Follow Up: Responding to Michele

Michele discussed a lot of the real life problems of our gender system by using Fausto-Sterling’s concrete facts and examples. While fiction, I think we can relate these exact same ideas to Eugenides’ novel, Middlesex. One thing that I have noted throughout the entire novel is Cal’s obsession with the genetic gene mutation that caused her hermaphrodite condition. While this book is about her inter-sexuality and, thus, inherently involves the mutated gene, I find it surprising the degree to which Cal belabors over the this fact, “But, no matter how well trained, medical eyes couldn’t spot a recessive mutation hiding out on a fifth chromosome,” (Eugenides, 81) and “But what humans forget, cells remember. The body, that elephant…” (99) and “Look closer. There. That’s right: One mutation apiece,” (125).

In light of Michele’s comments regarding including all people in our conceptions of “normal” and “gender” it seems that Cal purposefully emphasizes her difference in order to gain sympathy. While I am not suggesting that her life has been anything but traumatic and challenging, it seems counterproductive to seek pity and acceptance at the same time. Part of the problem is that society, especially the medical world, has deemed any variations from normal as mutations, diseases, and defects. I recognize the important task of diagnosing and classifying absolute differences; however, this very exercise is what perpetuates our narrow perception of “normal”. If Cal refused to define herself by that fifth chromosome, perhaps she would help to change the stigma surrounding her condition.

This same gender system manifests itself in many other forms in Middlesex, including the seemingly benign tradition of gender roles, “The house was sex-segregated like the houses in the patridha, the old country, men in the sala, women in the kitchen. Two spheres of separate concerns, duties, even – the evolutionary biologists might say – thought patterns,” (92). While we can almost excuse this description as antiquated, Cal’s obsession with her own place in the gender system is a bit more alarming.

On a side note, this Wednesday the Discovery Health channel will be featuring a special episode on Radical Parenting as part of Baby Week. One type of “radical” parenting to be showcased is a couple who have decided to raise their children gender neutral. It sounds very applicable to the ideas we have been discussing regarding Fausto-Sterling and Eugenides. Tune in at 8pm!

POST: 2/22/10

As noted in my last post, each additional explanation or opinion I hear, the more complicated I find the issue of gender and sex categorizations and constructions.  Further, I have begun to wonder what I would do, as a potential future mother, if doctors told me my newborn baby were not “normal.”    I would have an extremely difficult (probably more accurately, impossible) time picking the “right” gender for my child.  However, I must admit, that I don’t think I would want my child to remain somewhere in the middle of what I do consider normal-male or female.  I feel guilty about my own part in perpetuating conventional beliefs of what is “normal” in the biology of a baby, however, despite our readings, I cannot seem to abandon my deeply-seeded beliefs of what a “typical” baby looks like. 

 

Obviously my concern is not for myself, but rather, for the baby and the obvious disadvantage he/she could experience through out life.  Disadvantages such as reproductive abilities are obviously of primary concern.  However, I would also admittedly worry about social repercussions of being “abnormal.”  Somehow, society has created two extreme categories so strongly rooted in our culture that, despite my readings and education on the subject, I cannot manage to overcome.  While Fausto-Sterling’s statistics of the number of intersex babies born are certainly staggering (and more than expected), I still cannot bring myself to see an intersex baby as normal and easily acceptable in society. 

 

According to dictionary.com, normal means “conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.”  In other words, being “normal” suggests an effort in order to fit in or fulfill a certain guideline or expectation created or judged by those around you, or society.  Therefore, technically, people must exert an effort, above and beyond what is natural, in order to conform to this normal state.  To me, this suggests that being normal is not so normal after all as people have to try to become something they are not.

 

Despite these technicalities, however, some sort of “normal” vs “abnormal” dichotomy still exists and these standards dramatically affect every individual’s life.  How these constructions were formed, however, is much to be debated.  Doctors seem like they are partly to blame as they are so intent on “fixing” intersex babies to fit the “true” sex that “nature intend[ed],” (Fausto-Sterling, 50).  Doctors aim to apparently correct nature’s shortcomings or mistakes in order to make the newborn fit traditional societal standards.  As Fausto-Sterling indicates, doctors use specific medical terminology that “indicates that intersex children are just unusual in some aspect of their physiology, not that they constitute a category other than male or female,” (Fausto-Sterling, 51).  Doctors are often unwilling to admit or even acknowledge the fact that intermediate sexes can exist.  In doing so, doctors promote the male-female sex dichotomy, thereby making “intersexuality” even more alien than it really otherwise may be.

 

Doctors, however, are clearly not solely to blame for the perpetuation of societal constructions of normal sexes. Fausto-Sterling holds that whatever treatment they choose, doctors “who decide how to manage intersexuality act out of, and perpetuate, deeply held beliefs about male and female sexuality, gender roles, and the (im)proper place of homosexuality in normal development,” (Fausto-Sterling, 48).  Therefore, doctors are influenced by other societal pressures that push them to envision a world with just two sexes-male and female.  As noted above, I am certainly partly to blame for these constructions as I can’t say that I would have a child who was “intersex” and not support a surgery to make him/her what I considered normal.  In supporting this surgery, however, I am promoting the dichotomy that exists in our society.  Therefore, it is doctors, as well as parents, creating this social construction.  No single party can be blamed.  As in a chicken-egg scenario, the root of the issue is impossible to pinpoint, and everyone works to perpetuate the problem leading to a never-ending circle of what may be a detrimental construction.  But who, I wonder, is willing to stop this as I, admittedly, would rather take the path of least resistance rather than have a child go through life considered medically and socially “abnormal.”

Follow Up: Responding to Michele

I definitely agree with Michele on her main arguments in the blog post. It is amazing what technology has allowed us to do. Sterling discusses the advancement of medical technology and the impact it has on our society. We can now discover early on in pregnancy if a baby is likely to be born with down syndrome and other genetic issues. The medical technology has brought up a heated debate about creating perfect baby. It seems that as we advance in genetic science, the "designer baby" gets closer to becoming a reality. We cannot escape the fact that science is moving forward, but are we going too far?

This reflects the idea of deciding on a sex of an intersex baby. The choice it seems has been put in the doctor's hand. I agree with Michele that it is important for doctors to disclose important medical information to patients as they become older. Also, I think it is important that they don’t lie in hopes to alter as Michele writes, “the patient’s psychological health.” An intersex baby is “seen as deviation from the norm who needs to be fixed in order to preserve a two-gender system” (74). When the doctor is the one to decide, the transfiguration by others can be drastic. As Sterling discusses, one must take into account psychological health which reflects what Cal in Middlesex went through.

I think that intersex people should be left to make their own choices about their sexuality, physiology, and gender identity. In agreement with Michele, doctors should be up-front and honest with parents of newborns. Why not acknowledge the third option? I believe that encouraging self-love will contribute far more to a well-balanced, contented individual than insisting upon conformity with limited and limiting social constructs. We need to be open to new possibilities, even for people who exist on the outside, or who exist within constructs that don't really fit. We as a society need to stop pretending that there are only two genders and welcome the alternatives with an open mind.

As I read the book I was intrigued by the taboos that exist among different cultures and societies. I can’t help but think as I read the book that the main thing we should come back with from it is that there is a longing to belong and feel loved despite circumstances that are beyond our control. I think Cal is trying to indicate to his readers that a person is more than a gender—for instance “he’s a daughter, a grandchild, an awkward teen, a girl in love”... As he is experiencing the transformation, like when he starts growing hair in odd places, he is trying to show that despite his changes, everyone goes though one transformation or another from birth to adulthood as different as they may be. Cal, or Calliope, is Greek and American, man and woman, but above all human. Like the author in Listen Up, I think Cal would agree with her that one should look at a person as a person and not as a gender.

Main Post for 2/23

I found Anne Fausto-Sterling’s chapter, “Of Gender and Genitals: The Use and Abuse of the Modern Intersexual”, to be extremely interesting. I know I have been saying this every week in my blog posts, but I truly feel I must reiterate all the time how I have never thought of intersexuals, and gender/sex in this light before. This book especially has opened my eyes to a whole new world of gender and how our traditional two gender foundation of society can be seen as completely arbitrary in light of what is currently going on in the world of intersexuals. Before I get into the meat and potatoes of the issue, I just want to say that I found it incredibly intriguing that intersex births are more common than albino births, yet albinism is more acceptable in society overall. That just goes to show that even something such as a publicly visible physical defect such as albinism, is not looked down upon as much as the idea of intersexuality, which is not even something that can be seen by the average person.
I think the issue of “fixing” intersex babies is an extremely contentious one. One thing that I thought about quite extensively when I read about “fixing” babies is the idea of how a doctor could make that decision on whether the baby should be a boy or a girl. It seems, according to Fausto-Sterling, that it is quite a difficult decision that a doctor must make. In terms of penis size, Fausto-Sterling says, “even our ideas about how large a baby’s penis needs to be to guarantee maleness are fairly arbitrary” (58). I understand that this size rule is currently seen as the most reliable theory behind it all but it seems to me that it might be not be the most reliable approach one can take. A doctor could remove a small penis that could have easily matured to be of normal size when the child reached puberty. How does one decide when it is such a close call? Doctors are concerned when a phallus is less than 2.0 centimeters, but who’s to say that that penis will not mature into an average size when a child grows up? Fausto-Sterling states, “Physicians’ ideas about the appropriate size and look of female genitals thus sometimes leads to unnecessary and sexually damaging genital surgery.” (60) After reading and understanding all the facts, I can say it all seems extremely capricious and arbitrary to me.
Another issue that I had with this idea of intersexuality and genital surgery performed on young babies after birth is the idea of truth. I understand that patients need to have a “clear-cut gender identity” (65), but I also understand how important it is for doctors to disclose important medical information to patients as they become older. An intersex girl must understand that the surgery she underwent as a baby did not make her into the gender that she is currently, but it simply eliminated parts of her that did not belong. Without this understanding, a child may not be able to live life normally. But, I think that currently, proper medical practices are at odds with truth. Doctors don’t want to reveal the truth to their patients about their genital surgeries as it might alter the patient’s psychological health. I think that doctors must reveal this information to patients rather than distort the truth or even worse, blatantly lie. If they are going to perform these surgeries then it is only right that they follow the laws of medicine as well.
I have found that there has been a lot of overlapping in terms of our readings that all stem back to the foundational question of gender vs. sex. Are we “predisposed and biased to interact with environmental, familial, and social forces in either a male or a female mode?” (70) Does it come down to nature or nurture? Clearly there are issues with genital surgeries at young ages because as people grow up they feel more attached to the sex that they were intended to be, such as in the case of John/Joan. Are surgeries even worth the risk if nature is all that it comes down to? I think that as a society we have too strict of rules on what makes one female and what makes one male, which consequently places a strain on those that are somewhere in between the spectrum. As we have mentioned before in class, we need to “call into question our system of gender” (76). I think that Fausto-Sterling’s hope at the end of the chapter is comforting in that we could potentially be at the forefront of a revolution in terms of our traditional gender systems, but it seems to me that we have a lot of ground to cover before that occurs. We need to include all people, or we need to include nobody, but how can we even go about doing so? Our society is stuck on fitting people into categories, so the idea that this could be totally overturned seems a bit outlandish to me at this point.

Newsflash 2: Kelly Cutrone on Feminism

Kelly Cutrone Video

Kelly Cutrone is the founder of People’s Revolution, a branding, PR, and marketing firm. She is a highly successful businesswoman who hard-working and intelligent and considers herself “Mama Wolf.” Cutrone has become known and sometimes celebrated for her take-no -prisoners-attitude. She advocates a new platform of feminism as seen in the video and both challenges and supports the work of women in past feminist movements. However, her new platform for feminism is basically a recycling of old ideals. This is seen through her newest book, (with the help of Meredith Bryan) If You Have to Cry, Go Outside … And Other Things Your Mother Never Told You.

Cutrone challenges the notions of what it means to be a powerful woman today. This idea lays the groundwork of her new book, which she describes as a “kind of a pop culture fourth wave of feminism book” (Observer, 2009). It is a compilation of autobiographical work, self-help, and “feminist manifesto for a post-feminist audience” that creates an “unconventional brand of kick-ass, downtown, 1980s, I-am-woman-hear-me-roar estrogen-fueled feminism” (Tonic, 2010). She argues that women of this generation must take charge of their lives in order to succeed in a man’s world and not let anything stand in their way. She wants to empower women by encouraging them to examine their true identity and work hard to achieve their goals in life.

One key issue that Cutrone advocates is empowerment, reminiscent of Friedan. Cutrone acknowledges the success of the feminist movements, which have given women equal opportunities and she strives to work off of these previous notions to develop her own sense of empowerment for women of today. She writes:

“We all are given opportunities to find out what we are by figuring out who and what we’re not. I was taught [I should be] this girly, cheerleader, feminine, sexy, typical booby and legs [type girl] – revealing -- what we call a Cavalli girl or a Dolce girl in the fashion world. I didn’t know any better…My role model was you get married, you have three kids, your husband works, and you stay at home” (Out, 2010).

Cutrone argues that we as women have been programmed to act in a certain way. We were taught things like “first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes a baby in a baby carriage” (YouTube, 2010). This was has been ingrained in our minds for a long time and at what point can we change this socially constructed image. Cutrone did not follow this route: “I realized I’m not that kind of person who can make those kind of commitments because to me they’re really outdated. I started searching for things internally and externally and recreating a life that held something more than the patriarchy” (Out, 2010).

Like Friedan, she wants to relay her experiences of nonconformity in this socially constructed society to other women. Friedan recognized the “problem of no name” and encouraged women to reach outside of marriage for fulfillment, demand political rights and flood the job market (Baumgardner and Richards, pg 153). Why should women settle for anything less and conform to notions of how society constructs their identity? Cutrone would admire Friedan’s insistence on getting women into the workforce because Cutrone seeks to change these stereotypes by advocating females to create a name for themselves. She asks women to examine their own lives and evaluate if they have achieved all they desire: “Are we living our lives to the fullest, are we questioning convention enough, or are we simply floating along like driftwood, allowing the current to carry us, trance-like toward death?” (Out, 2010). Friedan spearheaded the change for women to seek alternatives and not just submit to a life that they were traditionally told to follow.
Cutrone argues that women should not be submissive, which also follows women of the 3^rd wave of feminism such as Levy in Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of 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” (Levy, 30). Our culture depicts women as being constructed this way and that we should accept and embrace it. Traits such as being “boy crazy, shallow and directionless” (Tonic, 2010) are all reflective of how society stereotypes women. Cutrone writes, “I think that women have been taught to sit back, which I think is sad.” Women need to create a name for themselves by standing up for their rights and not perform in acts that sexually objectify themselves with the backing that they think it makes them successful. Cutrone, like Levy, would argue that a Female Chauvinist Pig is not empowered; rather, they are quite the opposite. However, even though she agrees with Levy, she is feeding into Levy’s analysis of a Female Chauvinist Pig. Her actions reflecting a “salty sage” and her “power bitch” attitude make her appear as a Female Chauvinist Pig. Although she may argue that she is partaking in the “raunch culture” for money and success to get to the top, she is nonetheless contradicting her recommendations and advice for young women in her book.

Media also plays a large role in our culture and influences the choices women make. “If you look at women on television, I mean even “Sex and the City,” it's like you know Sarah Jessica Parker's character's obsessed with Mr. Big and Kim Cattrall's getting banged 20 times. There aren't that many examples of powerful women on TV who work and make their own money who aren't obsessed with dudes” (Out, 2010). Many times, media portrays women as less than men, acting in interests for them. This is not the way we should be representing ourselves. As much as it creates great entertainment that we all love to watch, we must look at the deeper issues surrounding it. However, upon closer inspection, this deep issue we should investigate is the issue surrounding Cutrone in the media. She is hypocritical and the one reinforcing the stereotypes of women in media by having her own show, “Kell on Earth” on, of all channels, Bravo. She is working with a network predominantly known to create this exact type of negative stereotype for women, making her “new platform of feminism” seem much less about women's liberation than it appears on the surface. What is this really saying about her?

Cutrone departs from a brand of third wave feminism as seen in Manifesta, a book written by Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards. While this is only one particular stance in the 3^rd wave of feminism, Cutrone in the same wave, advocates empowerment differently. Baumgardner and Richards provide a new voice of feminism, much different from previous feminist movements. Manifesta advocates the “Girlie Girl” (Baumgardner and Richards, 136). The “Girlie Girl” encompasses the “tabooed symbols of women’s feminine enculturation-Barbie dolls, makeup, fashion magazines, high hells-and says using them isn’t shorthand for ‘we’ve been duped’” (136). While Baumgardner and Richards assume power with femininity, Cutrone would disagree and states that reclaiming femininity is not the sight of power and women should not reinvest in things that have been traditionally devalued. To her, femininity is to do whatever it takes to get to the top. Being respected, she claims, “takes precedence over being ‘liked’” (Tonic, 2010). This may involve as Cutrone has coined, to be a “power bitch.” She stands in opposition to the culturally accepted notions of femininity. She is not the “glamour girl”—she does not wear makeup or high heels, is known to yell at her employees, curse in conferences, and looking like a mess when attending fancy fashion events. She runs her office like “a pack of wolves with strict pecking order” (Tonic, 2010). This is certainly not the image of the “Girlie Girl;” this is more like a Female Chauvinist Pig. These conflicting ideals are examples of current issues women are tackling in this third wave of feminism. However, one thing they can agree on is that women’s sexuality is still objectified and many women project themselves in certain ways for the male gaze.

Cutrone’s book indicates that feminism remains a key issue in society, but does not really reflect a new spin on feminism. This book begs the question as to where the feminist movement is going and what the next frontier will be. Despite recycling ideals from the 2^nd and 3^rd movements of feminism, there are many drawbacks to her argument. She is reaffirming and embodying the negative stereotypes and problems that women keep running into. With that in mind, are these new directions that she proposes in her book appropriate for this generation?

Work Cited

Baumgardner, Jennifer, Amy Richards. Manifesta: young women, feminism, and the future. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2000.

Neyfakh, Leon. “Kelly Cutrone Writing Girls' Guide to Life and Power For HarperCollins .” New York Observer. 2009.http://www.observer.com/2009/media/kelly-cutrone-writing-girls-guide-life-and-power-harpercollins>.

Pope, Carol. “Kelly Cutrone: Burning in Kell Fire.” Out. 2010.http://www.out.com/detail.asp?id=26457>.

Worland, Darragh. “Take Notice Ladies.” Tonic. 2010.http://www.tonic.com/column/raves/kelly-cutrone-if-you-have-to-cry-go-outside/>.

Follow Up: Responding to Julia

In her discussion on baby blankets, Julia highlighted an aspect of our society that poses such immense problems for the acknowledgment and acceptance of inter-sex individuals. The exercise with the dangling ring in Middlesex not only speaks to the categorization of the baby as either male or female, but also society’s obsession with simply knowing. When people discover a woman is pregnant, one of the most predictable comments is, “Do you know the sex?!?!” Putting our gender associations, like pink and blue, aside, the obsession with defining something that is not even born is where the ugly and perpetuating cycle of the 2-sex system begins. Can you imagine a world where the question was not, “Is it a boy or a girl?” but rather, “Is it a boy, girl, or inter-sex?” While this scenario seems a million years away, look at the example of sexual orientation. While it is still often assumed that everyone is straight until they declare otherwise, the overall acceptance of gays and lesbians has increased dramatically from the days when homosexuality was deemed a psychological disorder.

Our struggle to change these engrained notions of sex and gender made me think about this week’s Brown Bag Lecture with Q. While she was discussing communities very different from the inter-sex one, her shock content was enormous. While I had some idea of the BDSM, kinky, and leather communities, I really found myself struggling to understand where she was coming from and why she does what she does. This, however, was only more proof that the things which we do not know of, we do not understand. Q’s talk illuminated my whole perspective on sexuality and made me realize how easy it is to categorize her community as “disgusting” or “strange” simply because I do not understand it. Applying this the inter-sex community, it seems to me that the only real way to change our belief system is to educate, educate, educate! As I said, I consider myself to be educated and forward thinking, yet Q’s world is something I was entirely ignorant of until I simply learned about it.

Follow Up: Responding to Julia

I found Julia’s post interesting when she discusses the phenomenon about the color of blankets at a child’s birth. She is right- the neutral assignment to yellow only lasts until the sex is revealed to the parents. The notion that there are only two sexes is a belief in society that has been ingrained in us for many years. Fausto-Sterling suggests that this idea outdated, and that society and medicine should recognize that “there are many gradations running from female to male.” I definitely agree with this point especially concerning her discussion on hermaphrodites. Where exactly does a hermaphrodite fit into the picture? In order to figure this out, it will be useful to look into the category of sex.

Something to add to Julia’s main post is the connection Sterling made to the women’s movement. I like how Sterling incorporated the women’s movement in the 19^th century to the social struggles that hermaphrodites face now. While women were struggling to obtain the right to vote, equal educational opportunities, and fight against slavery, “politics necessitated two and only two sexes” (40). Just as women were excluded in the political sphere, hermaphrodites were another group of individuals who were cast outside of the norm and not allowed certain rights. Women’s oppression led to the definitions of gender and in a sense helped define where hermaphrodites fit in. This connection between women’s movement and intersexuality was particularly interesting and something I never really thought about. Sterling writes, “As the more social radicals blasted away at the separations between masculine and feminine spheres, the more physicians insisted on the absolute division between male and female” (40). I also think that as medical advanced and the realization of the presence of hermaphrodites existed, there became a huge concern as to the subjective division of the sexes. This reflected an attempt of our societies to investigate the division of two sexes. Hermaphrodites were challenging the heterosexual theories that enforced the power struggles between men and women. People were fighting against them and I agree with Julia that it stemmed from the innate hate for change.

I think it was this idea, and the improvement of medical technology that led physicians to set out to “fix” this issue. I agree with Julia that this perpetuated the problem. Western medicine had an immense preoccupation with enforcing "normative" notions of masculinity and femininity. Society has taught us that there can’t be this ambiguity. Nonetheless, this article states, “debates have raged about whether gender identity and roles are biologically determined or culturally determined.” The article is very engaging. It discusses the controversy in terms of specific examples of individuals who underwent surgery and the repercussions that followed. It makes me wonder: Is it moral for doctors to perform surgical procedures to “correct” them? Is a good quality of life only possible for individuals who conform to either a male or female sex?

When is it okay to appropriately perform surgery? Can’t people just accept that a ‘perfect’ solution not be attainable? I think the so-called biological line between male and female is quite complex. Reading about cases of individuals who struggle with gender identity, such as the author in Middlesex who grew up believe he was female but then changed to a male identity based on a recessive gene, makes me wonder is there an answer to solving this debate. What do you think?

Follow Up: Responding to Julia

I thought that Fausto-Sterling’s chapter, “That Sexe Which Prevaileth”, was very interesting. I think that our culture’s constant maintainment and fixation on the two-sex system needs to be overturned in order to make the lives of those born the way that they are better. It is not as if these people that are born intersex have control over the fact that they are born with ambiguous bodies, and it is unfair that our society as a whole is opposed to the acceptance of such an idea as fluid sexual identities. I found the last section of the chapter to be particularly intriguing though because although I support the reevaluation of our society’s outlook on intersex people, I think that we at first need to have those that are intersex on board. Fausto-Sterling mentions a case study that Hugh Hampton Young, “The Father of American Urology” performed, in which he studied a hermaphrodite named Emma who grew up female. I have issues with Emma’s situation because she has a husband yet she has girlfriends on the side, which I find to be her way of taking “the path of least resistance”. Emma stated, “My husband supports me well, and even though I don’t have any sexual pleasure with him, I do have lots with my girlfriend” (Fausto-Sterling, 43). I think that this is her way of succumbing to the expectations of society rather than coming out and showing the world who she is and being proud of it. Obviously there are other issues at hand, such as money, which she makes a point to mention, but I think that as someone who is intersex, and is accepting of her female and male parts, then why not be who you want to be rather than “fitting in”. I think that if we ever want to change the way society looks at those that are intersex, we need people like Emma to accept the way she was born and outwardly show this acceptance. Without that first step, I am unsure if we can have hope that stereotypes will change.

I found an interesting article in the Commentary section of CNN.Com, written by Hilda Viloria. She was responding to the situation that South African athlete Caster Semenya is currently in. She expresses her outrage at the whole gender verification issue and how even though some people are being supportive of Caster, they are also indirectly increasing the prejudices surrounding the topic of intersex people. Hilda is also intersex and discusses her story in the article. I found her story very interesting because she never really knew what she was and there was no way of explaining her enlarged sex organs. Finally, at the age of 26 she discovered that she was intersex, from a newspaper article, of all things! I was moved by Hilda’s story because she describes how she was facing racism, homophobia, as well as prejudices towards intersex people. Fausto-Sterling states that, “Reconceptualizing the category of “sex” challenges cherished aspects of European and American social organization” (Fausto-Sterling, 31). I think this is true but as Viloria says, if society and the medical world had been more upfront and straightforward with people about intersexuality rather than trying to fit people into the male or female categories, we would not be having these issues today. Viloria says, “intersex folks are not some new invention that people need to be "ready for:" we exist and always have” (Viloria, 2009). It is extremely unfair that intersex people are forced to feel sorry for the way they were born and it is even more unfair that society is telling people, such as Caster Semenya, who was born a female, that she is actually a male.

Main Post for 2/17

Our recent readings have really illuminated and revealed the strength and power social constructions hold in dictating not only the opinions, but also the entire mindset of individuals in society. Most striking is the intensely arbitrary nature of these constructions-dictated almost entirely by the popular view at any given time. Often, however, we do not even realize that these bias have permeated our own mind as they often enter our thoughts soon after birth and are therefore, all we know.

Dominant societal institutions, including political, popular society, religious, and even family, work to create opinions so deeply ingrained in our every day life, we do not even realize they are there. As Fausto-Sterling articulates, “we have begun to insist on the male-female dichotomy at increasingly early ages, making the two-sex system more deeply a part of how we imagine human life and giving it the appearance of being both inborn and natural,” (Fausto-Sterling, 31). She argues, (and I agree), that society is structured and designed for two discrete sexes.

In Middlesex, Jeffrey Eugenides discusses Desdemona’s practice of hanging a spoon over a pregnant woman’s stomach in order to determine the sex of the unborn baby inside. It was simple, a slight swing of the spoon in a north to south direction meant the baby was a boy. Otherwise, the baby was a girl. Even when the spoon seemed to be suspended motionless above the mother’s pregnant stomach, or when the spoon seemed to move in a small circle, as if indecisive, it never crossed anyone’s mind that the baby could be anything but male or female. Obviously not a possibility they were aware of at the time, the child could very likely fall somewhere in between what they thought were the only two sexes.

A more modern example of constructions of sex as “one or the other,” at birth, a girl gets a pink blanket and a boy gets a blue blanket. Only before birth, when the sex of the baby is still a secret, is yellow an acceptable color. This yellow color suggests neutral not because the child falls somewhere in between male and female, but because the sex of the child has yet to be revealed to the parents. Therefore, a neutral assignment is only used when the sex is unknown, but it is assumed that afterwards, a neutral color variation is no longer necessary as all babies will need either a blue or pink blanket upon birth.

I always knew that yellow was the go-to gift color for an unborn baby whose sex had yet to be determined, however I never realized the connotations behind this. This behavioral norm suggests that any child will, once born, fit in to either the blue category or pink category. Not to mention, girls are assumed to like pink and boys assumed to like blue. Is it because pink is feminine and blue more masculine? Why is pink feminine though, while blue is considered masculine? But, why do boys have to be more masculine and girls more feminine, anyway?

Without even thinking about it, I just articulated five assumptions hidden behind the seemingly negligible and unimportant decision of gift or blanket color. Before doing these readings, however, I had never even considered the assumptions hidden behind gift colors as I just assumed there were two sexes and one tended to like pink while the other normally had an affinity for blue. These constructions are so normalized and ordinary that they become institutionalized in our culture as the one and only way and we therfore, do not even consider any other possibilities.

Fausto-Sterling extends her argument on the power of social constructions in describing the changing societal and biological views of a hermaphrodite in different cultures over time. Some cultures found hermaphrodites to truly exist somewhere within one of the two possible sexes. Others considered hermaphrodites as dangerous and destructive. Others saw hermaphrodites fitting along a continuum of sex, with men at one extreme end and women at the other. In other words, perspectives on intersexuality are entirely different in different “countries and different legal and religious systems,” (Fausto-Sterling, 35). Therefore, these different perspectives were not just negligible opinions varying from individual to individual, but rather judgments permeating the entirety of a culture just because dominant institutions said they were a certain way.

Part of the problem as to why intersexuality is not as widely accepted as it should be is an innate hate for change. Generally, we as people, are terrified of change. We are terrified of the unknown and for the threat of something new. We force people in to one of the two categories-male or female-because we are unfamiliar and ignorant of anything but male or female. Fausto-Sterling notes that “legal experts acknowledged that hermaphrodites existed but insisted they position themselves within this gendered system,” (Fausto-Sterling, 36). Although people dominant in society were entirely aware of the existence of alternate or additional sexes, they remained stubborn (and still do), always stuck and intent on a two-sex system.

Even as biology and science gained credibility, knowledge, experience, and therefore, power, the problem continued. Rather than using science and medicine to increase knowledge and awareness of the inaccurate duality, scientists and doctors only perpetuated the problem. Instead of celebrating the birth of intersexual babies, doctors and scientists used their knowledge in order to “correct” the problem as the babies were, “abnormal,” (Fausto-Sterling, 36). In doing so, however, these doctors and scientists made intersexual children increasingly less common and therefore, even more abnormal. Further, in “correcting” their problem, scientists suggested that intersexual children had a sort of weakness or severe fault in need of alteration.

These doctors and scientists, however, likely did not even notice the long range effects of their surgical procedures as they thought they were doing good for the children as they, too, saw intersexuality as a problem or abnormal condition. They, too, had ingrained and subconscious bias of what was normal and what was divergent. Often, without even realizing, we not only allow problems to continue, but also promote and extend their magnitude. How do we become aware of issues we are perpetuating when we have no recognition of the source inside us? How do we go about altering an entire foundation of thought that is so deeply rooted in every day life and culture we do not even realize it exists? Further, how does an opinion, or cultural construction, ever get so deeply ingrained in our brains that we do not even realize it is there?

Follow Up: Responding to Rachel

I think that Rachel posed some great ideas about the differences between sex and gender and how these distinct ideas permeate all aspects of our society. We as individuals have no choice in the biological matter of our sex. This clearly poses a problem as to whether we can accept or deny this gender specificity that is pre-determined for us. A denial of this biological role would be a denial of who we are as a person, but it seems that this idea can not be thought of this way any longer because the idea of gender and it’s role is becoming more and more of a topic of conversation. I too believe that our society as a whole needs to find a way to not pigeonhole people into their specific gender roles that should match up with their sex. We need to see a give and take between sex and gender rather than a set categorization that forces people to fulfill certain roles. If our society can muster up the courage to finally accept that gender and sex can be distinct from one another, many more people will have the courage to live their lives as they see fit.

As I read Myhre’s ideas about the public perceptions others have when they see a male or a female, and how expectations need to be met in order to be accepted. We don’t realize how often we judge people based on their external appearance. If something is off about someone, such as Rachel said, an apparent man with a beard in a dress, heels, and makeup, the public would see this as an unsound makeup of a person. This gender distortion seems to be unacceptable in today’s society, but how can we as a whole population determine how someone should dress and look if they don’t feel deep down that they are that specific gender? It’s like a person in a cage and telling them that they can only come out and see the world unless they dress/act/look the part of their biological sex.

Ariel Levy’s chapter, “From Womyn To Bois”, really opened my eyes to a whole new realm of lesbianism and gender roles that I had honestly never known existed. I agree with Julia, in that I too found the definitions of such words like “womyn”, “femme”, “bois”, & “butch”, difficult to not confuse. I realized that if I am confusing them all when the definitions are plainly right in front of me, then that means that there is some sort of an arbitrary overlap between each role. This became even clearer to me as I read on and realized that there is a lot of personal interpretation when it comes to these ideas, as women accept what part of a gender role works for them, and what doesn’t. A boi, Lissa Doty, said, “I think it’s cool that a label can be so flexible. I like it as a spectrum instead of one specific model” (Levy, 125). This just shows how important it is that we begin to understand the split between sex and gender and how there is such a wide range of interpretations of how one should act, look, and feel. This fluidity of being a boi is very important to people.

I thought Levy’s interview with Sarah, a female who does not like to call herself butch, or the newer term, boi, because of the implications of the word. She states that she doesn’t “understand the faggot culture” and that she doesn’t “understand the appeal or the sense of two faggot dykes riding each other” (Levy 131). Sarah also says, “Femme-on-femme is stupid to me, too. It’s air. It’s air on air” (Levy, 131). It was at this point that I realized that even women that are a part of this boi culture feel that they too need to define who they are in terms of their gender but have no way to do so without saying they are, or that they like, something they are not.

Just like we read over the past few weeks about the roles that men place upon women and how they are all socially constructed, so to is gender a social construct. We can seek ways to deviate from the socially constructed boundaries placed on us, but our society on a whole seems to have not reached a level of acceptability that will let us reevaluate the specificity of the terms “male” and “female”, or even “boi” and “femme”. “Dissolving the ‘gender binary’” is what needs to happen, but how can we get individuals to become more comfortable with this re-defining of roles?

NEWS FLASH 1: The rule. Not, the exception.

A recent article in The New York Times titled “The New Math on Campus,” (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/fashion/07campus.html?ref=style), discusses the situation college girls encounter due to the lack of competent or dateable boys on campus.  According to a report by the American Council on Education, “women have represented about 57 percent of enrollments at American colleges since 2000,”  (The New Math on Campus, 1).  “The New Math on Campus” focuses its story on frustrated girls at the UNC Chapel Hill campus where women make up about sixty percent of the student body.  Despite the impressive status of women’s success shown by these statistics, many students still feel woes due to the lack of boys on campus.  Even worse, a UNC female argues that out of the forty percent of men on campus, only about ten percent have potential to be boyfriends after those with girlfriends and those who are simply not suitable are weeded out.

            Therefore, the article suggests, nearly all the women must fight over an extremely small group of boys.  Further, since women aggressively outnumber men, men are able to behave however they want, controlling their interactions and relationships with women.  As there are so many girls relative to boys, boys are able to “play the field,” treating women poorly and hopping from one girl to the next if the current girl isn’t willing to play the same way they want to.   For example, Kelly Lynch, a student interviewed for the article suggests that “girls feel pressured to do more than they’re comfortable with, to lock it down.”  Since boys have such a large group of girls to choose from, if one girl isn’t giving them exactly what they want, they will gladly move on to someone who will.  Even worse, girls hold boys to lower standards since they are forced to effectively take what they can get and are often unable to find someone they really deserve.  Emily Kennard, another interviewee for the article, articulates this idea saying cheating is “a thing that girls let slide because you have to.  If you don’t let it slide, you don’t have a boyfriend,” (The New Math on Campus, 2).  Unfortunately, girls are often treated disrespectfully by men, but cannot do anything about it since men control the dating and hooking up patterns on campus.  Women, therefore, are often forced in to casual hookup situations when they would much rather a serious romantic relationship.

            Since they have control over the relationship realm, men create a dating scenario that they see as ideal.  According to the article, this translates in to a mindset of “more partners. More sex. Commitment? A good first step would be his returning a woman’s Facebook message” (The New Math on Campus, 2).  The article suggests that men prefer a relationship void of responsibility, and due to uneven gender ratios, they are able to create this scenario with minimal effort.  Although some men do supposedly look for girls they want to seriously date, the general pattern is very different.

            This article depicts a dating situation highly reminiscent of that at Colgate.  Many girls search for some sort of commitment, however they often find their male prospects void of this desire.  Girls go out night after night looking for someone who will respect them or maybe even develop feelings for them, however, as suggested in the article, girls often end up spending the night with a boy and after, never speak again.  The boy to girl ratio at Colgate, however, is even at 50:50.  Therefore, male dominance and control in relationships is not caused by sheer gender ratios, but rather female desperation for male attention and further, their willingness to conform to men’s idealistic relationships.

            Although some girls do not conform to these habits, every night before going out, most girls put in time agonizing over outfits and fussing with their appearance, worried that their looks do not live up to standards.  This obsession with appearances spurs from the overwhelming hookup culture at Colgate.  Since relationships often do not extend beyond impersonal interactions, those involved do not know each other on a personal friend level.  In her essay on gender labels, Jennifer Reid Maxcy Myhre states that “a woman’s value is gauged according to her appearance,” (Myhre, 87).  Therefore, since hookups are normally not based off of genuinely liking someone’s personality, appearance is definitely the deciding factor in hook up success.

            In addition to obsessing over their looks, girls often feel pressured to be more sexually open or aggressive than they feel comfortable with in order to impress boys.  Girls commonly have sex with boys on the first night they meet them in order to impress the boy they are with.  In “Female Chauvinist Pigs,” Ariel Levy discusses the raunch culture associated with shows such as Girls Gone Wild and Hugh Hefner’s show The Girls Next Door.  Levy tells an example in which a girl on spring break in Miami is pressured by boys she does not know to flash the camera for the Girls Gone Wild show.  At first, the girl is very resistant however, after a little bit of coercion and persuasion by the boys, the girl abides and reveals her boobs.  This girl undoubtedly did not feel comfortable flashing the camera, however she felt as though the boys would reject her if she did not listen to their demands. 

            Girls’ willingness to put out, obsession with appearance, and forced “comfort” with sexuality all suggest their desperation to impress boys and gain male approval.  Further, in obsessing over our looks and conforming to male sexual pressure, we not only allow men to continue their disrespectful behavior, but we perpetuate and promote their demeaning mindset.  Although they, too, enjoy female attention, men are often not forced to put in any effort since girls let them act the way they do.  In other words, in listening to men’s demands or following men’s orders, we reinforce their behavior because it works for them to act this way.

            Girls are willing to act in a way that goes against their morals and makes them feel uncomfortable because many girls believe, or at least hope, that their situation will be different than most and that their male interest may actually care.  Many girls, deep down, hope that if they really impress a boy they will get the respect and admiration they deserve.  As the popular move He’s Just Not That Into You suggests, women “hope that they are the exception when they are really the rule.”  Women often fantasize or dream that the boy they are interested will fall for them and love them in return, when many times that is not the case.  However, girls often hold on to that slight chance that the boy respects them even if he acts other wise, and it is through this hope that men are successfully able to act the way they do without any repercussions.

            Therefore, men get exactly what they want while women are often left disappointed.  Women date in a way they do not want to and are therefore left disheartened.  In other words, women are forced to date like men-detaching themselves from the relationship and maintaining a wall-in order to avoid developing feelings that are eventually unreturned. This tendency to date like men is reminiscent of Ariel Levy’s “raunch culture” in which women act like one of the guys in seeking male approval.  These girls base their worth on male approval and acceptance and define themselves based on how boys perceive them.  Girls determine how they should act based on how they think boys want them to act and in doing so, they create an identity for themselves centered around perceived male desires.  In other words, girls internalize their perception of how men see them, and fulfill this identity, therefore becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

            Although the article (and my related analysis) certainly serve to illuminate a problem common on college campuses, we have our own flaws in perpetuating the problem on which we intend to shed light.  While this article does point out an important problem, it ironically assumes that everyone is heteronomative-an assumption that is not only naïve but also damaging to the progress of women’s sexual freedom.  I, too, am guilty of assuming that everyone is heterosexual despite the fact that this is clearly not the case.  Further, in this essay, I assume that all girls are looking for relationships and are disappointed with casual sex, when this is undeniably not the case.  The flip side of this is that I assume that all men prefer casual sex to commitment when this, too, is far from the truth. 

It is important to highlight these assumptions and recognize the differences among individuals because as Audre Lorde points in her essay, it is an awareness and application of these differences that can really extend a movement to the next level of success.  Also, my assumptions on gender or what being a male or female suggest in an individual’s approach to sex and relationships are unfavorable as they assume that men and women each fit a specific, pointed, definition of male and female when “masculine” and “feminine” (or “male” and “female”) are actually socially constructed norms void of any genuine value.  As Myhre suggests, “we all hold in our minds a blueprint of our perceptions of femininity and masculinity,” (Myhre, 86).  We must remember, however, that these perceptions are socially constructed and often do not hold on an individual basis.

 

FOLLOW UP POST: Responding to Rachel

I agree with Rachel when she says that she finds it important to understand the difference between sex and gender as they are relevant in not only our every day life, but even more importantly, our identity and self-perception.  However, after completing today’s readings, and becoming increasingly confused by each selection, I believe it is entirely impossible to find coherent, applicable, accurate, and universally agreed upon definitions of sex, gender, and other sub-words intended to articulate their meanings.

I was especially lost during Levy’s talk of labels like “femme,” “bois,” and “butch top.” Despite my numerous re-readings of the introduction of each of these words, I still could not keep their definitions straight.  Further, it seemed that when used, these words were relatively arbitrary and therefore, relied on social perceptions and personal notions in their use.  Lissa Doty, an interviewee of Levy, suggests she identifies as a “boi” because she never wanted to grow up.  Doty goes on to say “to me, butch is like adult,” (Levy, 122).  Without realizing, Doty recognizes that these definitions are largely arbitrary.  To her, butch has one definition, however to someone else, it could mean something entirely different. 

The problem with arbitrary definitions such as these is that when used publically, the intended meaning may be misunderstood.  However, if it is understood that these definitions inherently include some element of individual perception, fluidity of gender and sex definitions is potentially a very positive step for feminist movements.  As Anne Fausto-Sterling suggests in Sexing The Body, “a body’s sex is simply too complex.  There is no either/or.  Rather, there are shades of difference,” (Fausto-Sterling, 3).  Fausto-Sterling suggests that there is no way to create a perfectly accurate and all-encompassing definition of “male” and “female” as labeling sex fundamentally depends on our own personal beliefs and social perceptions about gender.  Further, Fausto-Sterling suggests an idea I myself had not considered, these social perceptions of what “male” and “female” also affect what scientists, given the job of identifying sex, perceive to be biologically male or female.  Therefore, the definitions of the biological aspect, referred to as sex, and the social portion, referred to as gender, of individuals are inherently linked and bias.

Fausto-Sterling’s point is very important as despite endless efforts to remove personal perceptions or social considerations from our definition of sex, we cannot do it, and therefore, consciously or not, individually distort the meaning of male and female.  Therefore, ideas of male and female must occur on a spectrum or range rather than as two points located at completely opposite poles since they rely on such a range of factors and perspectives. 

As Levy suggests, “being a boi means different things to different people-it’s a fluid identity, and that’s the whole point,” (Levy, 125).  The fluidity of definitions of gender and sexuality is not only important when defining others, but also for many people in defining themselves and creating their own identity.  An individual posting on LiveJournal, a website of personal diaries open to the public view, says it as follows:

            So my story reads that I’m a butch (or whatever) living in Minnesota.  Mostly I claim the trans label, but it’s not my intention to transition to male from wherever I’m at now.  I’m surprisingly comfortable in this gray much…it makes life easier when I live it instead of trying to box it up like take-out,” (126, Levy).

            This excerpt exemplifies the point that taking a preformed, universally accepted, and specifically defined label, and attempting to fit yourself inside it is much more difficult and confining than finding a versatile and adaptable spot along a spectrum.  The pointed definitions of sex and gender serve to constrict individuals whom they define and mislead individuals who use them.  People trying to fit a specific and static definition of gender and sex often force themselves to be something they are not, thereby inhibiting their true understanding of self-identity.  Further, in becoming something they are not, people trying to fit a pointed definition reinforce the naïve and insufficient meanings of these words when this specificity does not, in reality, truly exist among people.

News Flash: "iPad name draws feminine hygiene jokes"

On January 27, 2010, CEO of Apple, Steve Jobs, unveiled his company’s latest technological wonder: the iPad. It took only a matter of minutes after the reveal, however, before bloggers, tweeters, and even news networks were cashing in on Apple’s obvious mistake, “The mocking goes along the lines of: Yes, the iPad is small, lightweight and slim. But can you swim with it?”[i]. Beyond the feminine hygiene jokes, others accused Apple of detectably not having any women in executive positions. As blogger Annie Colbert wrote, "With "iTampon" quickly emerging as a trending Twitter topic, it's probably safe to say that many women found themselves cringing as they asked, 'Do any women work at Apple?' "[ii].

While criticism of any new Apple product seems inherent, what was so shocking about the release of the iPad was the fact that national news coverage deemed this fiasco notable in their evening stories. CNN’s John D. Sutter wrote the article “iPad name draws feminine hygiene jokes”, highlighting the intricate details of the latest mockery and gossip revolving around Apple’s mistake. Yet this attention of one of the nation’s most important news networks begs the question, really CNN? Is this honestly the most important news going on in world?

Perhaps the iPad represents a more serious problem, however. Many female bloggers[iii] believe that this oversight is symptomatic of a much bigger issue: the lack of women working at Apple[iv]. Or possibly, these jokes allude to society’s preoccupation with the biological workings of the female body, yet another sign of patriarchy at work. To distil these iPad remarks down to a feminist battle, however, is a copout that blatantly overlooks the trends in today’s society as a whole.

While the allegation that no women work in Apple’s executive positions is shockingly true, it is not fair to say that had women been a part of this product’s creation, they would never have let such a name slip. This kind of thinking goes against the very idea that women’s biological differences should not limit or disadvantage them in any way. Instead of seeing iPad as an oversight, could it not be seen as a sign of progress? Rather than insensitive, the fact that the implications of the word did not cross the male executive’s minds is a sign that they are probably more mature than the rest of us. Besides, the only people who drew attention to this name are the same feminists who want menstruation to be seen as nothing more than an undeniable, biological fact.

Although Apple’s lack of female executives is embarrassing, the use of the name iPad is by no means indicative of this. Just as many women voiced their immediate realization of the joke, many others did not. Thus, even the addition of female executives would not have guaranteed a different result. Clearly Apple is cognizant of the female population in some way, as Steve Jobs has openly admitted to their employment problem, "It [lack of women] is a deficiency we have. We recognize it and we are trying to solve it"[v]. If women truly want to criticize Apple for its lack of girlpower, they must look to the mission and hiring methods of the company, not its brand names.

Thus if Apple’s executive team is not to blame, who is? The answer lies somewhere in the midst of America’s obsession with inappropriate toilet humour. As Merriam-Webster qualifies, the only definition for “pad” that comes remotely close to a feminine product is, “a piece of usually folded absorbent material (as gauze) used as a surgical dressing or protective covering”[vi]. Not only is it a stretch to immediately associate the word “pad” with a feminine product, but it is such a great departure from anything Apple intended the word to evoke. Stephen Hutcheon, an editor at The Sydney Morning Herald, noted that, “One could take "pad" to mean "home," which is where Apple CEO Steve Jobs hopes many people will use the iPad to read books, watch movies and the like”[vii]. Not to mention the fact that no one flinched at the technological births of notepads and thinkpads.

Clearly, it took imagination and effort to turn such a conventional word into a feminine taboo. If this is the kind of logic brand managers are up against, they do not stand a chance of avoiding the inevitable, inappropriate interpretation of words that Americans make a game of. Had Apple presented the iBall or iBone, undoubtedly the same, crass jokes would have been made. Therefore this reaction is not a reflection of our insensitive, chauvinist society, but rather that of our need to make even the most intelligent products sexual. Even before Apple released this product, Mad TV beat them to it, creating a comedic skit with the latest feminine product, the iPad! Of course when Mad TV coined the term, America laughed. When Apple officially used it, it was sexist and embarrassing.

This inability to separate toilet humour from feminism is dangerous, as it discredits the movement and the people behind it. If feminism applies to everything, it applies to nothing. What this means is that before women jump to their blogs or twitter accounts to bash the latest feminist outcry, they must critically decide whether or not the issue is truly targeting and offensive to only women or if it is a product of greater social trends. This kind of responsibility will not only maintain the integrity of the feminist movement, but also prevent the media from cashing in on the fun.

Is iPad an unfortunate name choice given the ease at which it can be mocked? Absolutely. Does the name mean that Apple hates women? Of course not! Again, before women catch themselves in a whirlwind of gossip and outcry, it is imperative to step back and acknowledge our propensity to make the appropriate inappropriate. Instead of making jokes about iTampons, women should appreciate the incredible and historic moment for Apple without making it about themselves.

---

[i] Chmielewski, Dawn and Alex Pham. “Women mock the iPad, calling it iTampon.” Los Angeles Times: 27 Jan. 2010. 11 Feb. 2010http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2010/01/women-mock-the-ipad-calling-it-itampon.html.

[ii] Sutter, John D. “iPad name draws feminine hygiene jokes.” CNN 28 Jan. 2010. 28 Jan. 2010 http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/27/apple.ipad.reaction/index.html.

[iii] Han, Phil. “Is the iPad name an iFlop?” CNN 28 Jan. 2010. 11 Feb. 2010.http://connecttheworld.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/28/is-the-ipad-name-an-iflop/.

[iv] United States. Apple Inc. Executive Profiles. 2010. 12 Feb. 2010.http://www.apple.com/pr/bios/.

[v] Fried, Ina. “Jobs defends Apple’s record on environment.” CNET News 21 Apr. 2005. 13 Feb. 2010. http://news.cnet.com/Jobs-defends-Apples-record-on-environment/2100-1041_3-5680152.html.

[vi] "pad." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2010. Merriam-Webster Online. 14 February 2010
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pad.

[vii] Sutter, John D. “iPad name draws feminine hygiene jokes.” CNN 28 Jan. 2010. 28 Jan. 2010 http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/27/apple.ipad.reaction/index.html.

News Flash: "Silent No More, Wives Go Public About Their Husbands' Affairs" (Ravitz, 2010)

“Silent No More, Wives Go Public About Their Husbands’ Affairs”, is a CNN article about the wives of powerful cheating husbands. It discusses how more so than ever recently, these women have been finding their voices and coming out and expressing to the public how they are dealing with this infidelity. More and more books are being written and published in order to serve as an aid of empowerment for the average women to leave their cheating husbands as well. People who study infidelity are proud of this newfound sense of power and ability that these women have found to express themselves. But, I say to all this, “Why?”

Why should we be applauding these women for doing what they are supposed to do; standing up for themselves. It seems pretty outrageous that women are still looked at as incapable of holding their own. They are still the property of cheating men, so to speak. If they weren’t, then people would not keep making such a big deal about these politicians’ wives and their books! Jenny Sanford, the pending ex-wife of South Carolina Governor, Mark Sanford, wrote a book called “Staying True”. Her husband had an Argentine mistress for quite some time before Jenny decided she had enough. Dina Matos McGreevey, the ex-wife of Governor James McGreevey, found herself married to a “gay American” (Ravitz, p. 1). Elizabeth Edwards wrote a book called, “Resilience: Reflections on the Burdens and Gifts of Facing Life’s Adversities”, and discussed how and why it took her so long to separate from her cheating and lying husband.

Researchers are trying to determine why this is all happening now. The question, “So what happened to the women who used to stand silently by their disgraced husbands?” is posed in this article (Ravitz, p. 1). Some say that we have entered a “new age” and women have more freedom and choice. Others say that not only are these women political wives but they also have legitimate careers on the line. Either way, it is impressive that wives are letting their husbands deal with the results of their actions alone, rather than standing by their side. For whatever reason, it is believed that this is a newfound occurrence, women standing up to their cheating husbands, and announcing their separation, because according to the article, this was not done generations before.

These political wives are providing the public with “a peek behind the curtain”, but why must we see this (Ravitz, p. 2)? Doesn’t the average person know that women should not stick beside their cheating husbands? Why must we applaud those that free themselves from that struggle? Ruth Houston, author of “Is He Cheating on You? 829 Telltale Signs”, says that these women are truly helping the average woman with her problems. First of all, what does this say about our society that we have a book being sold in bookstores with this title? Books like this aren’t written for men. Why is it that we as a society are conditioned to think that only women get cheated on and that there are “829 signs”? Why is it made so that women must always be wary of their husbands? Houston says we should never assume that we are free from infidelity. Something must be inherently wrong with our society that we have to immediately assume the worst. Men (obviously not all) have been trained to think that their wives would not cheat on them and that they will always “be there” even if they cheat on their wives.

Throughout this semester we have discussed how women are always trying to be considered equal to men, yet this equality has not happened and is a constant battle. Whether it is equality in the work place, sexual equality, or even just life equality, women just cannot seem to be on par with men. I believe that this article, “Silent No More, Wives Go Public About Their Husband’s Affairs”, is a perfect depiction of this idea of “life equality”. It does not discuss a particular cause or movement or even a specific idea that makes women inferior to men, but it does infer that women are not considered equal to men in the institution of marriage.

I believe that the article relates to the ideas that Betty Friedan posed of this problem that has no name. Although her ideas are mostly about women not being happy in the home and feeling that they are forced into this unfair situation with no say in the matter, I think that Ravitz’s article accentuates her ideas. In Friedan’s depiction of the home and the job of women, she discusses how women are inferior to men and constantly need to be their by their husbands’ sides to cook their meals, do their laundry; be their slaves in a sense. Ravitz’s article poses a similar idea in relation to the institution of marriage. Women need to be their by their husbands’ sides no matter what, whether they cheat, lie, etc. This places an unfair burden on women. They are simply not equal to men in this sense. This sense of “tradition” that Friedan exposes relates to this ideal that women should not speak out because this is the way life is. This idea correlates to the CNN article as well because up until now many have said that women are meant to keep silent if their husbands cheat.

I believe that the ideas presented in this article can be related to Ariel Levy’s ideas of Raunch Culture. Levy discusses how females in this day in age are empowering themselves through their sexual identity and showing how they can be sexy no matter what. The article discusses how women are finally becoming empowered and standing up to the restrictions placed on them. I think that although both groups of women, those mentioned in Levy’s Raunch Culture, and those mentioned in Ravitz’s CNN article, are both “empowered”, they are going about it in a different manner. There are more ways to empower oneself than through one’s sexual identity. The simply act of saying no is a form of empowerment. Altering the traditional gender roles that exist in today’s society is a huge form of female empowerment.

Although I understand the ideas presented in Ravitz’s article, and see the connections that surely can be made to our class and the works that we have read, I have an issue with the fact that we should applaud these women. The fact that our society is first reaching a point where it is now acceptable for women to divorce their cheating husbands rather than stay by their side, is beyond me. Hopefully this gradual transformation will extend to all aspects of society and women will continue on their path of equality to men.