NEWS FLASH 3: RAPE AS A SYSTEMIC PROBLEM RATHER THAN INDIVIDUAL ISSUE

In a recent article in the Princeton University newspaper, Jason Jung tells the story of Sarah, a student at the university who was raped a few months in to her freshman year by an acquaintance of hers. When she traveled home to speak with a therapist, however, she was met with doubt and skepticism. Her therapist told her “she was ‘not entirely convinced’ that the sex was not consensual.” The article suggests that Sarah’s story is not uncommon as 1 in 5 college women, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, experiences some form of sexual assault. While this article does a really great job unveiling some of the myths and culture associated with rape, the author never fully acknowledges that a larger societal system is in need of scrutiny and change in order to overcome this culture of the objectification of women.

However, despite the high number of sexual assault incidents on college campuses, many students do not report their story often because of fear their story will not believed. Also, the article suggests that even when found guilty, “75-90 percent of convictions did not end in expulsion.” Victims of sexual assault, therefore, feel as though their stories may not be considered wrong or taken seriously. In such a case, the victim could be made to feel worse with a greater blow to confidence than if she[1] had kept the story to herself.

The article articulates the University’s disciplinary process-the goal of which is apparently to notify supposed victims of their different options. Victims may talk with a range of individuals from a peer advisor, to public safety, or file a formal complaint with the police. When someone reports a case of sexual assault to the school, the school in turn looks at available evidence in order to decide whether or not the school’s disciplinary sexual harassment subcommittee needs to meet. In the academic period from fall 2005 to spring 2008, three students were disciplined for committing forceful sexual assault. Further, “only the repeat offender was required to withdraw for an unreported amount of time, and none of the students was expelled.” Conversely, the article reports that over the same 2005 to 2008 time period, seven students were expelled for other reasons such as academic dishonesty.

Perhaps the lack of disciplinary urgency or seriousness in dealing with students guilty of sexual assault discourages victims from reporting their case. The article reports that in 2009, only five cases of “forcible sexual offenses” were reported to Public Safety and even lower, only two in 2008. While these low numbers may suggest that sexual assault is not happening on campus, I think the unfortunate alternative is undeniable: far more cases of sexual assault occur, however victims are hesitant to report their case. Dominique Salerno, a Princeton senior, suggests that “part of the problem is the fear that victims won’t be believed.” Victims of sexual assault often suffer from a loss in self-confidence and fear that these personal insecurities would only become more extensive if they were to report an incident that was ultimately not taken seriously.

Further, on college campuses, sexual assault incidents often occur in the presence of alcohol. The article suggests that victims often blame themselves for getting to drunk or question details due to a lack of perfect certainty. Victims start to question their own story or credibility, even when their case is entirely valid, and therefore, they make the decision not to report their case. Jillian Hewitt, a Princeton junior and member of the student group SPEAKOUT, states that “even in clear-cut cases of sexual assault, victims are doubted [when they have been drinking].” While it is clearly important not to cry wolf on rape or sexual assault cases, a system that discourages the report of genuine cases is certainly flawed.

Like the University, the local police also maintain that their main goal is to protect and help the student in any way possible. They seek to work together with the University in achieving the goals of “simply helping the victim and protecting the victim.” Both the school and the police seem to view sexual assault as a serious issue worthy of intense attention. However, “Kristen Lombardi, the lead reporter of the Center for Public Integrity study, said that there is a disconnect between colleges’ condemnation of sexual assault and the relatively light punishments they deal to students found responsible.” While authority figures claim to take sexual assault very seriously, the lack of serious punishments for guilty individuals suggests other wise. The actions of the authority must mirror their claims to attentiveness and protection or else the system will be ineffective.

This article seeks to raise awareness of the issue college campuses face in approaching and effectively dealing with reports of sexual assault. The article acknowledges that there is a disparity between the supposed policy in dealing with cases of sexual assault and the reality of how such incidents are dealt with. The article also recognizes that inconsistency between the light punishments guilty offenders face and the long-lasting emotional and mental consequences the victims must withstand. Someone interviewed in the article briefly notes that the issue is a civil rights issue as well as a women’s rights issue as sexual assault impedes equal access to an education. Further, Sarah, another person interviewed in the article, notes the harmful effects of “the rape myth that confuses sex with rape.” Sarah acknowledges that societal constructions and confusions impede an effective approach towards dealing with sexual assault cases.

However, after Sarah’s valuable comment about “rape myth[s],” Jason Jung stops and moves on to a different section of the article. In other words, the article therefore fails to realize the larger societal issues associated with sexual assault and the system that, rather than decreasing rape cases, actually serves to perpetuate the problem. If women are afraid to report their cases due to a fear of authoritative doubt, it brings to question the respect women are given in society. When assaulted, women are clearly objectified and treated as inferior individuals by their perpetrator. However, when women’s claims and reports of assault are repeatedly doubted or dismissed by authoritative figures, a larger societal and institutional system needs scrutiny and change. While focusing on individual sex offenders is the easiest and most concrete way to confront sexual assault, this approach is insufficient. As Allan G. Johnson suggests, “we are all participating in something larger than ourselves or any collection of us,” (Johnson, 28). In order to stop sexual assault on college campuses, as well as generally in our society, we must build an awareness of the system that is perpetuating not only rape, but also the disrespect and objectification of women in society because this system, rather than the individual, is truly to blame for the extreme number of rapes in our nation each year.

Unfortunately, the lack of reporting of sexual assault in our culture does not imply fewer rapes but instead a fear of administrative doubt. As “Women at Arms: A Peril in War Zones-Sexual Abuse by Fellow G.I.s” by Steven Lee Myers shows, sexual assault reporting is a problem far beyond college campuses. Captain Margaret H. White, a soldier who served in Iraq, was sexually assaulted by a fellow soldier. However, she notes that she “feared coming forward…because she was wary of she-said-he-said recrimations that would reverberate through the tightknit military world and sirupt the mission,” (Myers, 3). Just as students interviewed for the Princeton article mentioned, women often fear the stigma, suspicion, or negative repercussions that often fall on the victim in such situations.

Further, Marti Ribeiro, a former Air Force sergeant, claims she was raped by another soldier when she stepped away from her post in order to smoke a cigarette while on duty in Afghanistan. When she reported her case to the “abuse coordinator, she was threatened with prosecution for having left her weapon and her post,” (Myers, 2). The assault coordinator was more concerned with her violation of her duties than the objectification and inhumane treatment she had sustained. Just as women on college campuses fear they will lose respect or merit if they admit to drinking, women in other factions of society, like the military, avoid reporting their stories in a fear of receiving punishment for other violations.

If women feel as though their sexual assault cases will be mistrusted or ignored, as they rightfully should given the light punishments given to guilty offenders, they are more likely to question their credibility and avoid coming forward in case of an incident. However, this hesitation perpetuates the suspicion because if a woman questions the validity of her own incident, the public is likely to have reservations about believing women as well. In internalizing administrative scrutiny and hesitation, girls begin to internally skew the incident, blaming themselves for the assault. As more girls question the validity of their claims, less people come forward and the severity of sexual assault in our country is increasingly underestimated and misunderstood.

This disrespect and mistrust of women’s reports of sexual assault display a larger societal trend in which women are not taken seriously. The lack of punishment commonly given to guilty offenders on college campuses suggests that the respectful treatment towards women is not valued as much as administrators may allege. This rape culture is not just promoted by lack of punishment for our perpetrators but also in the media and advertisement tactics that are standard in our culture. These images serve to perpetuate the male dominance and patriarchial culture, making it not only acceptable and normal in our society, but also attractive to use women as sex objects. Advertisements such as this pepsi ad reveal that dominance over women and sexual objectification over women is not only acceptable, but also desirable and irresistible. A blogpost written on this particular advertisement suggests that Pepsi implies that the woman’s “hotness and ‘availability’ are still the most pressing concerns” despite that fact that she could die in such a situation. In other words, her appearance and sexual worth are more valuable than her life.

Since women are sexualized in our media, this treatment towards women becomes normal, natural, and acceptable. Further, it becomes so ingrained in our daily life that we often do not even notice the objectification we undergo. Further, just as women in college internalize the view that they are to blame for their own sexual assault, women internalize the point of view that their greatest worth lies in their sexual value. Therefore, women think they must use their sexuality in order to succeed and move upward in a historically male dominated world. Women dress provocatively, exaggerate their sexuality, and even behave in a raunchy manner in order to achieve male approval.

These actions are reminiscent of Ariel Levy’s ‘raunch culture,’ a society complete with ‘female chauvinist pigs,’ or women who “make sex objects of other women and of [ourselves],” (Levy, 4). Levy suggests that women perpetuate this image of themselves as objects thereby denying themselves the right of humanity and identity. We make ourselves in to objects rather than establishing ourselves as capable, strong, and qualified human beings deserving of equal treatment and respect. Levy suggests that women act overly sexual and pornified because “we have determined that all empowered women must be overtly and publicly sexual,” (Levy, 26). In general, women have internalized the culture surrounding us, in the form of advertisements, movies, and music, viewing themselves as sexual objects and establishing the perception that their best way to gain success and societal approval is through a display of sexuality. However, in addition to internalizing this notion, women are perpetuating their cultural status as ‘objects’ inferior to men in that they do not trust their determination, work ethic, tenacity, or brains to gain them the success they desire.

However, just as women serve to perpetuate their objectification in society, men equally play no role in terminating this sexualization and objectification of women. Men not only enjoy and appreciate the feeling of power over women but they also contain an “impossible expectation of dominance to which they’ve become addicted,” (Steinem, 1). According to Gloria Steinem, white men expect dominance and superiority over women in all aspects of life. She suggests, however, that we do not always notice this factor because it is “the air we breath,” (Steinem, 3). This expectation of dominance is natural and commonplace in our culture to the extent that men and women alike do not realize that it is there.

Since the objectification of women is so deeply ingrained in our culture, most citizens serve to perpetuate male dominance and female disrespect every day without even noticing. However, in promoting this culture, we maintain a society where rape and assault of women is common. Men generally expect dominance and superiority and women consent to inferiority and disrespect in society. The role of our media in perpetuating this culture is also crucial as advertisements display this patriarchial society as not only acceptable but also attractive. In order to change the position and objectification of women in society, thereby promoting an end to the culture of rape, we must establish an awareness of these images messages that are often so common we do not realize they are there.

---

[1] For this essay I am discussing the culture of male dominance and rape of women. I do acknowledge that women can rape men or that such situations need not be heteronormative, however since most cases of rape are men objectifying women, I will make that assumption through out my essay.

Post for 4/22

Extra credit post
Lila Abu-Lughod criticizes western feminists for attempting to restructure foreign cultures. While I understand western feminists genuinely care about women’s status, they are not taking the necessary steps to address women’s rights in this culture. She argues that in the past, we have overlooked and misinterpreted what is really going on the Islamic culture. This has resulted in western feminists trying to further their various political and international agendas, which encompass the idea of “saving” women. “Saving” reinforces a sense of superiority by westerners and is detrimental to the women in Muslim societies.

She argued that burqa raises political and ethical questions that have to do with how to deal with difference. Even after the "liberation" from the Taliban, many Afghan women do not agree with what the Westerners want for them. For many of them, they feel both religiously and culturally empowered by choosing to cover themselves. In this situation, what can we do?

I think it is crucial to understand differences and consider their actual needs. We cannot appear as superior to them; rather, we must work collaboratively on creating a better environment for all, and like Abu-Lughod discussed, create the peace necessary for debates and discussions. Also, we need to be respectful of other routes of change. She writes:

Is it impossible to ask whether there can be a liberation that is Islamic?

Abu-Lughod’s article relates to a research project I did in my Introduction to Anthropology class last year. In the class, we were told to investigate what appears as an odd behavior in a culture and analyze it in terms of its meaning to the overall culture. I studied why young girls of the Okiek community, one of Kenya's smallest ethnic groups, engage in the practice of female circumcision. At first glance, most people, like myself, would say this practice is completely unjust and must be eradicated. However, after careful analysis of understanding the workings of the culture and ethnographic data on the community, I learned a great deal of the importance it had.

I found that female circumcision fits well into several aspects of Okiek culture by playing an important role as a marker of social, ethnic, and religious identity. Female circumcision in this culture actually makes females more mature, strengthens bonds between women, and develops new ways of acting and interacting. What is interesting is that most feminists and other groups do not take into account the cultural significance and seek to eradicate it immediately.

Therefore, along the lines of Abu-Lughod’s claims, individuals and organizations attempting to eradicate certain practices in other parts of the world must take the time to understand how a specific practice fits into the culture. In the future, efforts undertaken by individuals, feminists, government and non-governmental organizations will be more successful if they restructure their campaigns by taking an anthropological approach to understand why communities engage in certain practices. Furthermore, like Abu-Lughod suggests, we the need to accept differences, but not to extreme of being a “cultural relativist who respect whatever goes on elsewhere as “just their culture” (767). There is a boundary and we must be careful to not step over it.

Post for 4/20

Extra Credit Post
The authors of today’s readings provide unique criticisms to how the US targets foreign issues, particularly bringing to light the limited role that feminists have on US foreign policy. Bunch in “Whose Security,” argued that the US foreign policy has not helped to advance the global women’s movement because the media has been dominated by powerful male figures who do not address the major problems surrounding women in other countries, but rather focus on terrorism, war, national security, and defense.

I agree with Bunch that we need to find a successful feminist approach to make a difference in foreign policy issues. A strategy that will involve working cross-culturally and cross-nationally to recognize the interrelationship between human rights and human security will be advantageous. We must not make any generalizations but rather understand that each culture is extremely different in terms of customs, religion, politics, etc. Holding events to create awareness of different issues and struggles women face in various areas will be important to create a “rich global dialogue and networking among women across national lines” (5).

Bunch’s outlines for solutions seem vague and somewhat weak. However, as discussed in class, we must recognize that this is the first step towards raising awareness that women’s rights are in fact human rights. Bunch is preaching a form of activism, however small or big as it may be, and the mere fact of just talking about this particular issue is a necessary first step.

I read this article where I learned about the steps that Bunch has taken to combat this issue. She is working “at the UN on a campaign called Gender Equality Architecture Reform that aims to combine the several smaller offices that currently handle women’s rights issues into one large agency.” As the UN stands now, it has several different agencies that deal with women’s issues that are small and underfunded. I think that the introduction of the GEAR campaign holds promise by unifying the different agencies. This will help get women’s rights to the forefront of the UN’s policy decisions.

Mohanty’s piece relates to Bunch’s ideas, but focuses on western feminist discourse on women in the third world. She articulates the problems with certain western feminist approaches to third world women's issues. The main problem I got out of her reading is that western feminists have universalizing tendencies in their theoretical work.

While she recognizes western feminist discourse is not “singular or homogenous in its goals,” there has been a “crucial presupposition that all of us of the same gender, across classes and cultures, are somehow socially constituted as a homogeneous group” (75). I have always assumed that feminists all had the same goals in mind without really taking into account the diverse backgrounds that they each come from. This has led me to conclude that women are in no way homogenous. We must understand that feminism is very complex and varies between women of different ethnicities and in different parts of the world. For instance, it is not right to assume that African American women share the same feminist perspective as white women. In fact, African Americans suffer from struggles that those of white middle-class women do not. In my previous blog post, I talked about Patricia Hill Collins, Maxine Zinn, and Bonnie Dill. These women have made great strides in showing the differences between women across different ethnic groups. Collin’s uses the “matrix of domination” term to describe the intersectional perspective on the interlocking systems of race, class and gender and Maxine Zinn and Bonnie Dill’s analyze “multicultural feminism,” which stresses the importance of “race as a power system that interacts with other structural inequalities to shape gender.”

The inequality seen between women is also evident in Barbara Ehrenreich’s essay "Maid to Order." Within the US itself, she talks about domestic work and the problem of choice for some women. For example, the upper middle class women are able to enter the workforce and hire a maid for domestic labor, while there are women, particularly those of the lower-class who do not have the choice. This is yet another example that adds to the inequalities that exist between women. By ignoring these differences, we are preventing real lasting change. We must create public discourse to open the space for discussion of our differences.

With this inequality in mind, going back to Mohanty’s piece, I can see how the impact of western feminism on third world women has been met with some criticism. I think that while western feminists appear to dominate international arena, their approach is somewhat flawed. They refuse to treat third world women as equals, even as they claim to fight for their human rights. We must get rid of the “paternalistic attitude towards women in the third world” (80) and understand the “local cultural and historical contexts” (75) that these women face. I believe education is key to be able to understand “the contradictions inherent in women’s location within various structures that effective political action and challenges can be devise” (74). In addition, I think it is also up to third world women to specify the kind of support needed, and lead their own battles. The western feminists can then step in to help them with their efforts.

Newsflash: "Male Studies vs. Men's Studies"

Inside Higher Ed columnist, Jennifer Epstein, recently published an article comparing traditional Men’s Studies to the newly conceived Male Studies, which is popping up in universities and conference halls across the country. While men’s studies developed organically as a compliment to women’s studies, male studies has emerged as a combative reaction to both women and men’s studies. Although the distinction between “men’s” and “male” appears to be a mundane matter of semantics, Epstein insinuates that it has enormous ramifications for the future of gender relations and social movements. Not only is the objective of male studies appalling to feminists (both ♀ and ♂), but it mocks and compromises the trajectory of social progress for everything from sexism to racism.

The president of the American Men’s Studies Association, Robert Heasley, describes the origin and mission of men’s studies as the following, “Men’s studies came out of feminist analysis of gender, which includes biological differences” (Epstein). A modern-day example of men’s studies can be seen at Colgate University in the formation of Men at Colgate, a male-only group dedicated to discussing gender-related issues on campus. These men take a genetic and sociological approach to understanding how they relate to women and society. Male studies, on the other hand, is not concerned with objective analysis of gender so much as it is with the baseless construction of masculinity. These chauvinists believe masculinity is under attack, leaving all men as an underrepresented minority. Their central concern is, “exploring the triumphs and struggles of the XY-chromosomed of the human race” (Epstein). If this sounds ridiculous, it is. That said, this movement is not to be taken lightly as one might eerily predict a connection between male studies and other historic supremacy acts.

The precipitating cause of male studies is undoubtedly feminism, which is described by Lionel Tiger as, “a well-meaning, highly successful, very colorful denigration of maleness as a force, as a phenomenon” (Epstein). Tiger, a professor of anthropology at Rutgers University, goes on to claim that feminist-lead misandry infringes upon the rights of men, “The academic lives of males are systematically discriminated against” (Epstein). While it is certainly in the realm of possibility that some men have experienced misandry, to say that feminism is a movement fueled by man-haters is simply wrong. Although many feminists see men’s behaviour as a conduit for dismantling patriarchy, there is certainly an acknowledgement that women too must play a role. As author Allan Johnson so eloquently articulates, “We can’t do this without realizing that we all participate in something larger than ourselves, something we didn’t create but that we have the power to affect through the choices we make about how to participate” (Johnson 29). The ability to see feminism as a collaborative movement is nothing more than a willingness to see the effect every one of us has on equality. Unfortunately, this maturity is nowhere to be seen in male studies.

Returning to the notion of supremacy, the lack of maturity responsible for male studies is the same deficit that created the Klu Klux Klan. While promoting masculinity seems innocuous when compared to white supremacy, the foundation is the same. In Patricia Williams’ book, Seeing A Color-blind Future, she evaluates racism as the inability to experience the life of another, “Perhaps part of this is, in the words of an old Cherokee proverb, as simple as trying to walk a mile in another’s moccasins. Just the momentary, imaginary exercise of taking to mind and heart the investment of oneself in another, indeed the investment of oneself as that other” (Williams 69). While investment in this context relates to race, it can just as easily be applied to gender. If proponents of male studies were invested in bettering not just themselves but also women, the successful rise of feminism would be seen as a victory, not a threat.

The perceived threat of the female sex is nothing new. Take coeducation, for example, which emerged in the late 1960s. In 1969, The New York Times wrote of this historic moment, detailing both the excitement of some and the fears of many, “Nightmares about expansion and higher costs, and cries of anguish at the toppling of tradition notwithstanding, coeducation fits the ideas, ideals and mood of today’s young people" (Evans). The resistance to coeducation was no different than the resistance to female suffrage, employment, or biological rights. In fact, the fear of losing power to women via coeducation is the same fear now driving curriculum changes, like male studies. Rocco Capraro, associate dean and assistant professor at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, supports male studies as a means of increasing men’s power, “Men are both powerful and powerless…today’s discourse on individual men is not a discourse of power – men do not feel powerful in today’s society” (Epstein). This is unequivocally true, as one only needs to examine the horrific statistics on sexual violence and domestic abuse to see this power trip in action. The problem, however, is that there are also plenty of women who feel powerless in our society, yet we don’t see them on rape and sniper sprees. Suffice it to say that using powerlessness as an excuse to further the agenda of male supremacy has not and will not stand in the fight for equality.

While Jennifer Epstein does little more than moderate the debate between men’s and male studies, her article is riddled with the same fears I have expressed. If this movement gains power, it will affect both feminists on a personal level, and social progress on a societal level. Men, having always had the advantage over women, can no more justify creating male studies than white students could justify creating white supremacy studies. Suggesting that any majority party needs a support group mocks the efforts of minority progress everywhere. It would be remarkable to see what we could accomplish if instead of competing for attention, we shared it. Again, Williams leaves us with a vision of how the world could be different if plots like male studies did not exist, “Black or white, invisible or conspicuous, English or British, raced or nationed, embodied or alone…Who are we when we are seen but not spotlighted, when we are humble but not invisible, when we matter but not so much that the mattering drives us mad” (Williams 30). Following this idea, the final message in “Male Studies vs. Men’s Studies” is that, regardless of our different genders, men and women are much stronger together than we will ever be apart.

Works Cited:

Epstein, Jennifer. "News: Male Studies vs. Men's Studies - Inside Higher Ed." Home – Inside Higher Ed. 08 Apr. 2010. Web. 16 Apr. 2010. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/04/08/males.

Evans, Olive. "For Colleges, the Major Is Coeducation." New York Times (1923-Current file) 9 Jan. 1969, ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2006), ProQuest. Web. 16 Apr. 2010.

Johnson, Allan G. “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us.” [online] Page 29.

Williams, Patricia J. Seeing a Color-blind Future. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1997. Print.

Follow Up: Responding to Rachel

Much like Rachel, I found Mink's article to be both informative and mobilizing. Although I would never call Mink's vision lofty, as no one should ever consider the goal of equality as sublime, I do think it lacks critical details. Without clear prerequisites for receiving welfare, this paradigm shift in government assistance and women's rights will not even be considered. Even though I am in full concordance with Mink, the though of deciding what constitutes one mother as deserving of welfare from another seems impossibly difficult. Unfortunately, the criteria will inevitably leave some women out or be deemed insufficient. While the fear of not being able to please everyone should never discourage the ability to aid a few, this inadequacy is a reality.

Jumping to a different idea, I loved Mink's description of the feminist activists, "We mobilized not to speak for poor mothers but with them - to speak for ourselves as feminists frustrated by the absence of women's voices and by the lack of gender equality concerns in the welfare debate," (Mink 56). The fact that all women can participate in feminism, regardless of their experiences, is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it means that by simply possessing two X chromosomes you have an automatic stake in whatever is being debated. On the other, it is very easy to be ignorant or indifferent if the debate does not directly affect you.

This duality is what I find most discouraging about women who "hate feminists". Just because you may be white, upper class, and wealthy does not mean that feminist issues will not someday affect you. Nor does it mean you should ignore the other members of your gender as they fight for their lives. The welfare bill that Mink mentions is just one of many cases where this scenario plays out, "My point is not that feminists were uniquely responsible for how Congress reformed welfare. It is that they were uniquely positioned to make a difference," (Mink 57). Synthesizing this idea, like Mink I strongly believe that those who are not part of the solution are part of the problem.

Newsflash 3: Disney's New Princess

This article, “A Successful Hop in Disney’s Latest,” indicates that Disney’s new film, “The Princess and the Frog,” starring Tiana as the first ever African-American princess, has been a major source of controversy. Weiss argues that the movie not only touches on the problematic image that Tiana expresses to little girls, but also presents both positive and negative racial implications. While there are some positive conclusions that can be drawn from the movie, including the introduction of a lead African American character, it does not strike new ground. Rather, “The Princess and the Frog” marks a return to the Disney Princess franchise, which has always focused more on the surface-level attentiveness to men, importance of marriage, and beauty than on feminist ideals, such as empowerment, self-respect, and independence. While at first glance, Tiana can be read in a feminist light as a “Girlie Girl,” in reality, Tiana is reinforcing traditional stereotypes of how women should appear and behave in society. These issues surrounding the movie suggest the need to challenge the nature of the familiar “princess concept.”

The article argues that Tiana represents the typical princess that Disney continues to reproduce. Disney builds female characters around both notions of femininity and traditional gender roles (Jacinto 2009). While the lead women in Disney films may portray qualities of heroism, they are still “pretty princesses” who are saved through partnership. For Tiana, it is only after she married the prince that she was let back into the human race. The movie further stereotypes women, confining them to specific gender norms, by showing that in order for a woman to be successful, she must get married. This concept is the opposite of feminists who have long fought against the constraints of traditional gender roles and who have argued that women do not have to be the “suburban housewife” (Friedan, 1963, pg 55). Tiana rather reinforces the idea that “pretty princesses” belong in the domestic sphere, regressing back to the traditional ways of how females had to behave in society in order to be accepted. This is certainly not a form of liberation.

In addition to the emphasis on traditional gender roles, Tiana promotes an unrealistic body image. Many young girls mimic what they see on television and therefore view Tiana’s look as the only way to be attractive. Just like all other Disney princesses, Tiana has an ideal body, perfect straight hair, and pencil-thin waist. Tiana’s “perfect body” is sending a harmful message to young girls since it focuses on looks as a measure of one’s value. Whether or not it was implied, it is as Colleen writes, “inextricably linked to patriarchy and the male vision of beauty.” Tiana’s perfect body feeds into the male gaze, fitting right into Levy’s raunch culture. “Raunch culture” refers to the nature of mainstream female sexuality, which is about “endlessly reiterating one particular-and particularly commercial-shorthand for sexiness” (30). Thus, young girls enter raunch culture because they learn that the only way to be worthy is to look just like Tiana and will therefore go to drastic measures to achieve this goal. Their bodies have become their central personal project, making young girls worry about “the contours of their bodies-especially shape, size, and muscle tone” (Brumberg, 97). For them, their bodies become crucial to their psychological well-being and provide “a means of self-definition” (Brumberg, 97). Young girls learn this from their larger culture, which Tiana is part of.

Despite the negative implications of the movie, the article highlights positive messages, yet not without criticism. “The Princess and the Frog” marks a new territory to relate to a broader audience by using an African American as the lead character. By doing so, the movie addresses issues of racism and sexism. Black feminism has often been “suppressed in feminism contexts as well as mainstream culture” (Miles, 180) and Tiana is an example of challenging this boundary by representing Disney’s first ever African-American princess. This will as Lorde envisioned, “enrich our visions and our joint struggles” (Miles, 180). “The Princess and the Frog” shows that anyone can be a princess; it serves an important step toward broadening racial representation in children’s media (Boston Globe 2009).

Nonetheless, the movie still poses an important question about the manner in which African Americans are depicted. While Dan Cook notes that Tiana is finally a black woman, “the backdrop of the film continues to drudge up tired racist stereotypes about the black community, attempting to separate cultural components of African-American history from the violence of slavery and racism” (Jacinto 2009). Furthermore, the movie does not reflect the ideals of African American women. The movie, like most previous Disney movies, stereotypes the image of a princess by reinforcing the “white standard,” which entails that one must be thin, have flawless skin and straight hair, and possess what society considers the “perfect body.” These are not the images of beauty in the African American community, which rather embraces more curvy bodies and varieties of hair styles. Ironically, Tiana’s perfectly straight hair is not even characteristic of women in the African American community. Thus, the movie demonstrates that true beauty must follow this “white standard,” implying that African Americans cannot be princesses unless they mimic the appearance and behavior of white females. These notions indicate that we must be weary of the message movies like this send out to our youth.

In this article, Cook states that Tiana is a source of inspiration for women. Despite girls who pretend to be princesses, princes are not part of their play. Rather, they concern themselves with dressing up in fancy outfits, primping, and holding “princess parties to which no boys are allowed” (Boston Globe 2009). This reveals that no matter one’s ethnicity, young girls can be independent while holding notion of femininity intact. Tiana, who “hits most benchmarks of ideal girldom,” (Boston Globe 2009) reflects the “Girlie Girl” image, which assumes power with femininity (Manifesta, 2000). To be “Girlie” and find empowerment is “to reclaim traditional models of heterosexual power relations as pleasurable rather than demeaning and to embrace feminine sexuality” (Showden 2009). Does this notion hold true for young girls who emulate Tiana?

While on the surface level the “Girlie Girl” image may sound empowering, there are also problems with this stereotype. This Girlie chauvinism narrows rather than expands young girl’s liberation. While wearing lipstick and dressing like a princess might feel empowering and freely chosen, such freedom and empowerment are often misleading given the individual’s inability to control how her actions are understood in society (Showden 2009). Furthermore, “Girlie” denotes a submissive and an unthreatening attitude, certainly not characteristics of women’s empowerment. Therefore, while many believe the message of the movie is positive, one must be cautious as to how far it goes in assuming liberation for women. Baumgardner and Richards are interested in an enlightened “Girlie Girl,” but Tiana does not possess this enlightenment as a princess. She is stuck in the traditional gender roles that Disney constantly recycles movie after movie. In this way, Disney has not in fact offered us a strong, independent, woman who never gives up her own dreams, but rather a women who ends up in a stereotypical heteronormative marriage who does not fight for liberation.

The hype that has emerged from this movie makes us weary of what the media is teaching our children. It is important to consider both sexism and racism in media representations as children are constantly bombarded with these issues. The faults in “The Princess and the Frog” bring up the following questions that Jacinto (2009) states: "When will people of color be adequately represented?" and "When will girls have leads to look up to that aren't princesses?" We must find an appropriate way to show diversity in children's films so that they are true to form. While it is clear that “identity is complex and multifaceted,” creating characters that can be heroic and relatable should not depend solely on how they look or where they are from (Jacinto 2009). Having strong women, girls, and minority representation in popular culture that challenge stereotypes is a necessary step to move forward in society. What will Disney come up with next?

Work Cited

Baumgardner, Jennifer, Amy Richards. Manifesta: young women, feminism, and the future. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2000.
Brumberg, Joan Jacobs. The Body Project: An Intimate History of American Girls. New York: Random House, 1997.

Friedan, Betty. “The Feminine Mystique.” Feminism in our Time. Ed. Miriam Schneir. Toronto: Vintage Books, 1994. 48-70. Print.

Jacinto, Nina. “The (Racist, Sexist) Princess Problem.” N.p., 5 June 2009. < http://community.feministing.com/2009/06/the-racist-sexist-princess-pro.html>.

Levy, Ariel. Female Chauvinist Pigs. New York: Free Press, 2005.
Miles, Tiya. “On The Rag.” Listen Up: Voices from the next feminist generation. Ed. Barbara Findlen. New York: Seal Press, 1995. 173-181. Print.

Showden, Carisa. What’s Political about the New Feminisms? Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies. Volume 30(2). 2009: 1-34. Print.

Weiss, Joanna. “A successful hop in Disney’s latest.” The Boston Globe. N.p., 12 December 2009. Web. 20 March 2009. < http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2009/12/12/a_successful_hop_in_disneys_latest/>.

Main Post for 4/15

Mink’s “The Lady and the Tramp (II)” addresses the economic insecurity experienced by poor women, particularly single mothers. She recognizes the social value of caretaking and argues that there should be a welfare reform to protect the poor woman’s right to be a caregiver. She also discusses that economic dependence is connected to power in both the home and the public sphere. I think she makes a valid point when she states that because women have traditionally been denied a role in economics, they have been without the power to be heard and therefore can’t impact policy decisions. It is unfortunate that society has been constructed like this and I hope this can be changed in the near future. What viable options are there?
Mink writes, “The Personal Responsibility Act does not make work pay, or even make work available…Yet it insists that single mothers are worth more outside their homes than inside them.” Forcing poor mothers into the workforce regardless of the type of jobs available to them assumes that any job is more beneficial to their families than the care they provide at home. But in my view, this is not the case. Why should we deny the value that caregivers provide to their children? This goes along with Mink’s discussion of the 2nd wave of feminism since woman like Betty Friedan advocated for women to get out of the house and into the labor market to have fulfillment in their lives. However, is it necessarily true that woman must leave the house in order to be “worth more” to society? This idea ties back to our class discussion on Tuesday when we discussed how there is value to being a stay-at-home parent. Many individuals view it of utmost importance and therefore we should not overlook its significance.

I agree with Mink when she states that poor mothers have had a loss of independence. Her analysis of the struggles faced by poor woman open my eyes to the intense hardships they face. She talks about how they suffer from a loss of marital freedom, loss of choice regarding relationships with their children’s biological fathers, and the obligation to work outside the home, which reveals the need to immediately address this issues in society. In our readings for last week, we saw how women could not get out of marriages because of financial issues, leading them to suffer from domestic violence and unfortunately having to put up with it, because they feel they have no other choice. All these struggles put poor women under attack with no support from middle class feminists. Feminists have made great improvements in society by influencing government policies in the past, so they should come together once again to fight this welfare debate.

Mink’s analysis of the convergence of racial and gender ideologies in middle-class women’s reformist politics was another point of interest. The “racial mythology,” Mink states, places African American women as the “welfare mothers” and implicitly defined African American women as “other peoples’ workers rather than their own families’ mothers” (59). She implies therefore that while middle class white women are fighting for their right to opportunities outside the home, African American women are fighting for the right to care for their own children. It is interesting to highlight the differences than white woman face over African Americans. This section made me regress back to previous readings in our class as well as readings from my SOAN class on Social Inequality on the intersection between race and gender.

In my sociology class, we read a section from Patricia Hill Collins’ work titled “Toward a New Vision: Race, Class, and Gender as Categories of Analysis and Connection” and Maxine Zinn and Bonnie Dill’s writing, “Theorizing Difference from Multiracial Feminism.” These authors touch upon the unique struggles of African American women as compared to other women. Zinn and Dills’ analysis draws on “multicultural feminism,” which stresses the importance of “race as a power system that interacts with other structural inequalities to shape gender.” Similarly, Collins developed an intersectional perspective on the interlocking systems of race, class and gender, which she called the “matrix of domination.” In addition, Mink’s reading also reflects our reading of Tiya Miles since she argued that the women of color in a particular magazine group experience feelings of racial oppression along with struggles of being a female. These examples indicate that one cannot assume that all women struggle with same issues.

On another note, after reading this article, I spent some time researching welfare, particularly looking at differences in other countries. I found an article titled, “Scandinavian Welfare Policies, Gender Equality and Globalization” (http://vbn.aau.dk/fbspretrieve/16519664/AB.Sino-Nordic.pdf) by Anette Borchorst who discussed the welfare states in Scandinavia. She argues they have been regarded as forerunners of gender equality, and this has been a central part of their political image. The countries are often celebrated for their “woman-friendly” potential. Hernes defines a “woman-friendly” potential in the following way:

“In a woman-friendly state women will not have to choose futures that demand greater sacrifices from them than are expected of men. It would be, in short, a state where injustice on the basis of gender would be largely eliminated without an increase in other forms of inequality, such as among groups of women.”
Helga Hernes (1987). Welfare State and Woman Power. Essays in State Feminism, Vojens: Norwegian University Press: 15.

The quote emphasizes the significance of women’s choices to mothering. The “woman-friendly” potential has strengthened women’s economic autonomy. The article reveals that an outcome of this has been the relatively low poverty rates of single mothers in this region. I wonder how this would play out in the US and if it is at all feasible. What do you think?

News Flash 3: Women Employees Sue Bank of America and Merrill Lynch for Alleged Sex Discrimination

In the Market Watch article, “Women Employees Sue Bank of America and Merrill Lynch for Alleged Sex Discrimination”, a national class action lawsuit against Bank of America and Merrill Lynch on behalf of three female Financial Advisors is discussed. The women are charging sex discrimination against the two major companies that have recently merged. The lawsuit, Calibuso, et al. v. Bank of America Corp., et al., states that Merrill Lynch and Bank of America took part in sexual discrimination against their female employees “with respect to business opportunities, compensation, professional support, and other terms and conditions of employment” (Market Watch, 2010). According to the three female Financial Advisors, their employers have violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (Market Watch, 2010). Judy Calibuso, one of the three Financial Advisors, hopes that by coming forward she will help all women at these companies. She hopes to “keep the company true to its promise of being the ‘bank of opportunity’, and not just for male employees” (Market Watch, 2010). Hopefully, the lawsuit will force change upon the employers and provide women with a non-discriminatory working environment. After thoroughly examining works discussed in class such as Ann Critenden’s, “The Mommy Tax”, Asha Hakim-Dyce’s, “Reality Check”, and Maria Cristina Rangel’s, “Knowledge is Power”, it can be seen that sex discrimination, such as what is presented in the Market Watch article, is ubiquitous, and that women have not come as far as we think.

Ann Critenden’s article, “The Mommy Tax”, discusses how women are not earning nearly as much as men are in the work place. She begins her article with the unnerving declaration that “the women who earn almost as much as men are a rather narrow group: those who are between the ages of twenty-seven and thirty-three and who have never had children” (Critenden, 87). Therefore, our nation’s applause for women finally earning “ninety-eight cents to a man’s dollar” is completely unnecessary and downright humiliating because it is an utter lie (Critenden, 87). She goes on to discuss the ‘ideal worker’ and how more often than not, the image of this ‘ideal worker’ is a male that is unfettered and is not tied down to his children. If he has children, his wife is the dominant caretaker and he is free to devote as much time as needed to his occupation. Those women that do work full time and have children at home often are subject to “the mommy tax”. These women are not able to access the best jobs on the market, nor are they capable of earning as much as their male counterparts. Although this is absolutely illegal, companies manage to get away with performing these actions upon women. Unfortunately, women are being punished in the work place for choosing to have children and either temporarily take time off from work, or continue working but spending less hours at the office. Critenden acknowledges working class and low-earning couples and how “the decision to have a child, or a second child, throws them into poverty” (Critenden, 91). Sadly, more and more women are having fewer children, later in life, all over the country.

Aisha Hakim-Dyce discusses her similar predicament in “Reality Check”. She attended a prestigious performing arts high school, a prominent black university, and gained a well-rounded education. Unfortunately, at the same time, she was unable to pay her living expenses. She scoured the ‘Help Wanted’ section of the newspaper every week, and sent resume upon resume out to potential employers, to no avail. Economically desperate, Hakim-Dyce felt she had to resort to taking a job as a go-go dancer, clearly a demeaning position. She writes, “My sense of confidence in being an intelligent and capable woman faltered, and how she still wonders to herself, “is this really what I had to do? Weren’t there some other viable options?” (Hakim-Dyce, 122). She comes to the conclusion that she “had been shocked into cognitive numbness by the decision to objectify [herself] for a price” (Hakim-Dyce, 123). Fortunately, she is offered an English tutorial position and does not need to take on the go-go dancing position. But, the fact that she was so close to such a dehumanizing job, which many people often face, whether it be sexual objectification or not, is traumatizing to say the least. Although workingwomen may not have to resort to go-go dancing, they are continuously losing their sense of empowerment when no matter how hard they try, they simply cannot be equal to men in the work place. Motherhood aside, women are not taken as seriously as men, which is why Aisha Hakim-Dyce, a well educated, young, black woman could barely find herself a job.

Maria Cristina Rangel writes about her experience with the welfare system in her article, “Knowledge is Power”. She discusses her situation: working, going to school, and being a mother, and how the combination caused something to slip-her grades. Rangel talks about her frustration with being a single mother, trying to provide for her daughter, and attaining an education. She is constantly thwarted by quotes on welfare posters and comments from workers she deals with through the welfare system. It’s as if they’re saying, “poverty is a matter of personal failure…and ending poverty a matter of personal will. You have failed, but with our help you can become better, and then maybe your children won’t be ashamed of you” (Rangel, 192). Rangel placed an emphasis on education, and how it would eventually bring her success, but we often forget how difficult it is to attend school and earn money, and how without an education it’s almost impossible to make a substantial living. The lack of support that Rangel felt during this time was extreme, and because of it she began to advocate for other low-income women like herself. Although Rangel’s situation differs from those of the three female Financial Advisors at Merrill Lynch and the Bank of America, it just goes to show how more often than not, women are the ones raising a child alone and trying to earn a living to support themselves and their family. Women are not supported by this nation in the work force like men are, and consequently we have situations such as the one in the Market Watch article where sex discrimination is rampant in prominent companies.

The articles discussed here just go to show how difficult it is for women to gain equality in the working world. Women face tremendous obstacles still, and we cannot ignore this cold, hard fact. The discriminations that were filed against Merrill Lynch and the Bank of America lie under the context of “account distributions, partnership opportunities, upfront money, pay-out rate, and other benefits in its compensation plan, as well as in other opportunities for brokers to increase their income” (Market Watch, 2010). These women are simply fighting for an opportunity to be equal to men because they are certainly deserving of it. The companies claim to be top locations for women to work at because they are accepting of all races and women with children, yet this clearly is not put into practice. In all of these situations of women discussed above, the individuals are subjected to all types of sexual discrimination, which makes feminists wonder, has progress really been achieved?

FOLLOW UP POST: Responding to Hilary

I personally disagree with Hilary’s statement that the topic of women in the economy is “uncomplicated” as it has “nothing to do with personal feelings or familiarity.” Perhaps I am misunderstanding Hilary’s point, but I believe that women in the economy is an extremely personal issue. Growing up with divorced parents, both of whom played an active role in my upbringing, my mom and dad both juggled full time jobs with separately taking turns raising my sister and I. With my mom the majority of the week, she was forced to handle all of the every day responsibilities of having two daughters as well as manage all of the responsibilities associated with her job. While she did a wonderful job juggling a full time job and raising two children, not all moms and children have as good an experience as I did. Also, there were times for her where the responsibilities she faced felt too daunting. I think that part of the reason why women in the economy is such an important issue is because it is so personal. Women in a position that they have to figure out how to support not only their own life, but also that of growing children are truly faced with a daunting task. While many women in this position do succeed, others find themselves lost, stuck, and unable to survive.

I believe that if it were not personal growing up for any of us, it will be personal in a few years when each of us are battling for jobs, a salary, and survival. Further I find the issue of women in the economy very complicated as it depends on marital status, sexuality, education, success of the parental generation, absence or presence of children, etc. With many different circumstances and situations, some women feel the crunch while others don’t really at all. However, eventually, most of us will find ourselves in a position where we can no longer rest of the support system we have grown up with. Further, given the setup of our society, we are going to have to truly fight to succeed.

I do agree with Hilary in her thoughts regarding Anne Crittenden’s The Mommy Tax. As Hilary noted, if male CEOs had more personal experience and understanding of the economic and occupational setbacks that result from maternity leave, the problem would definitely see at least recognition and understanding, if not change and improvement. I too saw a connection between Crittenden’s essay and the “Manifesta” lecture. As one of the speakers noted, the value of motherhood is extremely important. She mentioned that she learned this from a young age as her mom would “go on strike,” avoiding doing laundry, the dishes, and other household tasks that often are taken for granted but simultaneously absolutely crucial in the proper functioning of the household. I thought this concept was really funny but also definitely a clever lesson to ensure kids realize the true value of their mother’s (or father’s) household work.

I also thought the point made about the value of wifehood was very important too. As Hilary notes, many extremely successful CEOs would be paralyzed if they did not have a wife to iron their clothes, cook them dinner, and keep the house organized. Obviously many men are capable of these tasks, however it must be noted that the value of a wife who completes all of these tasks for her husband must not go unnoticed or unappreciated.

As far as the readings in Listen Up, I thought that “Reality Check” by Aisha Hakim-Dyce was a very interesting and thoughtful essay displaying the terrible position many women are put in when looking for work and trying to survive on their own. As she notes, she was absolutely out of money and desperate for work. In order to accept a job as a go-go dancer, however, she was forced to “distance” herself between her job and her psyche “in order to deal with the decision.” (Hakim-Dyce, 121). She had to abandon not only her reservations but also her values and moral foundation in order to survive economically. Obviously, such a situation is not acceptable and although Hakim-Dyce was able to obtain another job, many women are not so lucky.

In consciously attempting to abandon her moral and mental foundation, Hakim-Dyce felt like a “nonentity.” (Hakim-Dyce, 121). She lost her confidence, her identity, and even her humanity. Obviously a situation like this is hard to handle for anyone. However, I think it is important to note that men, too, experience jobs in which they feel demoralized or inhumane. However, is the degree to which women are objectified in the workplace more intense than men? Is there a way to avoid such situations or will there always realistically be women who are put in situations like Hakim-Dyce’s? How is it okay, in a country successful as ours, to put people in a position in which they are made to feel like animals, void of humanity or identity?

Follow Up: Responding to Hilary

In Barbara Ehrenreich’s essay "Maid to Order," she analyzes the growing trend of outsourcing domestic work. She discusses how more and more people, no matter what social status, are seeking domestic help. I liked her comparison of the differences between independent versus corporate cleaning services and the fact that she herself worked for one of these cleaning companies; this serves to add to the genuineness of the essay. However, I do acknowledge some of her faults that Hilary points out.

I found it interesting how she tied in issues of class and gender inequality. I almost think her essay is more about class than gender inequality. Her conclusions discuss the impact on society of hiring maids in general and talks about their backgrounds and educational attainment, which made me believe that gender inequality was a more trivial issue (she even writes the cleaning ladies can often be men as well). Another point I found intriguing was when she concludes that the wealthier individuals are responsible for perpetuating the need for a “servant class” and the children in these wealthy households grow up believing that the people who clean are of lower status and that they are “supposed” to clean after them. While she states, “Children learn from maids that some people are less worthy than others, that the employer has "something better" to do with her time, (69)" I wonder if this really holds true for the majority of children and how this differs among difference ethnicities as well as cross-culturally.

In terms of gender inequality, after reading her essay, I thought of the importance of gender-neutralizing the term "maid." In order to accomplish this, we must employ more male maids. While this may be easier said than done, if this term is gender-neutralized, the subordination of women by men will no longer be as big of an issue because domestic workers will no longer be mostly female. I think we can reach this goal by providing more incentives to work in this type of job, create a retirement program, and provide bonuses for these workers. This will ultimately help make household work visible because the occupation of a domestic worker will be treated the same as other jobs.

Ann Crittenden’s piece, “The Mommy Tax” opened my eyes to the state of motherhood in the United States. Like Hilary, I thought she did a great job illuminating her point. While changes have occurred throughout many years, women are continually penalized. This harsh and uncompromising reality of mothering today needs to be addressed. I agree with Crittenden that there needs to be better parent education and community support.

I came across an interesting article by Glenn Sacks that relates directly to Crittenden’s chapter. (http://www.ifeminists.com/introduction/editorials/2002/0521a.html). His article was a response to the idea of the “mommy tax” and its implications. While he acknowledged that the “mommy tax” exists, he advocated a new platform of what he dubs: the “daddy tax.” He writes, “If there is a woman paying the "mommy tax" by sacrificing her earning power to be at home full-time or part-time, there has to be a man in the household supporting the family and, by so doing, paying the "daddy tax." Crittenden does touch on this, but he make his point much more succinct. He argues that as a society we cannot only focus on the disadvantages for mothers, but rather look at the disadvantages to fathers as well. This brings up two very interesting points that Sacks outlines:

What is the price of fatherhood?
Which is better, paying the mommy tax or paying the daddy tax?

Furthermore, he provides some interesting statistics to support his claim of the “daddy tax”:

The average American father works 51 hours a week.
The most hazardous and demanding jobs are performed by men, in large part because the higher pay allows them to better provide for their families.
Men work 90% of the overtime hours in the US, and are more likely to work nights and weekends, to travel for work, and to have long commutes.

He claims all of these deprive fathers of precious time with their children. He adds, “less time with their children, long work days and work weeks, job hazards and job stress—all of these are the daddy tax.” He discusses how many fathers may feel a “hollow, joyless fatherhood” which is a “burden of supporting children drained of the pleasure of actually being with them.” I definitely see where he is coming from in the sense that the burden of children does not fall only on mothers. I think we must as a society see that there is another side to this debate by further studying the implications of the “daddy tax.” The question then becomes how will society try to alleviate both the mommy and daddy tax? There is enough issues going on with fighting the “mommy tax,” so I am curious if the “daddy tax” will become a major issue at the forefront in society.

Follow Up: Responding to Hilary

This week’s readings provided me with a lot of insight into the world of working mothers with children. I always knew that it was harder as a female to get equal pay to men, simply because of how history has unfolded itself. Women were always subordinate to men. However, women are slowly moving up the ladder, but when we look at the statistics closer, we see that it’s only women that don’t have children that are gaining equal pay to men. Women that choose to put their family first and have kids but continue to work are given the shaft, also known as “the mommy tax”, according to Critenden.

For those women that have felt the effects of having children, Critenden states, “One could even say that motherhood is now the single greatest obstacle left in the path to economic equality for women” (Critenden, 87). It is wrong that there is still such discrimination in the workplace, and that women feel that they must choose between having a family and having a successful job. Although there are women that are capable of balancing both, they are the lucky ones, those that have a successful job, make a great income, and have a family they are able to care for; this is not the norm in our society.

I liked the fact that Crittenden discussed “the daddy tax” and let readers know that this is not just something that women deal with. Men that choose to balance their time between work and home and take on more of a role in their children’s lives also lose out. Many of these men lose respect as they are leaving work early, coming late, etc. More often than not, they too lose income over time, except not as much as women in the same position as them.

Reading these articles made me realize how lucky I was as a child to always have my parents come to my sporting events, concerts, dance shows, etc. Crittenden’s article especially opened my eyes to the situation of working class parents. I wanted to find some more recent statistics to see if the situation of working women has changed at all, and it looks like things are heading in the right direction. According to these statistics, “women earn only 77 cents nationally for every dollar earned by men” (womenemployed.org). Crittenden’s statistic at the time “The Price of Motherhood” was written was lower. Although things are improving for women in the work force, equality seems to be a far-off goal. It is unfortunate that less and less women are having children, because their careers are taking precedent over having a family of their own. Will this continue to progress, or can we stop the trend?

Main Post for 4/12

Today’s articles on women in the economy were disheartening to say the least. What struck me most about this topic is how it applies to every single woman, regardless of race, age, education, or motherhood. Many of the feminist issues we discuss in class spur fiery debates because of their intense emotional and experiential components. The topic of women in the economy, however, is so uncomplicated because it has nothing to do with personal feelings or familiarity; it’s a simple number crunch.

Anne Crittenden’s The Mommy Tax does a fantastic job of laying out these numbers, while remaining fairly objective. Although it is easiest to look to the countless examples of mothers and non-mothers making far less than men, Crittenden’s strongest point is her description of stay-at-home dads who face equal difficulties. If the men making decisions about equal pay, maternity leave, and benefits had more experience with the disadvantageous position themselves, we would see a sea change in the way parenting is valued. This article interestingly connects with the recent “Manifesta” lecture, where Amy Richards discussed the need to value motherhood. Richards illustrated this idea by asking what the success of our male CEOs would be if they had not had wives to give them emotional support and companionship, raise their children, and manage their homes. While motherhood has been publicly underscored for centuries, wifehood has been privately underscored too. A husband’s success at the unacknowledged cost of his wife’s is a scary thought, as it shows just how far feminism still has to go.

When it comes to defending feminism to even the most challenging of parties, I see no way that the economic equality argument could be overlooked. Those who still insist that feminism is archaic are not denying the data, but rather undermining its importance in the face of other feminism qualities, such as butch, bra-burning lesbians. I can only hope that when my anti-feminist friends start receiving smaller paychecks and fewer promotions than their male counterparts, their need for feminism will resonate.

In contrast, Barbara Ehrenreich’s article was anything but objective and failed to have a succinct argument. She began with great ideas about the hierarchy of housework and the way it has helped to fortify the patriarchal system. Her transition into the use of maid services as a crutch for male dominance quickly devalued her argument as she renounced the very idea that women should not be tied to their vacuums. A maid does not signify relationship trouble, but rather the fact that both partners are engaged in demanding jobs or childrearing. The reality that more household need maids is a testament to the advancement of women, not their degradation. Her claim that all women patronize and oppress their help by having something “more important to do” is outlandish and offensive. I strongly believe that any disrespect or entrapment maids experience is a direct result of the entitlement their employers feel. While this entitlement may be related to gender, class, or race, to say that all wives/mothers who hire help are disrespectful and oppressive people is pathetic. Clearly the demand for maids indicates an economic divide, but this does not mean we should judge the mother working full-time to make partner any more than we would an immigrant single-mother working as a maid to make ends meet. Both Aisha Hakim-Dyce and María Cristina Rangel bring this economic hierarchy to life, yet with a great deal more autonomy, pride, and strength than Ehrenreich is willing to admit. Financial inequality and human decency are not mutually exclusive. It is up to each individual to value the work of those both above and below them.

Follow Up: Responding to Michele

While my first reaction to Paula Ettelbrick was one of disagreement and annoyance, I quickly saw that her critique is not so much about lesbian and gay marriage as it is about the institution of marriage in general. Ettelbrick's article is particularly appropriate and timely, considering that April is sexual assault awareness month and Take Back the Night was held yesterday on our campus. As she so aptly points out, marriage is not something to be placed on a pedestal; in fact, marriage often represents the ultimate symbol of patriarchy.

Take Back the Night was an incredible, moving experience and it chills me to know the probability that I too will become a victim. It was not until I read Ettlebrick article, however, that I made the connection between domestic violence and marriage. Obviously you need marriage to have domestic violence, yet instead of thinking of this abuse as an individual, situational problem, blame should perhaps more appropriately be placed on the idea of marriage to begin with (that women are the property of men). The same fundamental goals that Ettelbrick discusses are exactly the ones I desire as well; however, being in the position of 'privileged' hereronormativity, never did I think to criticize the system which I will so easily fit into.

Ultimately, I think Ettelbrick brings up points that the majority of the population simply do not want to hear. The thought of overhauling the entire notion of marriage is overwhelming, if not scary. Whether you're lesbian, gay, or heterosexual, after coming off of a night of sexual abuse statistics and stories, the only logical conclusion is that something is not working. That thing might indeed be the idea of marriage.

Follow Up: Responding to Michele

The readings for today’s blog post all reflect different authors’ beliefs on same-sex marriage. I agree with Michele that these readings opened my eyes to the issues facing same-sex partners in today’s society. While Paula Ettelbrick in Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation took a more forceful tone in advocating her platform on this notion, Naples focused more on impact of same-sex parenting and offers solutions to raise awareness among members of LGBQT community of the costs and benefits of marriage. Furthermore, the FAQ sheet, like Michele, provided me with valuable information regarding the benefits of marriage. I had no idea that there is such an extensive list of benefits to marriage including everything from ability to take off work for “family leave” to estate taxes. It is no wonder what many same-sex couples want to marry in order to receive the same benefits as those who are in a marriage obtain. I agree with Michele that “we cannot let sexuality determine what rights someone should have.”

I think that the question of whether marriage represents a betrayal of the goals of lesbian/gay liberation or guaranteeing them equal rights in society is a controversial topic that has been debated all across the country. I think marriage certainly weds you not only to a selected individual, but also to a whole set of structures that society deems as the norm. While there are benefits to marriage (as seen in the FAQ sheet), I do acknowledge the points that the authors, particularly Ettelbrick, make regarding the negative side. Paula Ettelbrick elaborates on the view of the importance and impact of marriage on gays and lesbians. While she advocates same-sex relationships, in terms of marriage, she adds caution and argues that it “will not liberate us as lesbians and gay men. In fact, it will constrain us, make us more invisible, force our assimilation into the mainstream, and undermine the goals of gay liberation” (306). It other words, she believes that marriage forces gays and lesbians to conform to societal norms, be just like heterosexual couples, and have the same goals and purposes, undermining their own identity. She adds that when marriage between gays and lesbians is made, it is not power and equality but rather a false sense of empowerment. Therefore, Ettelbrick argues that marriage should not be the goal of the lesbian/gay movement. I agree with her point that gays/lesbians should not have to compare themselves to married couples to gain the right for equality. In our society we should embrace differences. However, how will they gain the rights then that those in marriages receive?

I also liked Ettelbrick’s comparison of the negative implications or marriage for gays/lesbians to that of sexually active non-married women. I agree that both face the “stigma and double standard around sex and sexual activity” (307). I never thought about this connection, but now see the similarities. This idea all goes back to society’s view that everyone must conform and be the same; society looks down upon those who deviate. Who wants to live in a society where everyone is the same? Until drastic measures are made in terms of acceptance into society, our culture will result in people, such as gays and lesbians, to be “forced to claim that are just like heterosexual couples” when in fact for a large majority of them that is not the case.
So I wonder: what kind of alternatives are there?

I think there are many underlying social issues that need to be addressed. As she writes, “unless we continue the work our community has begun to spread the privilege around to other relationships” marriage for gays and lesbians will not provide a real choice. She also adds that we must “deinstitutionalize marriage and bridge the economic and privilege gap between the married and the unmarried.” Naples adds in her conclusion that “destabilizing the powerful hegemony of heteronormativity, involves daily negotiations, strategic choices, and a commitment to challenging heterosexual privilege in everyday life” (683). I agree with Naples when she adds that costs as well as benefits of campaigns for same-sex marriage must be addressed. I think through increasing awareness of the issue and open discussions, positive changes can be made and we can as Ettelbrick advocates, reorder “society’s view of reality” (307). Nonetheless, I think it will be a long way to go.

Same-Sex Marriage

The readings for this class all discussed the issue of same-sex marriage and the various perspectives on the topic. All of these articles have shown me what “heterosexual privilege” truly means in today’s hetero-normative society. Ettelbrick, Naples, and the FAQs all opened my eyes to the issues and complications that same-sex couples often face in their day-to-day lives.

Paula Ettelbrick’s, “Since When Is Marriage A Path To Liberation”, discusses marriage and the attainment of it for gays and lesbians. She presents the idea that gaining equal rights to marry simply goes against all that gays and lesbians have worked for. Marriage will not liberate them; it will make them conform to society. Secondly, gaining the right to marry will not, unlike many people’s beliefs, turn our country into one that respects different types of relationships. Ettelbrick goes on to explain how gaining rights is not synonymous with gaining justice. Of course she believes that in terms of rights lesbians and gays should be allowed to marry like any heterosexual couple. But, this does not mean that the fight for justice will be over with the attainment of this right. I thought that this particular quote says it all pretty well and it brought a lot to my attention: “Justice for gay men and lesbians will be achieved only when we are accepted and supported in this society despite our differences from the dominant culture and the choices we make regarding our relationships” (Ettelbrick, 306). So, although gays and lesbians may eventually gain the right to marry, our society needs to be transformed from the inside out in order to accept these individuals and their life choices. There are too many people in this world that disagree with homosexuality and therefore would not give gays and lesbians the justice that they deserve.

I took issue with one part of her article though. She states that she, as a lesbian, is fundamentally different from heterosexual women. She states, “Marriage, as it exists today, is antithetical to my liberation as a lesbian and as a woman because it mainstreams my life and voice.” (Ettelbrick, 306). In doing so, she gives readers the idea that marriage for all lesbians is not what they want, but there are plenty of people, lesbians and gays, that want to be married because they want to be like any other couple. Is there something wrong with them for wanting this? Ettelbrick says, “I do not want to be known as ‘Mrs. Attached-To-Somebody-Else”, as if this is a bad thing, and that all lesbians feel this way. Maybe I interpreted this part incorrectly but that was the feeling I got. She also emphasizes the fact that the Gay Rights Movement is not to have gays assimilate into “normal” culture, but to have them stand out. Does everyone want to stand out and be seen as different? Don’t many gays and lesbians simply want to lead normal lives like everyone else, where they do as they please, love who they want to love, and go about their business?

Nancy A. Naples, a lesbian, girlfriend, and soon-to-be mother, expresses her feelings on queer parenting in a hetero-normative society in “Queer Parenting In The New Millennium”. Despite the fact that in many states gays and lesbians cannot legally marry, they still, and will continue to, have children, despite the challenges and difficulties often encountered in the process. Naples’ partner is the one carrying their child, and Naples often feels that she, unlike her girlfriend, is challenging gender roles, even though her partner is also a lesbian. Naples is taking on a role that typically is associated with maleness and masculinity. She often feels ostracized as her partner easily joins in on pregnancy discussions. Naples opened my eyes to the issues that co-mothers must deal with and the feelings of inferiority or exclusion that they endure during the pregnancy. Naples is placed in a situation where she feels she must constantly explain her circumstances with her partner, etc. She then goes on to discuss the complications of adopting, another difficult thing to go through. The decision as to who will give birth to the child must be a difficult one to make because one often wonders if the “mother” will be more attached to the child, as she gave birth to it.

Lastly, the FAQs stated all the advantages to being legally married. It is sad that not every couple has the opportunity to have these rights. Besides the fact that same-sex couples may want to marry for love, or to protect their child, etc., many other same-sex couples want to marry so that they can have the same rights as other legally married couples in the eyes of the state and the nation. I was unaware that there were so many rights that people gained when they got married, from something so simple such as hospital visitations, to something more complex, such as estate taxes. It is completely unjust that gay couples cannot gain access to these rights simply because they are homosexual. We live in a free country where everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, or so they say. It is absurd that not everyone has equal rights. Hopefully, with the legalization of marriage to same-sex couples in all states (eventually), our society as a whole will begin to realize that we cannot let sexuality determine what rights someone should have.

Follow Up: Responding to Julia

Like Michele, I too was troubled and fascinated by the New York Times articles. There is NEVER an excuse for rape, no matter who you are or where you are. The notion that sexual harassment in the military is par for the course, as women have only recently been integrated into the camps, is simply unacceptable. Yes, it is an incredible fact that women and men fight side by side today; however, the advancement of women's rights in one area cannot be at the expense of other milestones. More importantly, to defend military rape as situational could set a dangerous precedent for rape in the civilian world.

We simply must demand that the standards of medical and psychological support for women in the military become standard. While the Army may have rapes kits at some camps, that does no good to the women raped in less "fortunate" camps. This is not about women receiving special care; this is about human rights. This quote, which needs no explanation, articulates just how dire the situation is, "A woman in the military is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq." (Lee Myers)

Overall, it is clear that some recognition and admittance of sexual harassment in the military has occurred. That is not to say, however, that women are receiving all the necessary resources and support they so desperately need. I believe a woman's right to her body and personal safety is a fundamental human right. Applying this belief to other horrific cases of human rights violations, would we accept only releasing some slaves or only sparing some Jews as justice? I do not need to answer that. Protecting women in the military applies to all of them or none of them. Until a higher standard of women's rights is set across the board, the Army will continue to violate the most basic of human rights; the very rights it fights for everyday.

Follow Up: Responding to Julia

I found the articles from this week to be slightly disturbing but also very significant. They discuss difficult topics such as rape, sexual harassment, and murder, but these are things that are very much a part of life and need to be talked about. I think that the New York Times article, “A Peril in War Zones: Sexual Abuse by Fellow G.I.’s”, which discusses rape in the army today in Iraq, is extremely relevant to our discussions of rape on Monday in class. Gloria Steinem’s article, “Supremacy Crimes”, while on a slightly different topic, murder, shares a substantial foundation with the other article. Both see women as targets for the male gaze, domination, and violence.

Steven Lee Myers’ article was not shocking to me after reading those personal stories for Monday’s class, but it definitely opened my eyes as to what goes on in military barracks behind the scenes. I do not pay enough attention to current events but I definitely had never heard about any of the issues that were mentioned in this article. The fact that a woman was raped and “had no confidence her case would be taken seriously” is a tragedy (Myers, 1). Rape more often than not causes serious psychological harm to the victim, and it is a tragedy that the military is only first altering the way they deal with sexual violations of any sort. Just because these men and women are out there fighting for our country does not mean that they should not receive the same type of care and treatment, physical or mental, that the average human being can receive in the comfort of their community. I think it is really sad that many times the victim does not alert anyone of what happened because she/he fears getting into trouble or negatively impacting their career.

Gloria Steinem’s article, “Supremacy Crimes”, was most interesting to me. I never really understood the reasons behind the typical stereotype of the serial killer or sadistic murder. The statistics are there but it just seems odd, although its sickening and insane to murder anyone, no matter who is committing the crime. The white, middle-class male is virtually responsible for all the “serial, sexually motivated, sadistic killings” (Steinem, 1). Why? They are addicted to the “drug of superiority”, or the idea that the pressures of being of this status in society forces these men to become addicted to their success and domination over others. When they do not dominate, they kill. It is absolutely ridiculous and incomprehensible to me that “the ability to dominate someone is so important that even a mere insult can justify lethal revenge” (Steinem, 3). Steinem proposes that we need to challenge the foundation that masculinity is based upon, but I honestly do not see how that will alter the mindsets of those stereotypical male serial killers.

Steinem’s article made me think of the movie, American Psycho, with Christian Bale. He is a white, male, upper class part time serial killer part time businessman. He constantly needs to be in control, and since nobody can ever be the best at everything, or dominate in all aspects of life, he simply kills people. For those who haven’t seen the movie, it is a satirical thriller, poking fun at many aspects of upper-class society in the 80’s, but it really gets to the point of Steinem’s article. Patrick Bateman, the main character, wants to fit in and is envious of everyone else and what they have that is better than what he has. Clearly, this is no reason to murder someone, yet there are plenty of people out there, as we have read, that are “addicted to supremacy”, that will “kill even when it worsens their condition or ends in suicide” (Steinem, 2). I wanted to show one of the better scenes of the movie, which displays Bateman’s psycho killer persona best, but it was a little too graphic for this setting. So, here is a clip that provides some insight into the mad mind of Patrick Bateman.