamonds to rhinestones. One is, quite simply, the real deal; the other is not.” Same sex couple want the rights and priviledges that heterosexual couples have. By the simple fact that we have to have a week designated to homosexuals coming out the closet says that they are different. Ettelbrick argues that the main issue is accepting homosexuals for who they are. By legalizing same sex marriage they will still be faced with the social stigmas and stereotypes that plague them now. When discussing gay marriage the topic of whether or not they should be allowed to raise kids comes up. I believe this is a difficult situation while I do think that having to parents of the same sex raising a child is not the ideal environment for a young child to grow up in. However if a child has an opportunity to have two parents that love them regardless of sex why should we deprive them of that.

post 10/7

I found “Your not the type” to be a page turner. I was amazed at the thought process of Laurel Gilbert and her lover Kris. I would have never thought that two people would be able to express their love for one another through another person. While we live in a more accepting society today I still believe many would consider this taboo. Going back to the invisible knapsack that we discussed in class, heterosexual people definitely have privileges that they do not realize and that they take for granite. In an ideal world Kris and Laurel would be able to be together and have their own kids instead of having babies with two different guys. However I have to give Laurel a lot of credit because she went on to get her PhD and be very successful. Teenage pregnancy is a growing epidemic filled with problem after problem for the parties involved. These problems can be chronicled on the Mtv show “Teenage Mom”. Somehow Laurel was able to persist despite the odds being stacked against her. She should be a role model for young teenage girls. Just because you get yourself in a bad situation does not mean that your life has to be over.

Response 10/6

I found all of this class’ readings different and somewhat captivating in their own senses. However, it was Adrienne Rich’s “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” that really caught my attention.

I agree with Rich in that the characteristics of male power include the power of men denying women sexuality, forcing male sexuality upon them, commanding/exploiting their labor for control, etc. I strongly feel that all 8 aspects of Rich’s feelings regarding this are valid. I find it difficult though to agree with her “consideration that all women- from the infant suckling at her mother’s breast, to the grown woman experiencing orgasmic sensations while suckling her own child… to two women, like Virginia Woolf’s Chloe and Olivia, who share a laboratory, to the women dying at ninety, touched and handled by women—exist on a lesbian continuum” (page 319).

She feels that everyone, whether or not they identify as lesbian, fall on somewhere along this continuum. In connecting women who choose and/or enjoy being sexually with other women, to “intimate girl friendships of eight or nine year olds”, and women who are clearly happy involved in heterosexual relationships or marriage, I think she is making a huge claim. I know for a fact that some people do fall along this continuum, and they are certainly more than welcome to act as they please. However, I still do not believe that women who believe that men are oppressive and feel powerless should be considered lesbians just because they feel this way. Nor should women who have female friends be considered in the same way as women who feel attracted sexually to other women. I personally have many friends that are female and also feel that women are placed lower in society than men in many regards, and yet I don't consider myself lesbian at all.

Similarly, I know that many lesbians face enormous difficulties in their lives, and I agree that sexuality should not be a defining factor of treatment or opportunities. I understand what Rich says about “women who do not attach their primary intensity to men must be, in functional terms, condemned to an even more devastating outsiderhood than their outsiderhood as women” (page 323) and it is not too surprising to me that lesbians are more hidden of a population than male homosexuals. I think that it is somewhat outrageous of Rich to claim that all women are lesbians. There are people that fall along a continuum of sexuality and that is all fine and no two people should be alike, but I honestly don't think that Rich can generalize and/or truly believe that every woman who has other female friends has some type of sexual feeling towards them. I really just don't think that this can hold true for ALL women.

Response 10/4

One of the themes that most interested me in this week's reading was the idea that women get their power through their sexuality. As Susan Douglas says in "Sex 'R' Us", "the true path to power comes from being an object of desire, girls and women should now actively choose - even celebrate and embrace - being sex objects (156). Thus our culture today is supporting and maintaining the notion that the way for girls and women to be empowered is by performing the role of the sexual object for men. We can use our sexuality and sexual appeal to gain power over men, when we otherwise would not be able to. Some women may delight in this power, but I think that it is extremely sad that to have power women have to resort to their body and sexuality. While reading about women's sexual power, I could not help connecting this idea to Homer's Odyssey. A few years ago I wrote a paper on how women are powerful figures in this great epic, but they only attain their power through their body, sexuality, appeal, and generally their ability to seduce men into doing what they want. Calypso and Circe, two beautiful nymphs, are able to use their sexual appeal and charm to lure Odysseus into delaying his journey (as he cannot help but stay with them and have sex with them). Circe is even able to gain enough power over Odysseus and distract him with sex and her beauty that she is able to transform his whole crew into pigs. The infamous Sirens also, represent a force of female power through seduction in the book. While we, as women, can use our sexuality to get what we want from men, I think it is about time women reach into their bag of tools and find ways to hold power without relying solely on their body and sex appeal.

Response 10/4

The readings for class on October 4^th I found to, strangely, relate to my French seminar, Libertine Fiction of the 18^th Century. This type of novel concentrates on at least one or more characters that are lacking in morality, basically to the point where they ignore all virtues, etc. We are currently reading a novel by Crébillon fils entitled “Les Égarements du cœur et de l'esprit” which literally means “the wanderings of the heart and mind”, and today in class we made a chart depicting the difference between the two female characters whom the main male character, Melicour, is trying to decide. One, referred to as “the unknown” is young, naïve, inexperienced when it comes to men, mysterious, just left a convent and thus believes in and follows rules, and their future together is more of an uncertainty in general. The other, known as “Madame de Lursay” is old, rich, more experienced and educates Melicour (sexually and otherwise), and hopes to maintain a reputation of virtue and prudeness, where in reality she is not at all prude and rather manipulatively wishes to appear this way, to save her name. Madame de Lursay feels that she will be the greater prize to Melicour because “la conquete d’un prude” translated as “the conquering of a prude” is a greater triumph than having sex with someone who is not as virtuous as a prude. In reality though, she is just pretending to be this way.

I find it interesting that Madame de Lursay feels that this is a positive thing, although I imagine that life was different back in the 1700’s. Nowadays, like Susan Douglas says in “Enlightened Sexism”, people are referred to as prude almost as a negative. For example, Charlotte in Sex and the City is described as “the prude who was, nonetheless sexually active and labeled by Carrie a ‘Park Avenue Pollyanna’” (page 172), perhaps because “Charlotte is shocked to learn that all three of the other women have a guy that they can call solely for sex with no other attachments or commitments” (page 173). Here, to me it seems that being labeled a prude is a terrible/negative thing. Though technically I believe that being labeled anything is a bad thing, being labeled a prude, personally, would be preferable to being called a slut. When you’re called a prude, it implies at the very least that you have some morality. In “Les Égarements du cœur et de l'esprit”, Madame de Lursay feigns having principles and morals, in order to win over the man. I cannot be certain in the world today whether or not being prude or being a slut is more likely to “win over the man”, and I am not sure whether or not Madame de Lursay succeeds as we have not yet finished the book (!), but the way the media is almost completely sexualized makes me feel that perhaps in the world today, being slutty is preferable (to most).

http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/womens_sports_on_tv_news_scarce_and_growing_scarcer

Even though it is 2010 we still struggle with gender equality in today’s society. Women are often seen as inferior when compared to men. As we discussed this week in class gender is constructed both socially through social interactions as well as biologically through chromosomes, brain structure, and hormonal differences. Looking at gender through a biological lens. This distinction becomes even more evident in the world of sports. Looking at the article Women’s Sports on TV News: Scarce and Growing Scarcer this is apparent. Generally speaking men are bigger and stronger then women, many believe that this translates into men being better athletes. The battle of equality in male and female athletics has been a problem for years; men have been accused of receiving better recognition in the sports they play, having more playing opportunities, receiving higher salaries, and attracting extra media coverage. Over the past thirty years, the United States has come a long way in trying to make sports equal between men and women, but women still don’t receive all the benefits that men have

7 days a week 365 days a year it’s a pretty safe assumption that one would be able to turn the tv on an find some sort of men’s sporting event on whether that be basketball, football, baseball, or hockey the same cannot be said about women’s sports. According to ESPN “The “big three” sports — men’s basketball, football, and baseball — took up 72% of all airtime, and still commanded airtime out of season. Even the WNBA got only a fraction of the NBA’s coverage — during the WNBA season when the NBA season was over.” Why is this? This is due largely to the social framework in society today and the underlying belief that men are better then women. On the same station it was found, women’s sports garnered only “1.4% of airtime, down from 2.2% in 1999 and 2.1% in 2004. Much of this was part of a short March series, “Celebrating Women’s History Month: Her Triumph, Her Story,” rather than coverage of current events.” I am not a math major but 72 percent compared to 1.4 percent is a HUGE difference. The producers, editors, and commentators whom the researchers asked often pointed to viewer preferences and market forces to explain their emphasis on men. To blame it all on the market.” This is not right women are putting just as much time and effort into their sport as men yet they only receive a fraction of the recognition.

When I asked my teammates about Women’s sports have of them laughed and said it was a joke. One of my teammates that said it was a joke actually has two sisters one whom is a collegiate athlete and he still said that it was a joke. This shows how powerful the social framework of our society is to where someone with a sister who is an athlete still doesn’t respect women’s sports. The only stage where I believe women’s athletics is given the respect it deserves is in the Olympics. While this is good because it is the biggest stage this respect needs to somehow trickle its way down to women’s collegiate and high school athletics.

Allan G. Johnson would argue that this disparity is due to the fact that we live in a patriarchal society. Johnson states that patriarchy is not a system of individuals but we are in fact participating in something larger than ourselves, or any collection of us. We live in a male dominated society because patriarchal manliness and its related structures of control and dominance demand it. We perpetuate patriarchy by pushing boys at young ages to play sports and young girls to play with dolls. So from a young age children are taught that boys are suppose to play sports while girls should stay in the house. People often talk about how sports serves as a venue to get inner city boys into college but it also serves the same purpose for girls but people often forget about that.

Not surprisingly most of the sports commentators are men, 97% to be exact. “When women were discussed, they were often presented in their roles as mothers, girlfriends, or wives.” This, of course, devalues their accomplishments. Male commentators often use different language when they talk about female athletes. Where men are described as "big," "strong," and "aggressive," women are more often referred to as "weary," "fatigued," "frustrated," "panicked," "vulnerable" and "choking." Commentators are also twice as likely to call men by their last names only, and three times as likely to call women by their first names only as if to reduce them to children. Douglas talks about how men are often Intimidated by powerful women so they either sexualize them or belittle them to cancel out their power. A key Example she used was Janet Reno; she is a prominent women figure who is powerful in the public eye. Douglas would argue that the male commentators refer to female athletes as mothers, girlfriends, or wives to take away from their athletic achievement and reduce their power. Even when I googled women athletes the first thing that popped up was a link to the top 15 sexiest women. I laughed but at the same time that just shows how our society is set up. This has nothing to do with athletic ability but is based purely on looks as if to say we don’t care about you as an athlete we just care what you look like. When u scroll down a little you see a link to the top 10 greatest female athletes I expected something like this to come up first. I believe that the hyper sexualized portrayal of female athletes in the media contributes to the lack of respect women’s athletics receives. Anna Kornakova is an athlete and one of the premiere tennis players but she receives more attention for her looks then her actual ability. While male sports starts are often seen in the media in action photos female athletes are often seen like this.

Few steps have been taken in order to close the gap between men and women’s athletics. Title IX was one of those steps taken to close this gap it states: No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Even with Title IX playing a role in athletics, men still obtain more playing opportunities than women. Title IX however has also caused controversy in order to create balance existing men’s programs are cancelled to create room for new women’s programs. There are now women’s football leagues, pretty much any sport a man can play a women can now play too just on a lesser scale.

The article ends by listing a few ideas on how we can begin to fix this problem: “The mass media can develop and support more women sports reporters and commentators. Sports organizations can provide the sports media with more and better information about women athletes. Viewers can ask producers of sports programs for more and better coverage of women’s sports and complain about sexist treatment of women in sports news and highlights shows.” I think this is a good list with media coverage being the front-runner in changing this culture. However changing this problem cannot be solely left on the shoulders of men women also have to contribute. Women can start to change this stereotype by demanding more respect in advertisements, cutting down on sexual poses. If women begin to demand more respect for themselves in the media I think they will slowly begin to gain respect for their respective sports. Reading this article has also made me examine my own views. Prior to taking this course I had little concern for women’s rights let alone women’s athletics. People rarely take time to think about issues that do not directly affect them or anyone close to them. This is the case with me and women’s athletics I had to take a step back and realize that I am in fact part of the problem. I also think that if people knew the extent of the gap between men and women’s athletics they would begin to do something about it. The first part of correcting a problem is realizing that a problem exists.

Works Cited

"Women's Sports on TV News: Scarce and Growing Scarcer." Women's Rights | Change.org. Web. 01 Oct. 2010.