NewsFlash # 3 - Why Soldiers Rape

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3848/why_soldiers_rape/


Martin, Yancy and Hummer, Robert A. “Fraternities and Rape on Campus.” Feminist Frontiers. Ed. by Verta Taylor, Nancy Whittier, and Leila J. Rupp. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities, Social Sciences, & World Languages, 2007, 417-425.

Allen, Robert L. and Kivel, Paul. “Men Changing Men.” Feminist Frontiers. Ed. by Verta Taylor, Nancy Whittier, and Leila J. Rupp. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities, Social Sciences, & World Languages, 2007, 426 -427.

Nagel, Joane. “Sex and War: Fighting Men, Comfort Women and the Military-Sexual Complex.” Feminist Frontiers. Ed. by Verta Taylor, Nancy Whittier, and Leila J. Rupp. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities, Social Sciences, & World Languages, 2007, 441 - 449.

Women in the military are stereotyped by their male peers. These stereotypes are perpetuated by the military culture. “There are only three things the guys let you be if you’re a girl in the military: a bitch, a ho or a dyke” (Benedict 2). This quote, by Army Spc. Mickiela Montoya, illustrates the misogynistic and degrading view that countless male military officers have of their female counterparts. This view of women is extremely widespread in the military and has been found to contribute to the high incidences of rape and sexual harassment experienced by female officers. A culture of misogyny is created within the military in order to emphasize the masculinity of male officers and to assert male dominance over female officers. Helene Benedict’s article, “Why Soldiers Rape,” examines the larger social and political institutions that fuel the degradation of women in the military.

Rape and sexual harassment are two of the largest growing concerns among women in society. Many writers have described rape as a form of terrorism that instills fear in the victim and preserves and perpetuates the submission of women in the male dominated society. These acts of sexual violence and degradation have been estimated to affect one in six civilian women during their lifetime. What is even more shocking is that the incidence of rape and sexual harassment in the military has been shown to be almost double that of woman in civilian life. The result of research on this issue, discussed in the Military Medical Journal indicates that among the women in the military population, 71% have been sexually assaulted and 90% of women have been victims of sexual harassment (Benedict 2). The author indicates that typically, after a rape occurs, blame is often initially placed upon the victim. In her opening paragraph, Helene Benedict states that during post-rape discussions the authorities often focus on the “guilt” of the victims and the ways that their actions somehow contributed to the crime. Too often, a rape victim’s attack is attributed to their choice of suggestive clothing, flirty behavior or their unsafe location. On the other hand, the rapist’s actions are ascribed to their innate depravity and/or their mental instability. Based upon the attitude of those in authority, the victim is left to believe that the sexual assault is the result of her own bad choices. In contrast, the actions of the assailant are attributed to factors outside of his control, such as his lack of mental capacity. Benedict explains that the assignment of blame to the victim is dangerous for women and perpetuates the crime. By blaming the victim, those in authority may ignore the larger social issues that propel men to rape women: the concept of male superiority in society and the reinforcement of male dominance. The incidence of sexual assault on women will never significantly decrease until the truth about what drives men to commit rape is uncovered and dealt with by those in authority.

Standards of masculinity have perpetuated sexual harassment and rape. Our society has constructed a narrow image of the masculine ideal to which all men are expected to conform. In their article, “Men Changing Men”, Robert Allen and Paul Kivel state that boys are taught at a young age to be aggressive, independent and stoic. As boys mature, they are taught that the display of sensitivity and emotions is representative of weakness and vulnerability. These “womanly” feelings are highly discouraged in our patriarchal society. Allen and Kivel argue that through the reinforcement of certain emotions, boys learn to solve their problems by using violence and intimidation. “In a patriarchal society, boys are taught to accept violence as a manly response to real or imagined threats, but they get little training in negotiating intimate relationships” (Allen and Kivel 426). Through constant positive reinforcement of this masculine ideal, violence becomes the norm in men’s lives.

The model of masculinity which is fostered by our society creates an ideal that is only attainable through the demonstration of extreme aggression and dominance among men. Males learn that they can attain this ideal by asserting their dominance over women through sexual harassment and rape. The sexual degradation of women becomes more magnified in all-male environments, such as in college fraternities. In these settings, the social standards of masculinity and heterosexuality are harshly enforced. The hyper-masculinity demonstrated by fraternity brothers is considered to be superior to that of less aggressive males. The exaggerated machismo exhibited by the group serves to differentiate between members and inferior non-members, who often exhibit a less extreme form of masculinity than their male counterparts. Patricia Martin and Robert Hummer write in their article, “Fraternities and Rape on Campus”, that sexual violence against women is widespread within fraternities and in other all-male organizations because members are expected to prove their masculinity, often, by displaying their control and authority over women. The military functions much like a fraternity in the ways in which it reinforces the super-masculine ideals. The military is like a brotherhood that creates a mob mentality in which members lose their sense of self and commit violent sexual acts against women in order to prove their masculinity. “Even though most soldiers are not rapists, and most men do not hate women, in the military even the nicest guys succumb to the pressure to act as if they do” (Benedict 3). All male environments tend to foster a group mentality but the military magnifies the problem because it is inherently an environment which idealizes aggression and dominance.

Rape and sexual harassment are more complex problems in the military environment. In the article, Benedict explains how sexual violence not only stems from a need to demonstrate masculinity, but from an actual resentment and disrespect of female soldiers. One army officer stated, “The military sends women over to give the guys eye candy to keep them sane. In Vietnam they had prostitutes, but they don’t have those in Iraq, so they have women soldiers instead” (Benedict 2). By assaulting women sexually, men are asserting their superiority and power in order to prove that there is no place for women in the military. Male soldiers may also feel threatened by women, and feel that they must demonstrate their superiority in order to defend their positions. Sgt. Sarah Scully of the Army’s 8th Military Police Brigade stated that, “In the Army, any sign that you are a woman means you are automatically ridiculed and treated as inferior” (Benedict 2). In order to prove her point, Benedict focuses the readers attention to the language that is traditionally used by military personnel to demean other soldiers. Often times, sexist insults such as “pussy,” “girl,” “bitch,” and “lady” are used by officers to debase new recruits. The implication is that the lowest insult that can be used, is to call a soldier a term that is usually used to demean women. The misogynistic nature of the military is also demonstrated by a common naval chant which begins, “Who can take a chainsaw; Cut her in two; Fuck the bottom half; And give the upper half to you”(Benedict 2). This chant clearly illustrates how military officers sexualize and devalue women. Women are considered dispensable and useless except when they are sexually pleasuring a man. The use of these terms also ignores the growing presence of women in the military and is an expression of the resentment of this change in the military population among men.

The nature and history of men in war also contributes to the high incidence of rape in the military. In wartime, soldiers are desensitized and become emotionally calloused to violence through their constant exposure to the carnage and death. Soldiers are also trained to dehumanize their opponents in order to become more effective “killing machines.” Rape occurs more frequently in the military because soldiers are trained to become more aggressive and to accept violence as a normal way of life. This aggression which is focused on the enemy spills over and is directed to women. Because of their training, it becomes easier for men to mistreat women in general. Sexual assault against women is also deemed to be trivial compared to the violence which occurs on the battlefield. The military culture, its songs, jokes and language is based upon the glorification of the male soldier ideal .The naval chant mentioned in the previous paragraph is an example of how male soldiers are taught to accept and embrace the dehumanization of women.

The domination of women has always been a universal component of war. In the article “Sex and War: Fighting men, Comfort Women and the Military-Sexual Complex”, Joane Nagel addresses the ways in which historically, sex has functioned as a driving force in war. During the Korean War, bars and clubs were built near U.S. military bases in order to provide sexual services to U.S. soldiers. Nagel states that the military relied on prostitution in order to “sustain soldiers’ morale and discipline,” and to keep them complacent (Nagel 443). Rape was also employed by the military as a technique designed to demoralize and to vanquish the enemy by abusing or “conquering” their women. Nagel argues that “sexually taking an enemy’s women amounts to gaining territory and psychological advantage.” There is a difference between Nagel and Benedict in their view on rape. Nagel argues that sexual violence in war is an “ethnosexual phenomenon.” In that soldiers target women of different nationalities and races in order to exhibit their control and dominance over the enemy. Nagel argues that servicemen rarely rape “their own women” unless the woman proves herself to be disloyal (Nagel 443). Benedict, on the other hand, argues that male soldiers sexually violate and harass their fellow women soldiers because of the environment that breeds aggression and male dominance. In analyzing these two arguments I believe that sexual harassment and rape happens in both instances. However, in Nagel’s case, women are being assaulted in order to humiliate their opposition and to psychologically defeat their enemies. Ultimately, in each case the goal is to establish control and supremacy over their victims.

In her article, Helene Benedict attributes the high incidences of rape to the type of men that volunteer for service. Benedict states that many men who volunteer for service are from lower income neighborhoods and are more likely to rape or sexually harass women because of their socioeconomic class. “The economic reasons behind enlistment are well understood. The military is the primary path out of poverty and dead-end jobs for many of the poor in America” (Benedict 4). In response to her statement, I would argue that Benedict is contributing to a widely held stereotype that only certain types of men are capable of sexual assault. In reality, all men have the potential to rape. Benedict also blames the occurrence of rape in the military, to the incidence of men who are a product of abuse or who grow up in an environment of domestic abuse. It has been reported that men who have been sexually or physically abused as children are more likely to abuse others as adults. Oftentimes these men have a great deal of repressed anger that is released when they are placed in violent situations. Studies conducted by criminologist Menachim Amir and psychologists Nicholas Groth and Gene Abel prove that rapists are motivated by a mixture of sexual hostility and a need to dominate; urges which stem from childhood abuse.

Rape is more prevalent in the military than the statistics show. Under reporting is due to the fact that many women are reluctant to report cases of sexual assault because they are afraid of the repercussions they would face from army officers and from their peers. Reporting an incidence of sexual harassment or rape is viewed as an act of betrayal and women who do so are resented and ostracized by their fellow soldiers. Benedict states that a woman who report sexual harassment or rape, “risks being persecuted by her assailant if he is her superior, and punished by any commanders who consider her a troublemaker” (Benedict 3). To protect women from sexual assault, military officials need to strictly reinforce legal punishments for rape and harassment. Benedict points out that there is currently a shortage of military volunteers. In an attempt to retain the largest number of soldiers, the government has brought the least amount of sexual offenders to court as possible. Studies have shown that in the military, 47% of all sexual assault cases are dismissed and only 8% of cases are brought to a court-martial (Benedict 4). The military needs to adopt policies that convey to soldier the severity of sexual harassment and rape.

In the article “Why Soldiers Rape”, Helene Benedicts outlines the reasons why rape and sexual harassment have become a widespread occurrence in the military. Benedict attributes the incidences of rape to the overall social and violent nature of the military. The sexual degradation of women is perpetuated by the extreme standard of masculinity that is promoted in the military. The reinforcement of violence and aggression in a military environment also contributes the dehumanization of women and the overall number of sexual assault cases that occur each year. In order to improve women’s quality of life military, the government should enforce strict rules and punishments for rape and harassment offenders.

Blog #18 - Steinman, Crenshaw

Supremacy crimes are violent acts committed by individuals who believe they are superior to their victims. Gloria Steinman discusses in her article Supremacy Crimes, that individuals who commit these types of crimes believe that they are entitled to a certain amount of control and dominance over their victims. Supremacy crimes are done by mainly white, middle-class and heterosexual males. Steinman argues that men feel a need to exhibit their superiority over other individuals because our patriarchal society requires men to demonstrate a certain level of masculinity and dominance. Males are taught to be aggressive, violent and in control of their surroundings. In her article, Gloria Steinman draws parallels between supremacy crimes and acts of mass murdering and serial killing. Studies show that the overwhelming majority of serial murders are committed by white males. The statistics given by Steinman support her argument that serial murders can generally be classified as supremacy crimes in which the assailant is demonstrating his dominance over individuals of a different gender, class or race. What disturbs Steinman is that because our society views white and male as the norm, people tend to disregard the idea that the gender and racial identity of serial killers could contribute to their violent actions. The fact that most serial killers are white males proves that there is a problem with the way that society requires white men to act. They commit these crimes because they need to establish their masculinity by harming “inferior” individuals. Steinman states that people are ignoring the information in her article because it would force people to admit there is a problem with our society and force people to redefine masculinity in a way that downplays violence, dominance and control. This would lead to a deterioration of our patriarchal hierarchy in which white males would no longer be in control.

The article Mapping the Margins, by Kimberle Crenshaw, discusses the ways in which race and culture contribute to domestic violence. Crenshaw begins her article with an idea similar to that of the matrix of domination. The matrix of domination is a paradigm that outlines social oppression based on different factors including race, gender and socioeconomic class. Crenshaw discusses how all of these factors converge to amplify the oppression and disadvantage of abused women of different races and cultures. What I found most interesting in Crenshaw’s article was her analysis of the ways in which domestic abuse affects black communities. She states that many acts of domestic violence are not reported in black communities because the victims do not want to contribute and to fuel racial stereotypes. Crenshaw states that, “People of color often must weigh their interests in avoiding issues that might reinforce distorted public perceptions against the need to acknowledge and address intra-community problems.” Many black women endanger themselves in order to protect their community from negative stereotypes.

Many people have stated that domestic abuse is not a problem isolated to women of a certain race, but that abuse is a problem for all women. These statements are made in an attempt to protect women from domestic abuse, but instead what they reveal is the disregard that many people had for battered women when they believed that domestic abuse was only isolated to communities of color. In response to Senator Boren’s statements about the ubiquitous nature of domestic violence, Crenshaw writes, “Rather than focusing on and illuminating how violence is disregarded when the home is “othered”, the strategy implicit in Senator Boren’s remarks functions instead to politicize the problem only in the dominant community. This strategy permits white women victims to come into focus, but does little to disrupt the patterns of neglect that permitted the problem to continue as long as it was imagined to be a minority problem.” Despite the language used by policy-makers, the abuse of black women is still being ignored, while the abuse of white women is being addressed.

Blog #17 - Allen, Kivel, Martin, Hummer

Fraternities are organizations that perpetuate masculine stereotypes and contribute to the degradation of women on college campuses. Fraternities recruit news members based on their personality and sexual prowess. Men who are athletic, strong, affluent, competitive and good-looking are chosen to be in fraternities because they are better at attracting women than effeminate and “nerdy” men. The more masculine the candidate the better chance he will have of being accepted into a frat. Effeminate behaviors are highly discouraged by fraternities, and members who display those types of behaviors are ostracized and labeled as homosexuals. Martin and Hummer write, “Fraternities work hard to create a macho image and context and try to avoid any suggestion of wimpiness, effeminacy and homosexuality.” A narrow image of masculinity is created and expected by members of fraternities. An extreme image of masculinity is accepted as the norm and the individuals that stray from this norm are considered inferior. As Martin and Hummer write in their article, femininity is also highly distorted by fraternities. Many members in fraternities view women as sexual commodities who are obedient and vulnerable. Women who stray from the ideal; sexual, beautiful and social are often ignored by fraternity members. Martin and Hummer state, “Brotherhood often plays itself out as an overriding concern with masculinity and, by extension, femininity. As a consequence, fraternities comprise collectives of highly masculinized men with attitudinal qualities and behavioral norms that predispose them to sexual coercion of women.”

Fraternity members emphasize loyalty, use of alcohol, physical force, secrecy, group protection, competition and superiority. These characteristics and actions have been proven to contribute to a “rape-prone” environment in fraternities that is dangerous for women. Martin and Hummer state that alcohol is used as a weapon to incapacitate women and take advantage of them sexually. The highly competitive nature of fraternity members leads to intense rivalries over the number of women they sleep with. Fraternity members often times have a multitude of sexual relationships that are devoid of any emotional attachment. These relationships can be dangerous because the men are only concerned with their sexual pleasure. They have little concern for the wellbeing of the woman and usually abandon them when the intercourse is finished. As it has been shown in the 1988 rape investigation of a Florida university fraternity, the sense of loyalty and secrecy among fraternity brothers has been used to undermine authority and protect members from legal punishment. Group protection is the most important aspect of a fraternity. Martin and Hummer write that, “Brotherhood norms require sticking together regardless of right or wrong; thus episodes are unlikely to be stopped or reported to outsiders, even when witnesses disapprove. The ability to use alcohol without scrutiny by authorities and alcohol’s frequent association with violence, including sexual coercion, facilitates rape in fraternities.”

In the article Men Changing Men, Robert Allen and Paul Kivel state that society has constructed a narrow definition of masculinity in which all men should follow. Men are expected to be aggressive, tough and stoic. These characteristics contribute to acts of violence against women. Allen and Kivel write, “In a patriarchal society boys are taught to accept violence as a manly response to real or imagined threats, but they get little training in negotiating intimate relationships.” Boys are taught to solve all their problems the manly way, by being violent and aggressive. When boys grow up they do not know how to solve problems in a mature way and often resort to violence. I agree that society contributes greatly to the domestic abuse of women. The rigid form of masculinity supported by our society needs to be reformed so that men are not expected to be violent and aggressive.

Blog #16 - Enloe, Navarro

The three articles assigned this week discuss the negative affects that globalization has on third world women. The first article, The Globe Trotting Sneaker, by Cynthia Enloe explains how large corporations have been taking advantage of the lower labor costs in developing countries by outsourcing factory jobs to poor workers in China, Indonesia and Thailand. Trade agreements, such as NAFTA and GATT, are mainly concerned with boosting the global economy and do little to improve the lives of workers. The lack of opportunities and jobs in many developing nations gives women little choice for finding work. Most of the time, women are forced to work in factories that produce the products of American companies. Although American companies are providing jobs for citizens of third world countries, the lack of labor laws, such as minimum wage laws, leaves many women working in dangerous conditions for a salary that is far below the minimum wage set in the United States. Nike and Reebok are just two of the many companies that have built factories in third world countries in order to profit from their loose labor restrictions. American companies that outsource factory jobs can produce their products cheaper in other countries by paying their workers less money. Enloe states in her article that, “If women can be kept hard at work, low paid, and unorganized, they can serve as a magnet for foreign investments.” This quote illustrates how females are being used as a cheap source of labor in order to boost the economy of the United States and other third world countries, with little or no regard for the well being of their workers.

Sharon Ann Navarro, author of The Invisible Women, and Cynthia Enloe both discuss the ways in which globalized manufacturing jobs have led to the displacement of many female workers. In her article, Enloe describes the shoe, clothing, and electronic industries as extremely mobile. The equipment for producing these types of goods are small and easily manufactured. So when workers begin to protest against the factories low salaries and harsh labor conditions, American companies can choose to shut down their factories and relocate them to other areas where there are new sources of cheap labor. The movement of factories has left many women with no work and very little job options. Women are either forced to migrate to where the factories are relocated, or work in demeaning entertainment jobs such as those that offer sexual services. I was shocked when I read these articles. Not because I didn’t know about the outsourcing of factory jobs but because I didn’t know who little governments and companies cared about the well being of their factory workers. These companies need to be held more accountable for their overseas factories, and the government needs to put more regulations on company practices in order to protect third world women from abusive jobs.

Blog #15 - Mohanty, Bunch

In the article Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses, the author Chandra Mohanty criticizes western feminists for homogenizing third world women, and defining them as one singular group of women with identical goals and struggles. The major fault of many western feminists is that they assume that all women have the same priorities and objectives. Mohanty blames these middle class feminists for presuming that they are the norm and for creating an agenda that they expect all women to follow. Mohanty describes this as a form of ethnocentric universality, in which western feminists believe they are the standard model for all women, and despite differences in race or socioeconomic status all women share the same beliefs and goals as western middle class feminists. Mohanty argues that western feminists designate women from developing nations as the Other according to what is know as the “third world difference”. The third world difference is used by western scholars to compare the average third world woman who is uneducated, poor and victimized to the average western woman who is educated, independent and progressive. The west has created a consistent image of third world women based on the ways that they are oppressed sexually and politically by their patriarchal societies. Despite cultural, geographic and economic differences all women from developing nations are portrayed as victimized and powerless. Mohanty is arguing that western feminists are ignoring the differences between third world women and characterizing them as one homogenous mass.

Chandra Mohanty’s idea is reminiscent of the ideas discusses in Audrey Lorde’s article, The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House. In this piece Lorde addresses the underlying racist views of women in the feminist movement. Lorde argues that a major tool of our patriarchal society is the ability of men to “divide and conquer” or emphasize the gender, class, racial and sexual differences among people, in order to create a hierarchy in which white middle and upper class males are in control. The statement, “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house,” conveys the idea that women will never be able to overcome our patriarchal society if they create a hierarchy within the women’s movement and ignore the voices of women with different races and economic statuses. Mohanty also blames western feminists for creating a hierarchy in which third world women are considered to be at the bottom. Middle class white women need to recognize that not all women from developing nations are the same, and that they have different goals and priorities that are separate from those of western feminists.

Charlotte Bunch’s article, Whose Security, addresses the ways in which the Bush administration has disregarded human rights for the purpose of national security. Bunch argues that in the wake of 9-11, the United States could have become more empathetic to countries that face terrorism every day and could have begun to fight terrorism in a diplomatic and peaceful way. Instead, the Bush administration chose to ignore multilateral politics and proceeded into a disastrous and costly war. In an attempt to combat terrorism, the United States has become a reckless force in the Middle East and a hindrance to development of human rights for women in developing nations. In disregarding many human rights agreements created during past administrations, President Bush has set an example for other countries who now feel that they can also ignore human rights legislation without risking punishment from multi-national organizations. Bunch writes, “Indeed, the erosion of the US commitment to human rights helps legitimize the abuses of governments that have never fully accepted or claimed these standards. For while the US government has often been hypocritical in its human rights policies, open disregard for international standards goes a step further and thus strengthens fundamentalist governments and forces that seek to deny human rights in general, and the rights of women in particular.” The Bush administration has pledged to improve the rights of women in the Middle East. However, that goal has been abandoned and women in the region are still suffering from limited human rights.

Blog #14 - Mink, Rangel

The Personal Responsibilities Act is a controversial law that was passed in 1996, banning all poor single mothers from welfare benefits. This law was enacted because of the belief that poor single mothers are lazy and promiscuous women whose only motive for have children is to gain financial compensation from the federal government. Gwendolyn Mink in her article, The Lady and the Tramp, describes the Personal Responsibilities Act as a war against poor women, in which single mothers are punished for having children. Mink states that, “Without welfare, mothers who work inside the home are deprived of equal citizenship for they alone are not paid for their labor.” Mink explains that caring for ones child has been almost completely devalued by the federal government because poor mothers have been denied all compensation for their labor as mothers. The only option afforded to poor single mothers is marriage. However this is a dangerous option for many women because they become financially dependent on their husbands. Women, who cannot survive economically to leave their husbands, are forced to remain in a relationship that can be loveless, unhealthy or abusive. Mink explains that, “full-time care-giving mothers, then, are disproportionately dependent on men if married and disproportionately poor, if not.”

Mink introduces an interesting idea concerning the way that feminists have contributed to the struggles of welfare mothers. During the second wave of feminists, women fought to gain acceptance in the male dominated public sphere, or the men’s world of work. Feminists created the idea that social and political independence came from paid employment. Out of this movement came the idea that all work outside the home is more important and socially productive than work in the home as a mother. The work of second wave feminists has helped to depreciate the value of child care as a woman’s primary source of labor. Mink argues that the work of the second wave feminist has contributed to the acceptance of the Personal Responsibilities Act which states that child care is not a legitimate form of labor. In my opinion Personal Responsibilities Act seems completely contradictory to the purpose of welfare. Poor single mothers are extremely vulnerable and need financial assistance in order to survive and raise their children. I do not understand why a single mother would be denied welfare assistance because she isn’t married, but in our patriarchal society it does not surprise me that the government values marriage and would require a woman to marry in order to gain financial assistance.

Knowledge is Power, is an article by Maria Cristina Rangel, about her struggles as a single mom on welfare. Rangel brings up a very interesting point, about the way that the government forces poor individuals to choose between working and getting welfare, and going to college to get an education and being denied welfare. It is almost impossible to gain a college degree if you are on welfare, because the government does not recognize the pursuit of knowledge as work, and therefore requires individuals to work in separate jobs in order to obtain welfare. Rangel makes a shocking comparison between the way that slave owners denied their “property” and education in order to keep them ignorant and subservient, and the way that the government denies people on welfare easy access to higher education. She explains how this could be a way of keeping these individuals ignorant and preventing them from petitioning against unfair welfare legislation such as the Personal Responsibilities act. In some way I agree with Rangel’s claim. The only way to free an individual from poverty is to provide them with an education so that they can get a high paying job. If individuals cannot afford an education they are forced to work minimum wage, or low paying jobs, and remain dependent on the government for welfare checks. Instead of just offering financial assistance to poor families, the government needs to find a way to offer college educations to lower income students so that they can permanently escape poverty.

News Flash #2 - Teaching Boys and Girls Separately

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/magazine/02sex3-t.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=teaching%20boys%20and%20girls%20separately&st=cse&oref=slogin

http://www.now.org/news/note/091907.html

Lorber, Judith. “Night to His Day”. Feminist Frontiers. Ed. by Verta Taylor, Nancy Whittier, and Leila J. Rupp. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities, Social Sciences, & World Languages, 2007, 51

Specialized single-sex schools have been praised as one of the best ways to educate children today. These schools are different from traditional single-sex schools because their educational techniques vary based upon the gender of each student. Proponents of this kind of education believe that because boys and girls are biologically different, they require different forms of education. It would seem that tailoring a school to the specific needs of its students is beneficial. However, by basing their education on assumptions about the ways that boys and girls are biologically driven to act, these schools perpetuate gender roles and stereotypes. In the article, Teaching Boys and Girls Separately, the author, Elizabeth Weil discusses the benefits and drawbacks to single-sex schools and there underlying educational philosophies. Weil concludes that separate is not always equal.

Advocates of specialized single-sex schools believe that the biological differences between boys and girls cause them to learn and develop in significantly different ways. These schools mold their learning methods based on these assumptions. Proponents of single sex schools believe that boys and girls have different brain chemistry and structure. These factors affect the way that boys and girls process information and learn. Supporters of single-sex schools believe that boys learn better in an active classroom environment where the teachers speak loudly and are constantly moving. They believe that boys should read action/adventure books and should be actively engaged in class discussions. Supporters of this type of education believe that girls, according to their biology, learn best in social environments where students are positioned to face each other in order to engage in conversational-type discussions (Weil 7). Advocates claim that these specialized single sex schools permit teachers to use educational techniques that are designed to best suit their students. They argue that co-ed schools do not benefit all the students in the classroom because the learning methods savor the developmental needs of female students. Supposedly, due to their biology, girls are better listeners and do better in lecture based discussions. Those who subscribe to this belief argue that in co-ed schools teachers use a lecture based, passive form of learning which is better suited to girls needs. Boys, who process information better in active environments, have trouble focusing and staying connected to lecture discussions. Because they do poorly in class, boys feel alienated from their teachers and from their schools. Some people have even gone as far as to blame the women’s movement for forcing public schools to overcompensate for the historical injustices done to women, by tailoring teaching methods to benefit female students (Gandy 1). On the other hand, maximizer feminists may also be proponents for single sexed schools because they believe that males and females are biologically different. These feminists argue that laws should be enacted to embrace these biological differences so that no gender has an unfair advantage over the other.

In Teaching Boys and Girls Separately, the author interviews Dr. Leonard Sax who makes an argument for single sex schools based on the idea that boys and girls are biologically different. A closer investigation of his claims reveals that, although there are biological differences between boys and girls, most are not significant enough to cause discrepancies in the learning patterns between male and female students. For example, Dr. Sax argues that boys require teachers who project and amplify their voices because it has been proven that boys have weaker hearing than girls. However, the hearing differences between boys and girls are not significant. The actual scientific data reveals that the hearing threshold of boys is actually only between a quarter, to a half of a standard deviation lower than that of girls. Weil points out that there are more similarities than differences between the hearing of boys and girls. Similarly, it has not been scientifically proven that there is a causal connection between the biological differences of boys and girls and the ways in which they learn (Weil 10).

If the biological data collected does not prove a relationship between brain development and learning abilities, why is it that people are advocating for single sex schools on the basis that males and females require a different style of teaching? Kim Gandy, author of Below the Belt, argues that single sex schools perpetuate social stereotypes. Children in these schools are taught that men and women are different and unequal. Because these schools are based on stereotypes, they create restricting environments that isolate students who deviate from the norm. In the article Weil quotes Jay Geidd, “Imagine trying to assign a population of students to the boys’ and girls’ locker rooms based solely on height. As boys tend to be taller than girls, one would assign the tallest 50 percent of the students to the boys’ locker room and the shortest 50 percent of the students to the girls’ locker room. What would happen? While you’d end up with a better-than-random sort, the results would be abysmal, with unacceptably large percentages of students in the wrong place”(Weil 8). The author cites this example to show that assumptions about gender stereotypes are not accurate because there are so many variants beside gender that affect the way that students learn. Many people argue that single sex education is actually detrimental to students. Judith Lorber writes in her article, Night to His Day, gender is largely a social construct that is ingrained in a child at a young age. The ways that students are taught in specialized single-sex schools helps to create and reinforce gender norms because girls are expected to be passive and quiet, while boys are permitted to be loud and active. These schools teach children these stereotypes and reward them for conforming to gender roles. Weis points out that, “Dr. Sax is trying to tell us that boys draw action and girls draw stasis. He might as well have said: ‘Boys are active, girls are passive. Boys should go out and have jobs, girls should stay home and have babies’ ”(Weis 9). Some people may argue that single sex schools are beneficial because they eliminate sexual distraction, and allow girls to feel confident and empowered in a comfortable environment that is devoid of a dominating male presence. However, In Below the Belt, Gandy argues that the way to empower girls is not to separate them from boys altogether, but to address the reasons why young boys harass girls and make them feel more self conscious. She writes, “When we separate the sexes, we perpetuate the concept that men and women can't get along, and that male harassment of women is best handled by building a wall, not by changing the behavior and its motivation” (Gandy 2). She argues that separating the sexes merely ignores the gender problem.

Despite the arguments against specialized single-sex schools, it has been shown that these schools have successfully increased graduation rates and have attempted to solve the nation-wide “boy crisis”. The boy crisis is a theory that boys in the United States are in an academic free fall and are virtually disappearing from college campuses. However the alarming statistics that allegedly prove the existence of this problem are extremely skewed and are misleading. The actual numbers of boys who are failing out of schools and not going college are primarily racial minorities from poor neighborhoods. The graduation rates of middle and upper class white males have not faltered. Among white students in college the ratio of males to females is consistently 49:51, and males still outnumber female students in Ivy League schools. So is this academic crisis a gender crisis, or is it an economic/racial crisis, in which the needs of poor students are being ignored by the schools systems which fail to motivate them.

If there is no real academic boy crisis, why then have single sex schools been so affective in increasing the graduation rates among girls and boys? First of all it is important to recognize that many single sex schools are being developed in poor neighborhoods in the form of charter schools. Although these are public schools, they have rigorous admission standards in which only best and most motivated students are accepted. These charter schools have been so successful not because they are single sexed, but because the students enrolled are highly motivated and their teachers are extremely invested in seeing their students succeed. So, once again, the statistics surrounding these schools are misleading because there are other factors beside gender which influence a students outcome. Although experts like Dr. Sax claim that the success of these single sex schools is due to the specialized curriculum designed specifically for boys and girls, others would argue that there are many other factors that lead to the higher graduation rates at these schools. Elizabeth Weil states that, “Many variables are at play in a school: quality of teachers, quality of the principal, quality of the infrastructure, involvement of families, curriculum — the list is nearly endless”(Weil 17). Gender separation alone does not make single sex schools successful; it is based on a number of factors including the high level of dedication demonstrated by the students and faculty.

While single sex schools have greatly improved the graduation rates among poorer students, these schools will never be able to completely solve the problems of prejudice, poverty and gender stereotypes. Charter schools place some students in a position of privilege because they are chosen to receive a better education than the other students who are left in public schools. One of the problems with charter schools is that they remove the brightest and the most motivated students from the public school system, leaving the students who are at the most risk for dropping out of school. Yes, charter schools give many students an opportunity to fulfill there academic potential, but they abandon the most vulnerable and unmotivated students in the overcrowded and under funded public school system in our cities. In order to solve the academic crisis growing among students of lower income neighborhoods, more single sex schools do not have to be created. Students do not have to be separated by gender, rather, state governments put more funding in the already existing public schools, so all students, not just the brightest students, can benefit.

Single sex schools that educate boys and girls differently have helped to perpetuate stereotypes and gender inequality. In her article, Teaching Boys and Girls Separately, Elizabeth Weil illustrates how single sex schools teach children that each gender is different and expected to act in a certain way. The biological data that proves that there is a difference between boys and girls is misleading, and from closer analysis it is obvious that each gender is most similar than different. It is therefore apparent that specialized single sex schools serve the purpose of not benefiting boys and girls but rather preserving the idea that each gender is different and unequal.

Blog #13 - Gerson, Hakin-Dyce

In today’s society women are faced with difficult issues surrounding family commitment and economic autonomy. It seems that obtaining a balance between work and family has become an unattainable goal among many working mothers. In her article, Moral Dilemmas, Moral Lessons and the Transformation, Kathleen Gerson discusses the ways in which women’s roles in the “male-breadwinner, female-caretaker” family dynamic has changed in the second half of the twentieth century. In nineteenth century traditional American society, women were considered morally superior to men and therefore better fit in the home as the primary caregiver. This idea of moral superiority was used to justify the creation of two spheres in society in which women were isolated in the home, or the private sphere, and the men were in control of the public sphere, or the corporate workplace. Women were considered to pure to venture into the corrupt public sphere, and men were considered morally inadequate to raise children in the private sphere. This family paradigm persisted until the early nineteen seventies. At that time women began to challenge the traditional family model by venturing out of the home and questioning women’s moral superiority. When analyzed, it is apparent that this idea of moral superiority was a socially constructed idea that was meant to perpetuate gender inequality. By putting women on a moral pedestal, men were “inadvertently” oppressing women by confining them to the home. The concept of two separate spheres for men and women began to collapse when people realized that gender is not inborn but rather a social construct. Gerson writes “It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that using gender in this way is more prescriptive than descriptive.” In this quote Gerson is stating that gender is not an inherent trait but a characteristic that is assigned to all individuals.

Today women are faced with the moral dilemma of choosing between their careers and their families. Gerson explains this moral dilemma as a catch-22 situation in which women are forced to make “irreconcilable choices between caring and self sufficiency.” These choices are extremely difficult to make and almost always end in some form of societal disapproval. Despite the fact that the model of two spheres has largely been rejected, its ideals are still rooted in society. Women are almost always considered more responsible for household obligations. In some form or another, the traditional family dynamic is still present in our society. Women are expected to carry the bulk of the child care and household chores while men are primarily concerned with their careers. Another problem faced by working mothers is the inflexibility of employers. Most do not cater to the needs of working mothers who need to devote a large amount of time to their families. Having a balance between a woman’s family and career is made nearly impossible by the fact that many employers expect complete dedication from their workers. Gerson explains that there is a growing crisis among families who try to “balance the need to provide economic support with the need to devote time and attention.”

Aisha Hakim-Dyce’s article, Reality Check, relates to many issues discussed in Kathleen Gerson’s article. Through her own experience Hakim-Dyce illustrates how our society works on systems of privilege in which people are forced to make extremely difficult decisions. In Gerson’s article, she describes how it is nearly impossible for both men and women to balance there careers and their family lives. This is because employers expect so much from their workers and do not offer many exceptions for working mothers. Lower class women are at a disadvantage because most of the time they will be forced choose their careers over their family so that they can provide financially for their children. On the other hand women in the upper and middle class can work less hours because they have more financial stability. A balance between their family and their careers are more attainable for women of a higher socioeconomic status. Hakim-Dyce is also forced to make a tough choice between a job and her college education. Like Hakim-Dyce many women cannot afford a college education because they need to work full-time in order to support themselves financially. Women who come from middle or upper class backgrounds are able to afford a college education without having to worry about supporting themselves. These women can graduate from college and find higher paying jobs that are reserved for college graduates. Women who are forced to drop out of college, due to financially reasons, are forced to work in lower income jobs and therefore can never escape their financial instability.

Blog #12 - Naples

The article Queer Parenting for the New Millennium, by Nancy Naples, discusses the controversies surrounding same sex marriages and parenting. George Bush said in 2004 that, same sex marriage “would undermine the welfare of children and the stability of society.” Naples addresses this statement by arguing that poverty, not gay marriage is the main factor that contributes to the instability of families. She blames President Bush for faulting same sex marriages while ignoring the more significant underlying issues that cause family insecurity. What makes same sex marriages more susceptible to poverty are the laws supported by President Bush, such as the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. This law provides monetary assistance for lower income parents who are in traditional heterosexual marriages, while ignoring the needs of individuals in same sex relationships who are prohibited to marry. Therefore needy parents who are in homosexual relationships are not entitled to the same benefits afforded to heterosexual married couples. Naples also discusses some of the difficulties and barriers presented to gay parents. She details the alienation felt by non-biological comothers who are forced to explain their relationships with their children. Comothers also experience a detachment from society. The pregnant partner becomes more accepted by society because she shares a commonality with heterosexual mothers (pregnancy), while the comother is considered the other. Naples closes her article with the same idea that Paula Ettelbrick discussed in her article, Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation. Both authors discuss the problem of rights without justice, which is the idea that assigning homosexuals more legal privileges will not create social acceptance. Naples states that, “it is unlikely that by itself legal change will create acceptance or transform dominant cultural values.” To improve society’s view of homosexuality, we need to question compulsory heterosexuality and gender norms. The best way to benefit same sex couples would be to promote societal acceptance rather than push for the rights to marriage.

A domestic partnership is a legal relationship between two individuals who live together and share a common domestic life, but are neither joined by marriage or a civil union. In New York State there are three ways that a couple can gain domestic partnership status. 1- by having registered with some jurisdiction that provides a registration system for domestic partners, such as one of the cities or counties in New York State with domestic partnership registries; 2 - by being a person's designated partner for employee benefits purposes at work; or 3 - the catch-all category, by being able to provide documentation of dependence or mutual interdependence, mainly along financial lines. The New York State law allowing domestic partnerships includes such rights as providing that a decedent's domestic partner will take priority over anybody except a person specifically designated in a will or a special designation of agent for this purpose. The law also includes the right to control the disposition, including burial, interment or cremation, of the remains of such decedent and all reasonable costs associated therewith and the disposition of any part of the decedent's body. Therefore, surviving domestic partners will take priority over surviving adult children, surviving parents, surviving adult siblings, surviving guardians or estate property.

Blog #11 - Ettelbrick

In her article, Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation, Paula Ettelbrick discusses her beliefs regarding same sex marriage. Ettelbrick supports same sex relationships; however she argues that marriage would destroy the identity of gay or lesbian couples by forcing them to conform to society’s norm. She wants to emphasize the difference between homosexual and heterosexual individuals and advocate for societal approval of all relationships despite their marital status. Marriage would undermine the gay rights movement which is trying to get people to recognize and respect the difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Ettelbrick argues against same sex marriage because she believes that marriage is about having everyone conform to an appropriate standard. Those people who resist marriage are not considered to be in a legitimate relationship and therefore not worthy of the legal benefits given to married couples. Instead of simply giving homosexual couples the right to marry; Ettelbrick would rather address the underlying issues that allow the government to deny homosexual couples the rights afforded to married heterosexual couples. She states that, “Gay and lesbian marriages will not demolish the haves and have-nots. We must not fool ourselves into believing that marriage will make it acceptable to be gay or lesbian. We will be liberated only when we are respected and accepted for our differences and the diversity we provide to this society.” Paula Ettelbrick argues that giving homosexuals the right to marry is an example of false empowerment in which they believe that they are gaining legal power but ultimately they are being forced to conform to society’s norm. Marriage would be upheld as the norm and considered the only acceptable relationship. Ettelbrick believes that the act of allowing homosexuals to marry would be society’s attempt to model every relationship to heterosexual relationships.

I disagree with many of Ettelbrick’s arguments. It seems contradictory that as a lesbian herself, Ettelbrick would not support the marriage of homosexual couples. I understand her arguments against marriage however I believe that all individuals should be given the option to get married. If homosexual marriage was legalized, Ettelbrick could still resist conforming to society by choosing not to marry her partner. In her article Ettelbrick tries to emphasize the differences between homosexual and heterosexual couples. However I don’t believe that same sex and heterosexual couples are so different that each group should receive different legal privileges. I do however agree that the underlying social issues causing the disparity of legal privilege needs to be addressed before gay and lesbian individuals can truly be liberated from social oppression.

Blog #10 - Gawande, Goer

Henci Goer’s article, How Childbirth Went Industrial: A Deconstruction, serves as a response to Atul Gawande’s article, How Childbirth Went Industrial. Goer criticizes Gawande for supporting the widespread use of Caesarian Sections and citing unreliable statistics about the safety of this procedure. Goer’s main point is that Caesarian Sections are being performed needlessly on healthy women in order to benefit the obstetricians and with little concern about the woman’s health. Obstetricians benefit from planned C-sections because they can be scheduled ahead of time so that the physicians know exactly when the pregnancy will occur. Also these procedures are relatively simple to learn and perform as opposed to older techniques such as the use of forceps. Using forceps successfully during childbirth was very difficult and considered an art by most doctors. The Caesarian section was used as a means of standardizing child birth so that all doctors could consistently perform the procedure successfully. Goer argues that despite the statistics and data available, C-sections are not as safe for mothers as natural child birth. She blames the misleading data on the fact that most of the statistics only account for the safety of the child during birth, and not for the short and long term damage the procedure causes for the mother. Some of these damages include, deep venous clots, pulmonary embolism, stroke, surgical injury to bladder, bowel, ureters, anesthetic complications, infection, chronic pain, infertility, ectopic pregnancy, uterine rupture, low birth weight and preterm birth, congenital malformation and central nervous system injury. In his article, Gawande praised obstetricians of the early twentieth century for experimenting with different birthing techniques without waiting for government approval or research trials to be conducted in order evaluate safety and effectiveness. When I read Gawande’s statement I was shocked to learn how little doctors cared about the safety of pregnant women. It seems ridiculous that not only would doctors be performing un-tested procedures on women, but that Gawande would approve of this practice. He sites the innovative procedures that arose from this practice but he never mentioned the failed techniques that led to the deaths of many women. I agree with many of Goer’s arguments; however I feel that in many cases Caesarian Sections can be the safest way to deliver a child. I strongly disagree with doctors performing C-sections on completely healthy women. In this case I do believe that doctors and women are more concerned with the short term benefits of this procedure and not considering the long term detrimental affects that Caesarian sections cause.

Both Presidential candidates have distinct views on abortion. Barack Obama is staunchly pro-choice and believes that it is important for women to have the option to terminate a pregnancy. Obama states, “I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions, in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy.” Barack Obama has also voiced his disapproval on the partial birth legislation passed recently by the Supreme Court. He states that this legislation violates previous legislation that protects the health of all pregnant women. The ban on Partial Birth Abortion disregards the health of the mother and focuses solely on the rights of the fetus and the moral issues behind the procedure. “As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman's medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient." John McCain on the other hand strongly opposes abortion and has recently stated that the Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, should be overturned. Also McCain strongly supports the ban on Partial Birth Abortions stating that, “Today's Supreme Court ruling is a victory for those who cherish the sanctity of life and integrity of the judiciary. The ruling ensures that an unacceptable and unjustifiable practice will not be carried out on our innocent children...as we move forward, it is critically important that our party continues to stand on the side of life.” John McCain’s statement clearly illustrates his belief that a fetus’ rights are paramount to a mother’s rights.

Blog #9 - Smith, Crew

Andrea Smith’s article, Beyond Pro-Choice versus Pro-Life of Color and Reproductive Justice, discusses the underlying prejudices behind pro-choice and pro-life views. Smith does not explicitly support either view. Instead she uncovers the injustices surrounding both pro-life and pro-choice standpoints. In her first argument, Smith equates anti-abortion laws to the prison industrial complex. Time and time again, the United States prison system has proven to be a failure in not only rehabilitating inmates but deterring crime and addressing the social issues that promote criminal behavior. The failure of the prison system to deter crime is well known. Smith argues that the purpose of incarceration must therefore be to control the population of individuals of color, because a large percentage of jail inmates are either black or Hispanic. Smith states that prisons drain funds from beneficial programs such as education and social services which would be implemented in communities of color. These overlooked communities are left economically disadvantaged and more prone to high incidences of crime. Smith views the prison system as an extension of slavery that maintains white supremacy. The biggest failure of the prison system is that is serves as a temporary solution that does not address the underlying social conditions that foster crime. Smith states that the problem with the pro-life argument is that it serves to criminalize abortion rather than address the societal, economic and political conditions that promote it. The criminalization of abortion would most directly affect women of color who live in poor communities. Smith argues that women who live in poverty are generally more in contact with government run programs, such as public physicians and health facilities. So women who live in these neighborhoods and want to have an abortion must either avoid their physicians or risk encountering a government employed doctor who could have them arrested. Prisons do not deter crime; and anti-abortion will not stop women from having abortions because these laws will not address the underlying issues that force a woman to terminate a pregnancy. Instead of safely and legally going to a physician to have an abortion, women would be forced to undergo illegal and often times dangerous procedures to terminate their unwanted pregnancies.

On the other hand Smith contends that the pro-choice standpoint only benefits women in the middle an upper class. Legislation such as the Hyde Amendment restricts federal funding for abortions. Smith states, “Choice also became a symbol of middle class women’s arrival as independent consumers. Middle class women could afford to choose… According to many Americans, however, when choice was associated with poor women, it became a symbol of illegitimacy. Poor women had not earned the right to choose.” (395) Once again poor women of color are disadvantages and unable to experience the same benefits afforded to women of the middle and upper class. Another argument that Smith makes is that abortion is promoted in order to control the black communities. The pro-choice position supports the idea of eugenics in which reproduction is discouraged among individuals with genetic defects or with presumably undesirable traits. Privilege is a main theme in this article. Smith demonstrates how both pro-life and pro-choice views ultimately benefit white middle and upper class women and negatively affect women of color. I completely agree with her idea that the only way to truly benefit all women would be to address the social and economic issues that promote abortion.

In the article And So I Chose, the author Allison Crews discusses the failures of society to education and support women who have abortions. Crew’s emphasizes the right of all women to chose to have of not have an abortion. A woman has control over her own body, and the right of women outweighs the right of a fetus. Woman should not be granted the right to chose to terminate a pregnancy. Instead it should be considered a right that she is born with. Crews states, “Whatever our reproductive choices, nobody can ever deny us our right to them.” (149)

Blog #8 - Collins, Walker

In her article, Black Sexual Politics, Patricia Hill Collins discusses the ways in which history has contributed to the portrayal of “black sexuality”. Collins illustrates how women such as Jennifer Lopez, Beyonce Knowles, Josephine Baker and Sarah Baartman have strengthened the stereotype that black women possess an untamed, savage sexuality. In particular, Sarah Baartman, who in the early nineteenth century, was caged and put on display for the citizens of London to witness her most intriguing anatomical feature, her buttocks. “When ordered to do so, she leaves her cage and parades before the audience who seems fascinated with what they see… Baartman endures poking and prodding, as people try to ascertain for themselves whether her buttocks are real.” Baartman is portrayed as a sexual “freak” of nature, who is behaviorally and anatomically different form the white citizens of the Western world. The case of Sarah Baartman convinced many individuals that there was a distinct biological difference between white and black individuals, which contributed to the intense sexual nature of African Americans. Throughout history, the sexuality of black men and women has been emphasized to reinforce racial differences and confirm the superiority of white individuals to the black “savages” they colonize. Collins states that these sexual differences were used by imperialist countries to create a national identity, in which they were the pure, civilizing agents of the primitive colonies. In American society, black sexuality became the deviant form of white sexuality which was tame and wholesome. “The United States has been constructed in relation to the Black Beasts of Africa.”

An important point that Collins makes, is that most likely none of the four women (Lopez, Knowles, Baker, Baartman) described in the article necessarily knows how big of an impact they had/have on the portrayal of black women. Each of these women reinforces the stereotype that black women have a wild and savage sexual drive, and although they may not personally feel the effects of their actions they are negatively impacting black women as a whole. The point that Collins made reminded me of a discussion we had in class concerning the actions of some women as individuals and how their actions contributed to negative female stereotypes. For example when a women cries when she gets pulled over by a police officer. Crying may benefit her at the moment but overall she is negatively affecting all women and the way they are portrayed by men.

Along with her idea of “black sexuality”, Collins also discusses the paradox of sexual suppression. The sexual suppression in our society is considered a paradox because while sex is promoted by the media, sexual education and open dialogue are often discouraged. The lack of accurate information about sex leads most teenagers to accept what they learn about sexuality from television shows and movies. However the way that the media portrays sexuality, leads to the creation and maintenance of many stereotypes. For example, Collins attacks Montel Williams and Maury Povich for depicting black males and females as being sexually reckless, ignorant and permiscus. I agree completely with Collins argument. I think one of the major problems in our society is that discussions about sex are avoided, so children are forced to believe everything they see on television. Teenagers need to be educated correctly about sex so they are aware of safe sex practices and how to manage difficult situations, like pregnancy and sexual assault. Rebecca Walker writes in her article, Lusting for Freedom, that it is important to educate teenagers about sex so they are knowledgeable about birth control and abortion. Walker stresses the need for young women to explore their bodies and learn that bodily pleasure should not be avoided, but embraced as a privilege afforded to all humans. Discussing sex will not promote sexual activity among teenagers, but rather educate them on how to make sex a “dynamic, affirming, safe and pleasurable part of life.”

Blog #9 - Rupp, Rich

 

Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Experience by Adrienne Rich, is an article that discusses the means in which society imposes heterosexual relationships on women.  Compulsory Heterosexuality is the assumption that women and men are innately attracted to each other emotionally and sexually. This theory establishes heterosexuality as the norm and undermines women’s sexual, political and social autonomy.  Rich rejects compulsory heterosexuality by stating that women are inherently more loving and emotional than men. Therefore individuals of both genders should naturally be attracted to women. “If women are the earliest sources of emotional caring and physical nurture [mothers] for both female and male children, it would seem logical, from a feminist perspective at least, to pose the following question: whether the search for love and tenderness in both sexes does not originally lead toward women, why in fact women would ever redirect that search.” Rich further explains that women redirect their affection to men, because society promotes heterosexual relationships and rejects the lesbian existence because it challenges male dominance. Lesbianism is a “women identified experience” that embraces female power by rejecting the idea that women are the sexual property of men. Lesbianism is an “attack on male right of access to women” and a rebellion against our patriarchal society.  However, the belief of compulsory heterosexuality is still widely accepted because of the stigma that has been attached to lesbianism.  Rich sites pornography as one of the major reasons why lesbian relationships are considered “queer” and “sick”. Pornography degrades women and depicts them as entirely sexually beings devoid of any emotional needs or attachment. It promotes the belief that a woman is essentially a “sexual commodity” waiting to be exploited by men. Lesbian pornography on the other hand not only debases women but also portrays lesbianism as a spectacle that is neither moral nor natural.  Rich blames pornography for creating a violent sexual atmosphere in which women are stripped of their dignity and autonomy.  In her article, Rich also attacks our capitalist economy for keeping women in a subservient role. Most women are expected to have low paying service jobs (secretaries, nurses, child-care workers) and they are subjected to “perpetual sexual harassment” in the workplace.  Women gradually become accustomed to the constant harassment and accept the male violation as normal.

 

Toward a Global History of Same-Sex Sexuality by Leila Rupp is an article that explores the history and designation of homosexual relationships as same sex sexuality.  A major component to her article is the problem that arise from calling all homosexual relationships same sex sexuality.  Rupp explains through historical examples that not all homosexual relationships are sexual in nature. For example, in ancient Greece older men would have intercourse with teenage boys in order to express their power and dominance.  It has also been documented that women in history would dress up as men in order to escape female oppression and gain a higher status.  These women would have to transform every aspect of their lives, including their sexual relationships, in order to become a convincing man. Rupp argues that in this case the relationships between two women may not have been sexual, but just a necessary means to an end.  Another point that Rupp makes is that in history sexual relationships were not always dictated by the individual’s gender, but by their age or social status. For example in Athens male-male relationships were very common, and the major deciding factor for a sexual relationship was not gender but the age disparity between the two men.  

News Flash #1 - When Mom and Dad Share It All

Article URL:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/magazine/15parenting-t.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=when%20mom%20and%20dad%20share%20it%20all&st=cse&oref=slogin

Frye, Marilyn. “Oppression.” Feminist Frontiers. Ed. by Verta Taylor, Nancy Whittier, and Leila J. Rupp. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities, Social Sciences, & World Languages, 2007, 7-9.

Why hasn’t the division of labor for men and women in the home changed in the last ninety years? This question is easily answered if we look at society and how it perceives men and women. The key lies in the gender roles that have been constructed as a means of developing a patriarchal hierarchy in which men are deemed the superior sex. These gender roles are not explicitly stated but ingrained in our society in order to dictate the ways in which men and women think and behave. In previous generations these expected gender norms have led to the creation of two separate spheres, the public and private sphere, which were each populated by different genders. The public sphere was the workplace, which was dominated by men, and ruled by capitalist ideals. The business world was considered too corrupt and dangerous for women, so “for their protection”, women were banished to the private sphere, or the home, where they could fulfill their maternal duties. The creation of a capitalist market transformed money into the most valuable and sought after resource in the United States. The jobs that paid the highest salaries were considered the most important, and the men that held these positions gained authority and power. The private and public spheres never overlapped, so as men in the business world were growing more powerful, the women in the home were being pushed aside and forced into a subservient role. The value of women’s work in the home began to steadily decline as the value of money increased. Although the concept of the public/private sphere has long been dismissed, its philosophy, that women belong in the home, is still present in society.

When Mom and Dad Share It All, by Lisa Belkin, is an article that addresses gender roles and the ways that parents try to rebel against the traditional model of household labor divisions. Belkin interviews three couples who strive to achieve an equal distribution of domestic labor between the husband and wife. This phenomenon has been called many things, from shared care to equally shared parenting, but one point that Belkin brings up is; why does shared care need to be designated as something other than parenting. Shouldn’t parenting entail equal responsibilities for both the husband and the wife, and why does society consider shared care to be such a novelty. Well the truth is that equally shared parenting is rare and it is different from traditional parenting. The University of Wisconsin National Survey of Families and Households shows that the average wife does 31 hours of housework per week while the average husband does 14 hours a week. (Belkin 3) When we look at the ratio for men and women who both have full-time occupations we see that the numbers change slightly but that the women are still doing the bulk of the work (28 hours wife: 16 house husband). When a women’s sole occupation is as “housewife”, it makes sense that she would be spending almost double the amount of hours working in the home compared to her husband. What is disconcerting is that even when men and women are working full-time jobs, it is still the responsibility of the wife to complete the majority of the household chores. However, these statistics are not new, and most men and women recognize the inequity between the division of labor and childcare.

So why do most of the household obligations still fall on the wife? Once again the key lies in gender roles and deep-rooted societal norms. Belkin sites three main reasons why the traditional division of labor is accepted among the general population. The first explanation Belkin gives is that compared to men’s professions, women’s occupations are considered more flexible and on average pay lower salaries. Therefore women are expected to work fewer hours and sacrifice their careers in order to devote more time to their children. Belkin supports her belief by stating, “How many people ask a pregnant woman if she is going to go back to work after the baby is born? How many people ask her husband?” Society just assumes that it is the women’s responsibility to forfeit her career in order to raise her children. Some people may disagree with this point by saying that women are not forced into choosing certain professions, and that the decision is completely up to them. However, this is not entirely true. From a young age women are encouraged to pursue certain hobbies and subjects that ultimately promote specific careers. There is an “unspoken assumption” that leads women to pursue certain occupations. This is why today, men dominate the fields of math and science and women are predominantly teachers and social workers. Secondly, Belkin attributes the unequal divisions of labor to a phenomenon know as the “frission of superiority.” The frission of superiority is much like the false superiority described in Marilyn Frye’s article, Oppression. Both articles describe this phenomenon as the false sense of dominance and gratification a woman experiences when she is in charge of the household and proves to be the more competent parent. Belkin states that most woman enjoy when their husbands ask them for help with household chores, such as the laundry, because it proves that they are the more capable. However what these women do not realize is that the frission of superiority does not raise women to a higher level, but guarantee’s that they will never escape the unequal distribution of labor that is so prevalent in households across the United States. Belkin’s third and final explanation for the unequal division of labor is that people are comfortable with what they know. Gender roles were established in our culture over a hundred years ago and people are comfortable with the idea that a woman’s chief concern is with the home and raising her children. The idea of shared parenting is so shocking and noticeable, because it challenges the traditional family paradigm and makes the husband equally responsible for household chores and child care.

In her three arguments, Belkin makes it apparent that gender is a major factor in the division of childcare and household labor. But to further support her conclusion Belkin studied and interviewed lesbian couples to observe what happens when gender is factored out of parenting. Consistent with her original hypothesis, Belkin found that lesbian couples make equal professional sacrifices and that both parents report spending about 6 to 10 hours fulfilling household duties. When a couple is composed of individuals of the same gender, neither parent is considered to be more or less superior to the other and each parent is equally responsible for child care and household labor. Belkin writes, “It is not clear, however, why lesbian couples split parenting more equally. Is it because you take gender out of the equation, or because women are better at sharing or because parents of the same gender see things more similarly?” (Belkin 12) To me the answer to this question is obvious. I believe that gender has everything to do with the equal labor distribution between lesbian couples. In heterosexual relationships, men feel less responsible for household duties because they gage the amount of time they have to spend time on child care by looking at other men’s behavior. Men look to their fathers and neighbors and emulate their parenting styles. So by imitating other fathers, they feel that they are doing enough as a parent. The only problem with this approach is that most men are not taking on enough responsibility as a parent, so the unequal distribution of labor remains constant. The few men who are engaging in shared care parenting will not change the distribution of labor on a widespread scale because the overwhelming majority of men leave most of the parenting responsibility to women. As long as most men continue to participate in unequal divisions of labor, the current parenting model will never change.

Shared care is an important and revolutionary idea, but unfortunately it is not easy to execute. Belkin illustrates through the relationship of Bill and Alex Taussig that equally shared parenting requires sacrifices from both the husband and the wife. In order for a shared care relationship to work, both parents can only work part-time jobs. This does not seem like a major problem, but with the current state of the economy it is extremely difficult to support a family on two part-time salaries. Belkin points out in her article, that the Taussig’s can only afford one car and that each week they have to alternate between who uses it. Alex states however, “The 10 percent salary cut that we each take is a price we consider worth paying, understanding that this is an option available to those who can make ends meet in the first place.” The ability for a husband to find a part-time also becomes a main obstacle to shared care parents. In today’s society, a husband’s main priority is considered to be his job. Most employers subscribe to this belief and expect that men will work full-time. As Bill Taussig realized, many employers are not even willing to look at a man’s resume if he has not agreed to work full time. Eventually however Bill was able to find part time work by negotiating with his employer. “What Bill realized was that he had the same right to flexibility as his wife, and he requested a four day schedule. While hers was granted automatically, his met with resistance, and eventually he just took it, by negotiating a paternity leave that he would parcel out one day per week for 10 weeks. When the ten weeks were up he just kept taking Fridays off.” Like many other couples, Bill and Alex Taussig did not stick with shared parenting, stating that it was just too much keeping score. However they did learn an important lesson, “the point is not to spit at gender for the heck of it but rather to think things through instead of defaulting to gender.”

Lisa Belkin addresses some major and controversial issues in her article, When Mom and Dad Share It All. She challenges the traditional parenting model and asks why society has defaulted to certain ideas and norms. Lisa Belkin, much like Marilyn Frye, develops the idea of societally constructed barriers that confine women to the home, and restrict mothers from escaping the duties of child care and household labor. Women are expected to shoulder most of the work at home, while men need only to be concerned with their careers. It is important for people to recognize why we have these general perceptions of men and women, and to challenge the foundations that created these societal norms.

Blog #7 - Middlesex Book 4

Book four of Middlesex involves the discovery of Callie’s intersexed genitalia and the means by which her parents and doctors handled the situation. The reading this week was reminiscent of Suzanne Kessler’s article, The Medical Construction of Gender, in which she discusses the ways that doctors approach intersexed cases and try to “correct” children born with ambiguous genitalia. In the novel, the Stephanides go to New York to consult Dr. Luce, the head of the sex disorders and gender identity clinic at New York Hospital. Dr. Luce approaches Tessie and Milton in much of the ways that Kessler describes in her article, with extreme care and an oversimplification of their child’s medical status. He does not reveal to the parents that Callie is in fact a boy, and that despite her gender identity she is biologically more male than she is female. After examining Callie physically and psychologically, Dr. Luce decides that the most beneficial and logical treatment for her condition would be to perform cosmetic surgery to construct “normal” female genitalia and to regularly administer hormone injections to stimulate the outward manifestation of female secondary characteristics. In this case, the basis for the doctor’s decision was not biological or genetic, but rooted in the idea that a constructed gender is more significant in determining an individual’s identity. “According to Luce’s thinking, that did not mean that I had a male gender identity… In addition to chromosomal and hormonal factors, Luce had to consider my sex rearing, which had been female.”(p.413) The fact that Callie was a teenager when her ambiguous genitalia was discovered complicated the process in which Kessler described in her article. In the Medical Construction of Gender, Kessler does not address the difficulties in assigning a sex to an individual who has already developed a gender identity. If I were in Dr. Luce’s position, I think that one of the most significant factors in assigning Callie’s sex would be her gender identity. If a child is content being a female and is accustomed to functioning in society as a girl, there is no reason to change her sex. In the novel, what complicated the doctor’s sex assignment was that Callie lied during most of the psychological assessment. This misled Dr. Luce into thinking that she was attracted to men and has on more than one occasion enjoyed participating in intimate “heterosexual” relations. If Callie had told the truth, Dr. Luce’s evaluation may have been different. There is one point in the doctor’s final evaluation that I want address. He writes, “The ability to marry and pass as a normal woman in society is also an important goal, both of which will not be possible without feminizing surgery.” (p.437) This quote clearly shows the common perception in society that hermaphroditism is not normal and that the only possible way of functioning in society is by conforming to one of the two acceptable gender categories. Callie never undergoes cosmetic surgery to construct female genitalia. When she learned that she was in fact a male, she journeyed to California to begin her transformation into Cal and find her true identity. I really enjoyed the conclusion of the novel. Although the end was bittersweet, I was glad that Cal embraced his true identity and that Tessie and Chapter Eleven accepted his new gender.

The novel Middlesex not only describes the childhood of Calliope, but the adulthood of Cal and his relationship with a woman named Julie Kikuchi. Throughout the entire narrative Cal talks about his difficulties with women and his inability to engage in serious sexual relationships. But by end of the novel the author reveals Cal’s personal growth when he is finally able to tell Julia the truth about his sexual identity.

Blog #6 - Middlesex

Middlesex, is a novel by Jeffery Eugenides that discusses the trials and tribulations of a girl named Calliope, who was born a hermaphrodite. I have been thoroughly enjoying this novel, because Eugenides does not simply tell the story of Calliope, but he alternates between the past, present and future to show how the genetic mutation developed, and how it affected Calliope throughout her adolescence and into her/ his adulthood. What I enjoy most about the novel is the way that Eugenides narrates the story. He describes Calliope’s life in stages and gives a multitude of historical background so you can actually feel the passing of time. For example, every year of Calliopes young life is marked by a new Cadillac, which not only indicates the time period, but symbolizes the changes in society and the changes occurring in Calliope. The historical background not only creates a reference point in time, but also makes the novel more interesting and enjoyable. One of my favorite parts in the reading this week was the description of the Detroit race riots. My perception of the 1967 race riots has been shaped by what I’ve read in textbooks, and Eugenides description of the event was shocking and eye opening. I had no idea that the riots were less like a demonstration and more like a “guerilla war.” Eugenides description made me think about everything I’ve ever read in textbooks and wonder how much is reality and how much is warped by the government and the media.

One of the most obvious symbols in the novel is the Stephanides’ house, on Middlesex Boulevard, which symbolizes Calliope. The house is awkward and different from all the other houses in the neighborhood. “Middlesex! Did anybody ever live in a house as strange. As sci–fi?” (p. 258) Just like the house, Calliope’s hermaphroditism is considered strange and abnormal. Calliope is not a conventional girl and she does not fit into society, the way that the house does not fit into the neighborhood. The street name alone characterizes Calliope, in the middle, between a male and a female.

In book three Eugenides discusses Calliope’s transition into high school and the troubles she faced in understanding her physical transformations and fitting into society. As a child, Calliope appearance was very unique and appealing. “No single freature was right in itself and yet, when they were taken all together, something captivating emerged.” (p.218) But as she grew up, Calliope began to develop male secondary sex characteristics and exhibit masculine features. She was five foot ten, and had a flat chest and a deep voice. Calliope struggled to find a group of friends and constantly felt like and outsider. She created a hierachry in her mind in which the “charm bracelets” were at the top and she was at the bottom. The “charm bracelets” were the girls who were beautiful, preppy and popular. They were the stereotypical rich, stuck up girls, who were idolized by every other student. Calliope considered the “charm bracelets” to be a completely different species and she knew she would never fit into their group. In school, Calliope struggled with little things that many people take for granted, like changing in the locker room. Not only did she have to deal with her obvious physical differences but also the confusion that arouse from the absence of female secondary sex characteristics and her intimate feelings toward other women.

Blog #5 - Kessler

In her article, The Medical Construction of Gender, Suzanne Kessler reveals the inherent problems associated with sex assignments for children born with ambiguous genitalia. A major issue that Kessler addresses is the belief that intersex children are not born with a gender and therefore need to be altered to become either a male or a female. The option of a third gender is unacceptable to society, and therefore all children born neither male nor female are considered abnormal and deformed. Kessler argues that hermaphrodites are neither male nor female, but a separate, third gender category. Because society only recognizes two genders (male and female), doctors and parents of intersex infants strive to “correct” their children by unnaturally molding them to fit into one of the two acceptable gender categories. Society’s gender dichotomy is reinforced by the medical community, because they view hermaphroditism as a deformity that needs to be corrected through surgical reconstruction. Kessler makes the strong point that, “Accepting genital ambiguity as a natural option would require physicians also to acknowledge that genital ambiguity is corrected not because it is threatening to the infant’s life but because it is threatening to the infant’s culture.”

Societal factors greatly impact the sex assignment of hermaphroditic children. One of the main factors in deciding the gender of an intersexed child is the appearance and function of the genitalia. “Doctors today schooled in the treatment of the various intersex syndromes, view decisions based primarily on chromosomes or gonads as wrong… and that decisions based primarily based on phallic size, shape and sexual capacity are right.” According to Kessler, the appearance of the genitals are so important to the child’s ultimate sex assignment, because if the child looks “normal” than they will be more accepted by society. Kessler also stressed the affects of our patriarchal system on sex assignment. In most cases a child is constructed into a male if he has an average functional penis. If the child has a smaller than average, or inadequate penis, then their genitals are constructed to look and function like a vagina. “A good penis equals male; absence of a good penis equals female.” Essentially, the goal of gender assignment is to create and individual that is capable of engaging in heterosexual sex. So males are created if they have a sufficient penis, and females are created to accommodate an average sized penis.

Blog # 4 - Lorber, Zinn & Dill, Myhre

In her article, Night to his Day, Judith Lorber describes gender as a human production rather than an inherent biological characteristic. An individual’s gender identity is not fixed or predetermined by their genetic makeup, but rather it is constructed and molded to fit into society’s concept of what is truly masculine and feminine. Lorber makes a clear distinction between an individual’s sex and gender, but at the same time shows how the two principles are related. The sex of an infant is determined by anatomical cues such as the type of genitalia and reproductive organs. However a child’s gender identity is developed through social conditioning, in which that individual learns which behavior and responsibilities are socially acceptable for men and women. From the time that a child is born they are molded and taught how to act in a socially acceptable way. “Gendered norms and expectations are enforced through informal sanctions of gender-appropriate behavior by peers and by formal punishments or threat of punishment by those in authority, should behavior deviate too far from socially imposed standards for women and men.” Lorber illustrates how the development of gender identity leads to different “characteristics, feelings, motivations and ambitions,” among the sexes. The characteristics assigned to each gender causes men and women to have different life experiences and ultimately become different kinds of people. The creation of different genders and “different kinds of people” leads to a “stratification system in which gender ranks men above women of the same class and race.” Society has created a gender system in which male is the dominant norm, and female is the other that is different and subordinate. The other lacks the redeeming qualities present in the dominant group. I thought that one of the most interesting ideas in Lorber’s article was the Marxist feminist view of gender inequality. This idea states that gender is created to demean women’s abilities and keep them in a subordinate position so that they can be exploited as a cheap supply of labor. The lower jobs are reserved for women, while the more esteemed, higher paying jobs are reserved for men.

Theorizing Difference from Multiracial Feminism, is an article by Maxine Baca Zinn and Bonnie Thronton Dill, which highlights the benefits and necessity for a multiracial feminist movement. Zinn and Dill define multiracial feminism according to six distinct features. The first and most important point that they discuss in their article is that gender inequality does not just stem from differences among men and women, but also from differences in class and race. Zinn and Dill site the matrix of domination, which is a paradigm for individual oppression that involves the interlocking relationships between gender, class, race and sexual orientation. The matrix of domination displays how the experiences of women of different races and classes are not the same and that all women experience different levels of oppression. The importance of a multiracial feminist movement is that it will address not only gender hierarchies, but also racial and socioeconomic hierarchies. “The matrix of domination seeks to account for the multiple ways that women experience themselves as gendered, raced, classes and sexualized.” Multiracial feminism brings together women from all backgrounds and forces them to see the interrelation between privilege and subordination. Through the exchange of different life experiences, women will be able to identify the matrix of domination and see how race and class relations affect all women.