Almost Forgot!

Soooo I'm sitting here all packed up and ready to go home and what do you know, I forgot to write my gender blogs. BUTTTT I was watching TV when I realized I forgot. Lol some random company's investment commercial comes on, and its talking about investing. And the investor on the commercial was a man. The commercial started off talking about getting married, then moving into a house and starting a family. Now ok, they had to pick a male or female for this part. But the best part of this commercial was the fact that the house they were in kept changing as he got older. Eventually they had a kid, and it was talking about how sometimes you need room to do your business while other people do theirs. The woman was upstairs with the baby in the typical motherly role, as the man was downstairs on his computer doing his investing. I mean I don't know if this is really a play on gender. But what I do think, is that there is a strong will out in the US right now to return to the 1950's attitude. I know my sister has gone ahead with that, and when you hear republicans talk all the time on TV, I get similar views from them. I do hope women keep advancing toward equality in all aspects of life, but if this is the majority attitude, I can't help but think that we might be headed backward....

Women and Religion

The most interesting presentation so far. Lol to me anyways. I love talking about all the different religions and belief systems of the world. Something about it interests me. But anyways. Women in religion. Well in my mind there is no doubt that religion is a huge factor in the oppression of women. All you have to do is look at the power structure of most of the religions in the world and you see that women are at the bottom. The only thing I don't know what do with is how to think about the people in other countries around the world of various religions that we, as americans, think are being oppressed. Are they really being oppressed? I mean Larissa said it in class, "I don't feel oppressed because we never had anything." Well they don't feel oppressed, so that means they aren't? Kind of the same question we keep getting back to in class. Do we have the right to go out and tell women that they aren't oppressed in other countries? Would these women even agree with us?

Another thing that's interesting to me is the fact that when religions seem to start up, they are mostly run by women. In our paper, I took a special interest in the women and religion portion of the paper. And in Christianity, when it was first made, women were the main people that were worshipping and running the religion. This is due to the fact that Rome was still worshipping several Gods, and actually the rich people of Rome were worshipping some other religion. Anyways, that just left poor people and women to worship Jesus. There was no difference in gender in the early days of the church. Then the emperor made it the official religion of Rome, thousands of people converted, men were in charge of the country and family without question, and so it transferred to christianity. Just some interesting thoughts overall...

Transgender Presentation

Well I would have to say that the first time I had heard about Andy (sorry on the spelling) and Toria's relationship, I was a little confused, and I admit was certainly not very accepting of the whole idea. However, after the presentation that the group the other day made, and after hearing Andy talk, I completely have changed my mind. I really see that this isn't really that unique of a case and that transgenderism actually exists in places outside the US. I mean that really is what gives validity to it to me personally. I really thought at first that Andy was almost like one specific example of transgerndered person and there wasn't really anyone else that was like her. However, I feel I've really been educated on the subject and, in my opinion, with education and knowledge about something comes acceptance. I really do understand now.

One thing I don't understand though is the whole thought on bathrooms and actually airport security. Like OK I understand that using a mens bathroom makes Andy uncomfortable and everything, but I feel as though her using the women's bathroom actually makes more people uncomfortable. You know? I feel like when it really comes down to most things in life you have to consider the feelings and thoughts of the majority of people. That aside, what I really don't understand is the issue with the airport security. Like when the lines get divided up and you have to go into the male/female side. My question is, why would you jepordize an experience like going to India over a possible security line problem? Especially if you guys are going over to help other people. I would think that helping other people is more important than your personal feelings over being in a male or female line. Kind of like going to church when I'm at home. I don't want to go and sit there all dressed up, but I can garuntee that to avoid problems with my dad, I'll be sitting in church on sunday.

Oppression

I would like to think that the US is truly a meritocracy. However, I really can't believe that it is. I mean no matter what some inner city kids do, no matter how hard they try in life, there are some things that are most likely going to be out of reach for them. And not only that, but I feel as though they are given an unfair chance because of the oppressed group they have been born into. Like Celia said in class, there has been a correlation between the amount of books in your house and how successful you become in life. I think that, not only inner city kids, but kids in other countries that may move here are at a distinct disadvantage. This is something that they are never going to be able to get themselves out of. People can't just choose where they are going to be born, or who they are going to be born too. And so oppression lives on.

However, I would like to agree with Amidia in the area of progression. Celia said that progression isn't really happening. I can't help but go against that. I mean, I've said it before in one of my blogs, but President Lincoln, the man that freed the slaves, the most progressive man of his time said that although he thinks there shouldn't be slavery, a black man could never be equal to a white man. I mean he would be an extremely racist man today. I sort of view progression as like a stock market graph. You know like with periods of a rise of progression, with little stints of regression, then more progression. Is it always going in the right progression? No. But I would have to say that the overall trend is an upward slope.

Cell Phone commercial today!!!!

Not gonna lie..... Celia your class is really starting to change the way I look at commercials and everything really! Haha. Anyways I was watching college football today and a phone commercial came on. This is almost word for word what it said:

"This can, schedule dinner, take the kids to practice, allow for enough time to clean, can surf the internet for recipes, and can make sure the kids are all where they are supposed to do... In other words, MOM"

I could not help but laugh at this statement. Before I took this class, there wouldn't have been anything wrong with this commercial from my point of view. But now that I've been through it, I just really started laughing. There is literally nothing in any of those statements that should make anyone differentiate between Mom or Dad. Every single thing in there not only can be done by both parents, but in my opinion should be done by both parents.

Roles in Relationships

I think a lot has to be said from the presentation the other day. It was very interesting and I thought it was very well done! Something that I felt needed pointed out was the fact that our ideals today are influenced by the traditional family thought. Its odd that most women in our class still felt like they would like to do the traditional jobs of the women, and same with the men. Is it because of the fact that they really would rather do those jobs, or is it just that women and men have had their jobs in the household for so long, that they would rather still stay in the norm, without even realizing it??

Another thing is the talk we had about the fact that women still want nice things done for them. Same goes for guys!! We still like little things, or big things of course, that women do for us all the time! I don't really think that has much to do with the traditional vs. egalitarian views.

Sex Ed

I agreed with everything talked about today in class so I don't really have much to discuss about the class itself. However, I think I do have some interesting reasons as to why the sex ed, and the education system in general is the way it is and have a good idea of when it will be changed.

First of all, I think it is ridiculous that anywhere would try to teach abstinence only. It's like they are refusing to believe there are other things going on in the world. I would really consider this similar to teaching creation only and not ever even talking about evolution. It's the exact same thing. Today, thank goodness, we are presented with the evolution side of the argument in school (and in some cases the creationist argument too) and we are obviously taught creation at religious meetings, but at least we are given a choice between the two. I mean every teacher seems to lean one way or the other, but we have the choice. The way abstinence is being taught today, there is no choice even to learn! It's being shown to many students across the nation that abstinence is the only way in which we can stay safe.


Why is it like this? One simple reason. I worked for the last two summers for a state representative here in Pennsylvania. It is one of the problems with democracy, unfortunately.Who are the people voting for the men and women in office? Its the senior citizens of the US. Who was taught when they were younger that sex was bad, and that abstinence was all there was. Senior citizens. And so, why would the politicians want to try to change any of the policies that these people want? They would be voted out of office almost instantly if they tried to go against the voting majority. Unfortunate, but trust me it is true.

Women in War

Lots to talk about here but because of time constraints I'll have to limit myself. I don't really know how to understand women in war. Not talking about women in the army for this part. Before I say anything, I'd like to say that rape is a horrible thing and the fact that it is used as a war tactic is horrifying. However, it is being used as exactly that, a war tactic. The problem is, if they weren't raping the women (generalization, I'm sure there aren't numbers out there but there has to be men too) what would the soldiers of these countries be doing to keep the populations under control? Would they be using genocide? Mass killings? Bombs that could take out entire cities in seconds? None of this is good, yet these other things are, in times of war, sometimes deemed necessary. I don't really know how to put this question.... But what would happen if the raping wasn't?? I guess it's all really a terrible ordeal which leads me to my next opinion. It is really difficult for us to say what is deemed necessary in times of war, seeing as how the majority of us has never lived in times of total warfare, where in order to protect yourself and your people, or to do something that may one day save your life, is a necessity. I don't know, I just personally think its really hard to even talk about this subject.

Same with the whole women suicide bombers. First of all, the fact that its a big deal when women are being used as suicide bombers is obvious. Of all the suicide bombers out there, less than probably 5% are female. Which is why it would be big news. When you take that factor into consideration with safety, now all of a sudden soldiers have to be wary of women? That's something that should be known. As to why the women are doing it, I don't think we can really say why. We've never, and probably will never be in a situation where the lives of our fellow citizens and the rest of our family is on the line every time they walk out onto the streets. We are afforded a luxury that many countries around the world are not. As a result, I think it is just hard to fathom a women being in the situation where she would have to lay her life on the line and protect people by doing something such as blowing herself up. Not only that, but women soldiers on the front lines. The only way we could possibly understand is if someone were to literally invade the US and in order to protect ourselves better, everyone would have to help out. Tough discussion today in class because of the war factor I think....

Halloween!!!

Quick question. If women want to be considered equal to men, why is halloween the number one most sexest holiday by far. I'm just saying, when I went out to the parties, I went out in a sexually suggestive costume, but I was fully clothed, and it was something was suggestive to women. As do all guys. The best costumes are literally the ones that are the cleverest, and thus will "pick up" the most girls possible. That wasn't what I was trying to do, I was just trying to be funny, and everyone I came into contact with thought it was halarious! Just saying...

On the other hand, all the females I saw out were definately in suggestive outfits as well. However, they weren't trying to be funny or clever, it was literally just who was the best looking in the least amount of clothes. The best part was, there were a few girls that said they refused to "lose their self respect by going out in outfits that just let everything hang out." As a guy, I honestly thought this was a real objective to Halloween and the way its treated in the US culture. However, when I asked girls, even ones in our class, why these girls weren't going out the answer was always the same. "They aren't worried about self respect, they're worried about how they'll look with limited clothes on." In that one sentence I find two things we've talked about in class. One: obviously, if this is true, these girls are afraid they aren't the "perfect bodied" girls that we find ourselves looking at everyday on the TV. Two: women are extremely aggressive toward anyone that is going against the norm of what a women "should do." Idk just some interesting thoughts in a holiday I really have come to enjoy since being in college!!! Lol

Women's Wages in Response to LCline

Well I do agree that the fact women make a lot less than men is appalling. However, I think that the fact that more men hold the position of Senior VP really isn't all that startling. Am I saying that men deserve it more? Absolutely not. What I am saying is the fact that men hold a position that is extremely high up on the corporate ladder and women have not been able to yet attain that isn't all that startling. Why? Well because lets face it. Up until like the late 1970's maybe early 80s women weren't able to move up in a company at all. This means for them to have the same quantity of people that are experienced enough to hold such positions as senior VP, is to think that the men that have been in high positions since the early 70s just don't want the positions anymore. I think that is something that seriously needs to be looked at. And the thing about it is, these old guys that are holding these positions are very very soon going to be retiring, if they haven't started already. Now that they are retiring, the first class of women that were truly available for advancement in a company are now going to be the next in line for that top spot. But once again, along with that there are still going to be men that may be just as qualified or more qualified than some women. And the other way around with women being possibly better qualified than men.


Another thing I would like to know about this study is the salary of, say, a woman CEO versus a  male CEO. I would almost have to think that, all other things being equal, men and women should be making the same amount of money. Another thing I think is important is Oprah Winfrey breaking the billion dollar mark. This is important because, like before, there weren't many woman that were able to put themselves into a position to make such money as a man. There is only one women billionaire, but when the first billionaires really started becoming billionaires, women weren't even close to being "allowed" to make a lot of money. But I think now with Oprah leading the way, more women will obviously follow. Just a question of when. Along with that though, I mean how easy is it to even become a billionaire? Reallllll hard. I mean being a women really shouldn't even affect someone making in the billions of dollars anymore I don't think. Just because if you are able to make money close to that, men aren't going to care, and neither is society, whether your a man or a woman. I think the man-woman argument would be more valid in a high corporate job rather than the billions of dollars area.

Female Aggression

Very interesting class discussion today on female aggression. I like how, in all the examples with the exception of Buffy, the women that was being aggressive was considerably different from the way a man would be aggressive. Not so much in the way they were being perceived though. For example, the deep voice, the amount of space the aggressor was taking up, these are all very manly things about the aggressor in these instances. However, the way in which they were all being aggressive was very different from the normal "bad guy" that a man would play. The Step Mother in Snow White for example was a super human that could change shape and concoct potions. Not only that but she was always planning something. She wasn't just going with the just go around and shoot everyone attitude and ask questions later.

The only thing I really still come back to after seeing these things is that does the movie actually influence us as much as we like to think in class? I would have to say not. I mean I can barely even remember a lot of the story plots in the Disney movies. How is that shaping how I view women today? And not only that, but let's say i re-watch the movies today, or even that I can remember the movies plots today, I think I'm old enough and smart enough now to realize that Snow White isn't anything like a woman of today, and no one really acts like her in real life. I mean even if a little kid is watching it, do they really have the capacity to make the same connections we make in class with women, men, evil, not evil? I'm not so sure..

Testosterone and Male Aggression

I don't really understand why it is that conclusive evidence can't come from the fact that testosterone increases aggression. Now, does that mean men are more aggressive than women? Absolutely not, I'm not saying that at all. However, as we've discussed in class, the difference in aggression between men and women below the age of like 25 was it, or maybe 30, is quite different. After that certain age, the kind of aggression that both male and female use is quite similar. However, before that, men are more physically aggressive and women are more passively aggressive. A common example would probably be the way women outcast someone for being different, where as men are more likely, notice I said more likely, to have a physical altercation. The big thing here that I'm trying to get across is that before that certain age, men are basically at their "peak" years. I would think that their bodies are able to perform the best that they will be able to perform all their lives, and this is a direct result of the amount of testosterone still able to flow through their bodies. The physical aggression also starts, take notice, at the beginning of puberty, when the testosterone is the highest in a man that it will ever be in his entire life.

Another thing, the argument that men just perceive the ability to get angry and blame testosterone, I think, is a terrible argument. When taking steroids for example, it is well documented that the increased testosterone causes "roid rage." Now this is viewed by people in the steroid community (yes they have those, they have forums and all kinds of crazy stuff... lol) as a negative side effect. If it is viewed as extremely negative, I would think that most people would try to avoid being overly aggressive while taking steroids if it was a possible thing to do. Not only that, but seeing as how steroids are illegal, I would venture to say that being overly aggressive and getting huge really quickly would be an easy indicator of who is on roids. Not something that I would want to advertise to a lot of people.

Hemegonic Masculinity

From what we talked about in class today, from what I've read, and from what I've experienced, I can't say that I completely agree with the theory of Hemegonic Masculinity. There really is just one simple reason for this. When you talk about the people in the movies, the Marlboro Man, etc., these people are not realistic. Everyone knows they aren't realistic and that no man can truly be like those men. The thing is there is a huge number of people out there that are obviously trying to be like these men. Whether it's working out, learning to shoot a gun or whatever, a lot of men will most likely try to emulate these men. But I don't think it has anything to do with feminism, or the want to be ultra masculine. Why does the conclusion we jump to be that men want to be in charge and masculine and "Alpha" all the time?

Why can't these just be heroes that, while we know it is impossible to achieve their status, these men emulating are simply trying to improve themselves. Now improve themselves based on what? Ok, yea I concede here and sure maybe it is society. But I mean it still comes down to a personal choice that, if you really take a look at American Society and realize the amount of obese people, I'd have to say the personal choice is way stronger than the societal "norms." If the movies and society was such a huge influence on the way masculinity was perceived, I'd have to say that we would be looking at a different America, and most certainly a more fit America.

Sweat Shops

In the piece on Multi-Cultural Feminism, there is a part that talks about women in the workplace. In this sense, the workplace being referred to is the sweat shop. I have an interesting case to make about the sweat shops that I think can be brought up in class, and with some economic help (ehmmm AMIDIA!) I think I can explain why the sweatshops, while being an opression of not only women, but also children, are in fact a good thing.

Harsh I know, sweat shops are a good thing?? Well I would have to say that they are indeed a very good thing for millions of people around the world. Yes they are paid slave wages, and yes they work in terrible environments, however what are the alternatives to working in the sweatshops? Dumpster diving. Yea that's right. If they aren't getting paid the pennies an hour they are making in the sweat shops, they aren't able to be hired any where else in the country. They don't have the skill, or the company employing people just straight up doesn't have the money to employ people at normal wages. So by leaving the sweat shop, it enables people to stay out of the dumpsters, and stay out of the streets begging. Is it truly a  good thing? Obviously not. But it certainly is the lesser of two evils.

This point brings up another interesting thing. The fact that we, as Americans, think we have the right to go over to other countries and tell their people that they can't work in those conditions for that pay. This is certainly not our right to do. For example, I saw a news clip after a sweat shop was shut down in which a younger boy that worked in the shop was interviewed. He couldn't figure out why the United States hated him so much that they would take away his job and force him to beg on the streets... Just an interesting thought.

Marxist Feminism

I think that the best ideas for feminism and equality for women come from the Marxist Feminist. This is evident in the way that women are treated in the workplace today. It is certainly no secret that women experience unfair amount of pay when compared to a man for doing the same exact job. This is really the story of capitalism. In capitalism, the rate of pay is really never fair, no matter who is competing, or has the same job. With Marxism, women would be treated the same exact way as men in the workplace, regardless of job title or job in general. Everyone would be getting the same pay. I feel as though this would lead to a lot of the problems that feminism in general has today to disappear. Also, I believe women are held in the domestic house hold as a direct result of this unfair pay rate. Let's say the man of the house can go out and get paid 20$ an hour to do construction work. A women can go out and get paid 16-18$ an hour. It makes no sense to send the women out to the work place to make less money than the man if one of the two have to stay home to care for children. This division is an obvious reason for why women are kept in the home today. Also, with Marxism, the domestic work that a women would do would become public. ie, the women would be able to get paid to do what they are already doing basically for free. (Free as in material monetary value) This would most definately bring the women's status up to the men's in a lot of cases, and may even make many men decide to stay home and do domestic work and let the women go out in the work environment.

I still don't understand the critique in how a revolution would not make men and women equal. I feel as though a revolution is a revolution because, after the revolution takes place, the new leaders in society are able to shape their new society in any way they please. Does this mean that it is so ingrained into the male/female psyche that men would ultimately tell the women that, "No you really aren't equal to us."? I'm really not so sure.

The only real critique of Marxist Feminism is that Marxism really just can't work in general. The human greed factor, the want for power, etc., is the reason that this form of government would never work, and thus, men and women could never gain equality through these means.

Today's video

Today's post is going to be relatively short, as I don't really know what I think about the video in class today. What I do know is that when we talked about the "inferences" science has to make sometimes pale in comparison with what the movie talked about today. At least with science, the majority of the things that are inferred are later proven or dis proven. For example, at the beginning of the movie, he talked about the number of males assaulting women vs. the number of females assaulting males. It was something like 95% of males vs. 5% of females. First of all, how many women are even able to commit acts of physical violence against men. For example, if some girl is walking down the street, I'd say she has a very limited amount of male targets, if any, on that same street which would be someone she would want to mess with. Vs. the male aspect, which is that any average male, would most likely have no problem with an average female. This is still not a good thing and still definitely shows a masculinity problem, however the percentages of attacks are just not the way to get the point across in this instance. Not only that, but as another problem of masculinity, how many males are even going to report a statistic of being attacked or raped by a woman? In the case of rape, I would argue that the .2% of the people that reported being raped by a woman would probably be the only .2% of the male population that would even report being raped.

Another thing I strongly disagree with, and think was taken way to far and out of context was the distinction of Rocky fighting Apollo Creed. In no way was that a black vs. white deal. Rocky was by no means a middle class working citizen in his fights. In his fights against Apollo Creed, he was a thug off the streets that collected money for the loan sharks. Apollo Creed was the rich upper class citizen. Not only that, but even after the first fight they were friends, not publicly at first, but when no one was around they were. I think that was a HUGE inference made that was not reflective of the movie at all.

Lastly, and I'm sure we're going to talk about this is class is the issue of testosterone. As Celia said, once it hits the brain it's estrogen. Ok. Why is it that when someone experiences roid rage, its a result of high levels of testosterone? Why is it that the most violent, most aggressive animal on the planet is the bull shark, which also has the highest level of testosterone of any animal in the animal kingdom? I really can't wait to have this discussion and talk about why these facts aren't really relevant to the difference in aggression and violence from male to female!

Liberal Feminism

In the chapter titled Liberal Feminism in our book, I found many things that were very interesting. First of all, I sort of got the feeling that Liberal Feminism is like the mother of all feminism. It was basically how feminism started and the beginning of all the types of feminism that go on today. I found that the root of liberal feminism lies in the industrial revolution of the US. This is because, during this period, more and more men were moving their families into the cities and leaving the home during the day to go work on the assembly lines and do all the new jobs that were afforded by the industrial revolution/assembly line. This led to the fact that the men were now making the money for the family on their own and the women were at home taking care of house chores and the children. Basically, the women weren't making any actual money. This led to the increase in thought that that is what the women were supposed to be doing, which led to the thought from women that they deserved to go out and make money too!


In the book, it says that liberal feminism isn't against patriarch-ism but is more for a change in society that gives women more rights and economic equality. I feel like this should be the focal point of all women. Why? Well because I feel like the more women that can become equal to men on an economic basis, the more women will have the power to say, yes we are equal to men. And not only that, but it will encourage more women to go out and make just as much money as men and increase the probability of women staying with jobs and not getting frustrated with men that make more than they do at the same type of job. Here is where I disagree with the critics of liberal feminism. They say that all liberal feminists do is compare a woman to a man. Well in a society where men are the focal point, where men make the most money, and where men are even sometimes viewed as superior, why wouldn't women be striving to be equal with that? Do you think that men will ever want to bring themselves (and I'm sorry to put it this way, but based on the assumptions of this class and society) down to the level of what females now consider themselves?? I don't think so. And so, women must compare themselves to what society views as the higher gender/sex. Another critique is that the movement was for white middle class american women. I get the feeling like that is an older stereotype and really no longer applies, as is evident in the essay that Amidia wrote.

Science vs. Culture

I am sorry that I am going to talk about class again but I just really cannot get my head around some of the things we talked about. Humans have been evolving from our most primitive state for around like 2.2 million years. The modern Homo Sapiens have been around and evolving for like 250,000 years. It just seems to me it is IMPOSSIBLE for culture to have such a large impact on psychological things that humans partake in. For example the parental investment thing. The only logical thing that I could think of that might change the way women are "picky" is the modern scientific invention of birth control and the fact that it may change some hormones. Aside from that, women can be pretty sure they are not going to be pregnant and so I feel as though that might change the "pickiness". But when choosing someone that you are going to bear children with, the fact that we do not want for food is a really recent invention. Compared to 250,000 years. And so, the fact that a woman will naturally want to pick a mate that gives her offspring a better chance to survive is natural.

Then we got into the discussion of whether the humans only reason for being on earth is to reproduce, be a grandparent, then die. I mean that is a really negative way to look at things. But when it comes down too it, there really is no species on earth that is going to breed itself out of existence. Then we went on to talk about how, if a woman really wants to go get married, a woman can easily go out and get married without much dificulty. Well, I think the economist game theory here kind of comes into play. Women can get a man because, ultimately, other women will take other men and eventually, I would venture to say, all there would be a man for the women who is looking. After this post, I am going to try to write a lot more about the readings, but sometimes I feel as though I have my own thoughts about class that I want to get out in this blog because it is sort of easier to post here than to bring up some ideas in class. And I figure it is ok because I write a lot more than a lot of people about the class and try to actually reason some of the stuff out. Also, its hard to justify some of my opinions with the readings with get, although there are some that help. (Side note: Evangelical Christian notions are absurd...)

Science, Sex, Gender 9-23-10

Today's class was so far one of my favorite classes. I think that, although gender is a cultural thing, a lot of the culture and gender issues today can be solved through science and history of evolution. For example, we talked about the perfect woman before. The skinny girl with the big boobs and hips. Well, the hips have been shown to be an extremely important factor in what males find attractive. And we don't even realize it! Amazing that we are picking woman out to be attractive, obviously from some current social trends, but even more so based on an idea that was planted in the human mind probably around 200,000 years ago! I believe that a lot of the gender conflict we have today could be studied through science and brain activity and it is an interesting area to me personally.


Side Note: I think that personally biased things should be left at the door when we come into class. Especially when we have a guest speaker whom most of the class found very interesting and helpful and will only be able to talk to us once. To have the majority of the class time devoted to questions that, most of the class would argue were not of any relevance and seemed to be answered fully the first time they were asked, and then to be completely shot down on every question with proven facts, means you should probably stop asking the questions. No one will ever be able to sample all 6.5 billion people in the world in a study. I'm sorry no more ranting for the day!

9-21-10 What starts social change?

Today in class this was one of my group's questions. When we answered it in class, I think we did a poor job of actually answering this first key question. What starts a social change. I think the answer is ultimately necessity. For example, after the first world war, the woman's rights movement started. Well what really started that? The fact was that during the First World War women, for the first time in US history, were needed for jobs that were previously the mens' jobs. However, they were mostly over in Europe fighting in the war. So as a necessity, when life returned to normal, women realized how much of a disadvantage they were now at in the workplace. Granted, the real movement was just beginning, but like I said before it was out of necessity of equal pay, equal conditions, etc. to a man in the workplace that I believe it began.

Another big thing we talked about, and that I find very important, is that change is a progressive thing. Basically, we agree that women are equal, however when we wake up tomorrow, men are still going to be a little "more equal" than woman. It's not going to be an overnight change. The same was evident in the freeing of slaves after and during the civil war. For example, we view President Lincoln as being pro-African American and anti-slavery and a super progressive person for his time. In his time he was. However, when you look at some of his quotes such as, "though I don't believe in slavery, I can never see a black man being equal to a white man," you realize that by today's standard, he's nowhere close to what most people view him in terms of progressiveness. So I believe that time is the only thing that really can facilitate true change.

Identity and Conflict

What is Identity? When you really think about it, all that identity is, is a comparison of yourself to someone else. Even when you say (sorry I'm in Modern Knowledge and the Self right now) things that are immaterial like that your strong willed, corageous, a free thinker, etc. your simply making comparisons of yourself to other people. So obviously, no matter what happens, identity will always be a huge cause of conflict. When speaking with Gender, however, I believe that identity and conflict can be changed. As we've seen over the course of history, the way a woman should be has changed dramatically. Are they still completely equal to men or anything like that? Statistics would overwhelmingly show that they are not. However, a lot of women have really made a lot of progress with being treated equally throughout the last 100 years. And in doing so, I believe that it has caused a sort of identity conflict. What makes a woman a woman? (speaking gender not sex of course) And why is it that there is a distinction between a "girlie-girl" and let's say a "manly girl?" (ie a girl that can play sports, is smart, and is an "I don't need a man to make all the money" kind of girl)

What constitutes Conflict

Very interesting discussion in class today. I really wanted to be able to give some input, but because I have never taken a conflicts class I pretty much just sat back today and listened to what everyone else had to say so I can get a better understanding before I formulated my own opinions.

I'm still a little bit lost on the whole conflict thing. I am seeming to get out of this that conflict is more put on people by the outside. Like ok, sure you have conflicts like wars and all that, but aside from ones that are obvious, who's to say what is and isn't a conflict. I think for there to be a conflict, both parties (or multiple depending of course) have to realize that there is a conflict. In other words, just cause an outside party may think they see a conflict, is there really a conflict? A perfect example is the "liberation" of women in the Middle East. Obviously from our perspective, women over there are oppressed. But do they view themselves as oppressed? Do they think that having to wear the headress and long garments and concealing themselves all the time is oppression or do they view it as how it should be? Do they look at Western Culture and think to themselves, "wow these women over there are really in conflict with the men and that's not what we want.." Kind of thing? I don't know their position on this even but I just wanted to raise the point that I think that in order for there to be conflict, everyone involved in the conflict has to be aware of it.

9/9/10 Doing Gender 3

Very interesting discussion today in class. One thing I wish we would've had more time to go over and I guess something we will go over on Tuesday is the roles of a man and woman in the family. For example, we talked about how it's socially "not ok" for either a man or a woman to adopt by themselves. But why? I still am not quite clear.

The biggest thing I would like to go over in Tuesday's class is how woman in particular view themselves today and why it is that most women strive to be that perfect woman. More in the area of why do woman feel they all need to be that way? (ie. Skinny, Big boobs, skinny legs, Etc.) Because it is what society expects of them right? Now here is where I get a little bit confused. When we say that society wants them to be that way, how did society determine that's what an attractive female is? It wasn't much more than 100 years ago (if that even) that the woman was considered attractive and "the perfect woman" if she was overweight and a little bit chunky. It was viewed as a status symbol to have a little bit of fat to you. It just meant that you could afford to eat more. And I am pretty sure that in some "primitive" cultures, that particular trend is still in effect today. Not only that, but for most of "civilized" history, the most attractive woman was the woman a little over weight. What caused society to shift their views? If someone reads this and I forget to bring it up on Tuesday, don't be afraid to help me out!

Week 2, Doing Gender

The article I'm going to talk about here is the one titled, "Your a Hardcore Feminist, I Swear." This is for several reasons. First of all I have a few questions about it I would like to get out in class. Secondly, I thought it brought up a ton of good points. And thirdly, (probably most importantly) it was the first article I could completely read, understand ever word, and stay focused!! With that being said, let's dive in.

The main point the author is trying to make here is that a Feminist woman should not be afraid to consider herself a feminist. She shouldn't fear the misconceptions surrounding the word, nor fear the way people will treat you if you consider yourself a feminist. There are a few questions this reading really raised in my mind. First of all, when it talked about the lady who wrote an editorial, or commented on an article or whatever she did, it basically said that woman was wrong. However, I would almost tend to disagree with the author in this area. I can think that this lady would be very adimant about woman's rights and the well-being of women in general. However, I get the feeling that the author was being negative in her comments towards the woman and was doubting whether she really believed in what the author believes. I think that all the lady was really trying to say was that it is her choice, as a woman, to dress how society chooses to want her to dress the same way it is the choice of some woman to not shave and to dress however they feel.

Another interesting point that maybe I would like to bring up in class is when she was talking about equal pay, and all these equalities woman must still fight for in order to achieve equality. First of all, she is still sort of missing the point of some of what our discussion got to in class. She is still basing herself off of what a man has. She wants to be equal to men. Why is it that everything we talk about is being compared to men. Isn't there anything the woman would just want to be like a woman for? Also, and just a side note of course, after all these things woman want/have gotten equality in, do they want equality when it comes to the Armed Forces? As in, if there was a draft, would woman still want to be equal to men in every aspect? Just a question.

Doing Gender 1

What I'm going attempt to do is talk more about the class discussion than the actual texts. Though some text ideas will come up, it was just much harder for me, not coming from any background in this area at all, to understand a lot of the things the text was trying to say so far.

The biggest thing I noticed from yesterday's class was the difference between the guys' and the girls' posters. Not so much in qualities that society obviously wants in each to be different, but in how the groups themselves actually made the posters. For example, in every single women's group, the poster they made had what society wanted of them, and what they individually believed a woman should be. However, in the men's groups, there was just one definition of what a man should be. Not what society viewed they should be like, but what we thought they should be. This really got me to thinking, has the media/society/whatever it's to be called, influenced men that much that we no longer know what we want to be? Or is this just the image that all men hope to fulfill? I would have to argue that it is not the image that all men hope to, or even want to fit.

But then again, perhaps the reason there is a distinction is because from a woman's point of view, the society/media seems to be pulling them in different directions. They patronize the "blondie" actress that seems to be the perfect looking girl and have the ditzy attitude and is dependent on the man. At the same time, however, there seems to be a pull in the direction of women like Hilary Clinton, Elin Nordegren, (Tiger Woods' wife) and even Sandra Bullock now that her and her husband and not together. So there seems to be the double image going on here with woman. On the one hand the perfect woman is the blond girl that doesn't know her right from left but looks good. And on the other hand, you have the "new" perfect woman seeming to be this independent, I can make it on my own whether I'm the hottest woman alive kind of woman.