Last Post: Reflections on the Semester

The spring semester of my junior year (aka: the last four months) has been a fascinating part of my life. After returning from studying abroad in the fall, I had to get used to a lot: the English language, the availability of personal space on public transportation, expensive alcohol, junk food, and the wonders of refills at restaurants. None of this was particularly easy, including my time in Ithaca and readjusting to college/the lifestyle I've created here.

While the social scene was easy to adapt to, the academic side was less clear from the start. I wasn't sure how I felt about taking Intro to Women's Studies; I declared the women's studies minor pretty late in the game and felt as though an intro class seemed odd and out of place for my sixth semester in college. Nevertheless I was happy to see an interesting-looking reading list about feminism and hoped for the best.

In the end, the class has taught me many, many things--but not necessarily in the same way it maybe impacted others in the course. While I never read any of the books before and certainly absorbed lots of new and interesting information, the challenging part for me wasn't accepting the social construction of sex and gender (and race). I had realized the political reality of sexism a few semesters earlier. Hell, I knew how to bring up the "double standard" example to uninformed individuals like the back of my hand.

However, this class challenged me in new and exciting ways. I learned from the reactions and statements of others. I saw people in the class go through a process I could in some ways compare to my own--realizing the inclusivity of feminism and its utility as an analytic tool and critical lens for further thinking, etc. I also learned that clarity is charity. You give so much to others when you can actually explain things in a way that is very useful and tangible. You don't want to tell someone what something is, but rather how something could work.

At the beginning of the semester, I'm not sure I always did this. Throwing out "racialized gender" or colonizing the sexed body as commentary doesn't make sense in a class that is just trying to ask, "what the fuck is feminism and how does it apply?"

As a result, the course was humbling and refreshing. I learned from the insight of others who helped me argue more thoughtfully (whether out loud or in my head) by challenging feminist and gender theories with new perspectives and experiences. I learned that intro classes can, in fact, be great spaces for thinking and discussion when you have a mix of dynamic interests and backgrounds--something we don't always get at the first year level (especially in Park...).

In the end, I learned that we all play an important role in guiding the dialogue and prioritization of topics in class and it's up to you to figure out what your role might mean and how you can play it well.

Also--and I swear this isn't for brownie points---I have never looked forward to attendance more in my life. Jamie is hilarious and did a great job proving how feminism and humor aren't mutually exclusive.

Thanks for the great semester, everyone,

Your thinking, arguments, reactions and stories made this a great class,



Chris

Baby Politics

I just got back from Baby, the spring musical from the IC Theater Department.

*WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD*

While I do have to congratulate the actors, actresses, pit crew members and everyone else who made the overall production professional, I have to admit, it wasn't my favorite show--and not just because it was a bit underwhelming.

The entire plot is a bit dated in its old-school heteronormativity (three straight couples try for a baby, eliminating gay couples and single parents, not to mention multi-racial parents since all three couples are white, from the baby-makin' scene).

But besides that, the storyline seems to validate the love and strength of these heterosexual relationships based on marriage and reproduction. The fact that ideas of wedlock and pregnancy remain central to the development of a strong relationship seems to leave a lot of people out from the world of parenting and partnerships.

All three couples struggle in their journey to have a baby. One of the couples--a young pair still in college--fret over whether marriage is necessary for a child and how to handle finances. Soon enough, their troubles evaporate once they decide to get engaged and realize their baby is the fused collaboration of their love.

Another couple that loses a baby through a miscarriage realize they never loved each other and have to "start over" again--this after TWENTY years of marriage? Why did it take the failure to produce offspring to come to this realization?

The remaining couple struggles with getting pregnant in the first place due to insufficient sperm and irregular cycles, but decide they will keep trying for a baby because their love is strong enough to persevere.

Look, I know, the show's called baby, so why am I complaining about them wanting one? I'm not. Really!

However, I don't understand why reproduction has to remain tied to notions of marriage and "good" love. These couples aren't just thinking about babies -- they are all at some point very invested in having one. Even when they second guess themselves, the immediately pick the baby option. Why is everyone so quick to assume they want children? What kind of messages and options does this provide the audience ?

Furthermore, why does the success of a pregnancy or conception seem to determine whose relationship works out? Why was abortion never integrated into the theme? Why did the young woman in college who was against marriage change her mind (without much contemplation) based on the idea that her husband was fused together with her in the form of prenatal biology?

One of the songs in this show says their "stories will go on." My main question here is: whose stories?

Global Rape

DemocracyNow! reported a painful-to-read story about a Pakistani women and her legally sanctioned rape. While it is always difficult to have conversations trans-nationally when conditions and circumstances differ, there is no justification for this atrocity. However, I wish people would be able to not read a disturbing story like this and distance it as a "Pakistan thing." While there are certainly differences, the fact of the matter is, like the 11-year-old girl raped in Texas, rape is used as a weapon against women globally. This needs to stop in our own backyard and in Pakistan's:

  "In Pakistan, there has been a major development in the case of Mukhtar Mai, a Pakistani woman who spoke out publicly nine years ago after she was gang-raped. The rape had been ordered by a tribal council as punishment for a crime allegedly committed by her 12-year-old brother. At the time, Mai accused 14 men of being involved. In 2002, a court sentenced six of the men to death, while acquitting the others citing a lack of evidence. But on Thursday, the Pakistani Supreme Court overturned five of the six convictions. The death penalty for the sixth man was commuted to life in prison. On Thursday, Mukhtaran Mai said she fears her life is now in danger."

Hillary the Disney Villain?

Recently, I have been doing extensive research on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission--a Supreme Court case from 2010 that overturned decades of government regulation laws that limited campaign spending on elections by corporations.

However, what is also interesting about the entire case is its sexist origins.

The film for which Citizens United sued the FEC as a violation of their political speech was titled Hillary: The Movie. It harshly criticized then-presidential candidate hopeful Clinton, who was running for the Democratic Party ticket.

While I, admittedly, have not seen the full-length film, the trailer itself gives away the way in which Clinton is portrayed: images of her looking tired, nasty insults that say she is only "driven by power," and even one bold critic who goes so far as to say she is looking for an identity, as if an outside party has the ability to draw such conclusions.

To me, the trailer mimics the way in which Disney female villains are portrayed: unattractive, "manly" in their "grab for power," and overall, authoritative. As if they will stop at nothing to get what their selfish appetites need for satiation.

I find the similar relationship disturbing and a reenforcement of the idea that bad women want power, active roles in society and don't look good doing it.

Honestly, what has Clinton done that is different than Obama, McCain, Boehner or Nixon? Politicians are driven by power and operate through bullshit as a means to climb the ladder of success in Washington. This--meaning both the gender discrimination and role of leadership in U.S. politics--is systematically flawed, not Clinton's individual fault.

Thoughts?

Quick post: Toenails = Transgendered?

My friend pointed me out to an article about an advertisement that shows a mother and her son laughing and putting on pink toenail polish.

A psychologist appeared on FOX News and said it was supporting transgender politics.

Someone please explain to me how a moment of happy bonding between a mother and son is going to convince him that his gender expression does not match a physical body. Transgenderism is a complex identity and branch of sexual and gender politics and to trivialize it by saying young boys embrace transgenderism by putting on neon pink toenail polish is outrageous.


It's true that this boy might be ashamed or embarrassed later in life for being in this ad. But what is it that would make him feel so awful, perhaps de-masculinized? Is it really the woes of the tragic transgendered lifestyle he will apparently take on? I would argue it is the rigid system of gender boundaries--"trappings" as the psychologist described them--that make boys and girls of all kinds to feel ashamed about doing something that isn't supposed to feel right.


We are the ones disciplining this young boy's body and mind with our stubborn binary politics, not some "liberal agenda."

You said WHAT??

I read an incredibly frustrating story today about Florida state Rep. Kathleen Passidomo (R-Naples), who, at hearing about whether to implement a dress code for students, noted that "there was an article about an 11 year old girl who was gang-raped in Texas by 18 young men because she was dressed like a 21-year-old prostitute."


This immediate connection, this assumed cause-effect relationship that Passidomo is using to justify the need for a dress code sickeningly trivializes the reality of rape. Passidomo is the perfect example of women exercising internalized sexism against each other. Passidomo might not be openly supportive of patriarchy or misogyny, who knows? But her remarks and what she explicitly references certainly bespeak a sexist position that rape is the fault of women who prostitute their sexuality for attention.


Like Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Phyllis Schlafely, or any other conservative woman who actively participates in anti-feminist rhetoric (in Palin's case, while still claiming to be a feminist), Passidomo reminds us that it does not matter what gendered performance you take on in life. Sexism permeates every facet of society and can be embodied by any body, regardless of what we anticipate.


Just a few weeks ago, I went to a talk by two anti-sexist male activists at Cornell. They discussed everything from masculinity in the Black community to sexism on spring break. One girl, a student at Cornell, went up during the question and answer period and asked why the girls who were walking around in bikinis (in a video we watched) didn't deserve to be harassed by the men standing on the street corner. "They knew what they were wearing," she remarked.


In my opinion, it is this kind of logic--perhaps the same kind touted by Passidomo--that is unfathomable. Regardless of whether a person seeks attention, wears something sexually revelaning, NOBODY ever seeks, deserves, or enjoys the act of rape, of forced sex. Not to mention the entire notion of what girls wear, how they seek attention totally ignores patriarchal restraints on power, the limitations of choice in a hyper-sexualized, consumer-driven market, etc.


When will people stop trying to find reasoning for rape. You can't rationalize violence that cruel and intimate. 

Obama, Masculinity, Race, War and Leadership

Right-wing commentator and friendly co-worker Bill O'Reilly recently broadcasted a commentary on President Obama's handeling of the War in Libya.

While most will notice many of the expectedly recycled tactics used by O'Reilly to favor former Republican presidents over Democratic ones (briefly glamorizing Reagan and Eisenhower while criticizing Carter), others might not realize what he's doing simultaneously: reaffirming masculinity as leadership.

O'Reilly points out a Reuters poll in which 17 percent of Americans described Obama as someone who is "strong and decisive." The remaining poll participants found him either indecisive or cautious--two adjectives O'Reilly annunciates carefully to indicate their negative connotation.

The segment seems to stress that good leadership is defined by "strong" and "decisive" roles in military action, sending us the message that anyone who might want to think more carefully before engaging in deadly, violent international intervention is a weak, ineffective leader (more subtly read as feminine). In fact, O'Reilly points out how Obama is "no General Patton," a symbolic historical figure of military-masculinity and war leadership. 

Based on the selection and execution of language, it seems like O'Reilly is arguing that Obama might not be a strong leader because of his hesitation to initiate military action. War is inextricably linked to cultural constructs of masculinity and how it relates to problem-solving, power relations and the perpetuation of violence. Obama's lack of immediate enthusiasm for a full-fledged invasion of Libya has rendered him weak by O'Reilly and others, and therefore, too much like a woman--someone who has betrayed his more masculine counterparts of yesteryear. Being weak is wielded as an insult to a wealthy Black man in one of the most powerful positions in the U.S.; this is not only an attack on his masculinity, but his contradictory racialized masculinity in which he is expected to embrace hyper-aggression while rejecting it as a member of the socioeconomic elite. 

It makes me wonder: How do we define leadership, particularly gendered leadership? In a world whose historical memory is saturated with male-led narratives that romanticize war, murder and colonial or imperialist actions, I would say women whose leadership is mostly left out of history, or men whose roles are considered feminine/weaker within a WASP framework, comprise the "indecisiveness" O'Reilly references.

Can we take out the gendered and racialized expectations of Obama by saying anybody needed to invade Libya? After all, if such grotesque violence were so urgent, why were other revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa that have been just as actively violent unfit for similar action? Why hasn't the U.S. condemned other dictators whom they've supported in the past --like Zia-al-Huq under Reagan or Pinochet under Nixon? Why isn't Yemen stripped of its military aid for killing protestors? Why weren't Rwanda, Sudan or Somalia given no-fly zones during genocidal terror? Most importantly, who is determining urgency and the means to address it?

I'm not sure Libya as a necessary intervention has anything to do with it. That would imply that violence and dictators are unequivocally condemned by U.S. leadership, which is absolutely false. 

In the end, I think it comes down to whose leadership we praise, whose values we prioritize and whether Obama has fulfilled his duty of "being a man"--an elusive goal communicated and recommunicated through patriarchy.