While the “Black and Brown Bodies Under The Knife” article really resonated with me, I had a hard time with “Citizen Profane.” I am in absolutely no way a proponent of the thin obsession – please note that point. However, obesity is a different story. I understand that I should be questioning what gives me faith in a “normal” body, but I think a “normal” body can exist in different shapes and sizes. Actually, “normal” is not a good word at all. I would use “healthy,” but who tells me who is healthy and who is not? Is anti-obesity culture really a hegemonic ideology, or is it just a push away from something that is really, truly unhealthy? I just don’t think the human body was meant to carry around more than 300 lbs or so. Did society tell me this? Or is this my observation of obese people trying and struggling to walk, or watching my friend’s parents gorge themselves to type 2 diabetes?
In the end, fatness doesn’t really matter, because we all die anyway. Right? Or no?
Anyway, what I really wanted to talk about was how these readings relate to my project, which they totally do. My project is not really centered around race, simply because I don’t have the time to make it as full as it could be, so I’m keeping it centered on definitions and expectations of femininity and how they are played out at Miami – therefore, the readings that I found most applicable to my project were “Black and Brown Bodies Under the Knife” and “Body Image: Third Wave Feminism’s Issue?” Although I did just say that I won’t be doing much on race in my project, the Black and Brown article was a wonderful critique on cosmetic surgery in general, and I will definitely be using excerpts to explore what it means to be beautiful. On page 65 of the article, describes the “ideology of beauty” as one “which commodifies women for an external gaze.” This is absolutely applicable to my project. For my graphic novel, I am going to have a section that asks, “Who teaches us about beauty?” and I have a post up on Facebook for anyone to respond to the question “Who teaches young women about beauty?/Where do young women (or all women) learn about what is beautiful?” I have many magazine pictures cut out to make into collages for these pages and people’s answers to the question. I also plan on using excerpts of Kilborne’s “Killing Us Softly” to support this section, and I will relate this information as it impacts being a woman at Miami, surrounded by what my peers and what others on urban dictionary have classified as “beautiful women” and “rich snobby white kids.”
As for the “Body Image” article, my favorite quotes include, “…we are a pop culture-driven generation. Mention teen magazines, for example, and many young women react viscerally, offering stories of how fat/ugly/ethnic/misfitting/self-hating the magazines made them feel. Even young women who don’t identify as feminists offer heartfelt and complex emotions on the topic” (198). Another one I want to include is, “In the visual world of the late twentieth century, however, the outside counts as well as the inside. We use our appearances – bodies, clothing, style – to express our inner convictions, our pride, our affiliations, our identities, our insecurities and our weaknesses” (p. 198). I think these quotes, along with my own reflections and the reflections of my peers that are responding to my prompts on Facebook, will help me to explore the topics I want to explore, especially pertaining to stereotypical beauty at Miami.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
My Project Idea: I Live Here, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, USA.
For my project, I want to do a graphic novel in the style of I Live Here. I will be writing from my own perspective on issues of gender (expectations of women, roles), race (information that doesn’t reach “white girls”), expectations of college-age students, and socioeconomic status as they pertain to being a student at Miami and growing up in Oxford, Ohio, USA. We have been reading a lot about the importance of drawing upon our/their own experiences as women, so what I want for this project is to use my own experiences, observed experiences of others, and information and experiences from others to paint a picture of Miami’s college-age woman culture, student culture, expectations for women in America (especially of a particular SES associated with Miami in Oxford – examples include what women should aspire to look like, what kind of men they should want to be with, the idea that they’re expected to find a male partner), and the struggles young women face, either when they “fit” into the expectations or when they “don’t fit” into them.
I hope to use the I Live Here graphic novels as inspiration for how my project will look, and I plan on drawing from other course documents, such as the International Declaration of Human Rights, Kilbourne’s “Killing Us Softly,” Katz’s “Tough Guise,” the idea of “the single story” from Chimamanda Adichie, and any other class readings from which I can draw ideas to support my project.
I guess the main claim of my project will be that expectations for women at Miami University are stifling and cause for insecurity (I chose Miami specifically because I wanted to keep my topic narrow), and the expectations are dictated by something other than ourselves as young women. I will explore advertisements, media (reality shows, music videos, song lyrics), other people’s ideas of what a “Miami girl” is, and first-hand interactions with young women at Miami. What I hope to end up with is an illustration of Miami as the way I and many of my friends feel that it is: if you’re not skinny, tan, rich, and a binge drinker, then you’re not the typical Miami girl. I’m not trying to stereotype Miami or the young women here; I want to ask questions about why young women at Miami who don’t fit this mold feel like there is a mold to fit in the first place. What makes this kind of girl the “typical” Miami girl? Whose expectations does this girl live up to? Does this girl really exist? Why is it that whenever someone asks a Miami student what a “Miami girl” is, everyone knows exactly what they’re talking about?
My unique perspective: I stopped watching TV regularly at the age of 8, and I don’t listen to the radio; while I acknowledge that I am still bombarded with advertisements and messages about women/etc, I truly am somewhat naïve about it all. When I heard Rihanna’s song “Rude Boy” or whatever, I had to change the radio because I felt sick. When I flip through a US Weekly magazine (which I did for this project), I can recognize less than ten of the hundreds of celebrities in the magazine. I come from a low-income family (my famiy is about ~153% of the poverty line, where 200% is officially considered “low income”) and I go to Miami for free because my mom works in the library system. My parents are both highly educated; my father has two PhDs but does not work because he uses a wheelchair and doesn’t feel like he can really do anything. This is not a sob story – it’s a perspective that I think, or at least I have been lead to believe (and why??? what led me to believe this??) that is different from most Miami students in Oxford.
I hope to be able to use my perspective and draw on the experiences of others, as well as reliable statistics and class readings, to explore Miami culture and what it means to be a young woman on Oxford’s campus.
What Miami looks like to other people...
I hope to use the I Live Here graphic novels as inspiration for how my project will look, and I plan on drawing from other course documents, such as the International Declaration of Human Rights, Kilbourne’s “Killing Us Softly,” Katz’s “Tough Guise,” the idea of “the single story” from Chimamanda Adichie, and any other class readings from which I can draw ideas to support my project.
I guess the main claim of my project will be that expectations for women at Miami University are stifling and cause for insecurity (I chose Miami specifically because I wanted to keep my topic narrow), and the expectations are dictated by something other than ourselves as young women. I will explore advertisements, media (reality shows, music videos, song lyrics), other people’s ideas of what a “Miami girl” is, and first-hand interactions with young women at Miami. What I hope to end up with is an illustration of Miami as the way I and many of my friends feel that it is: if you’re not skinny, tan, rich, and a binge drinker, then you’re not the typical Miami girl. I’m not trying to stereotype Miami or the young women here; I want to ask questions about why young women at Miami who don’t fit this mold feel like there is a mold to fit in the first place. What makes this kind of girl the “typical” Miami girl? Whose expectations does this girl live up to? Does this girl really exist? Why is it that whenever someone asks a Miami student what a “Miami girl” is, everyone knows exactly what they’re talking about?
My unique perspective: I stopped watching TV regularly at the age of 8, and I don’t listen to the radio; while I acknowledge that I am still bombarded with advertisements and messages about women/etc, I truly am somewhat naïve about it all. When I heard Rihanna’s song “Rude Boy” or whatever, I had to change the radio because I felt sick. When I flip through a US Weekly magazine (which I did for this project), I can recognize less than ten of the hundreds of celebrities in the magazine. I come from a low-income family (my famiy is about ~153% of the poverty line, where 200% is officially considered “low income”) and I go to Miami for free because my mom works in the library system. My parents are both highly educated; my father has two PhDs but does not work because he uses a wheelchair and doesn’t feel like he can really do anything. This is not a sob story – it’s a perspective that I think, or at least I have been lead to believe (and why??? what led me to believe this??) that is different from most Miami students in Oxford.
I hope to be able to use my perspective and draw on the experiences of others, as well as reliable statistics and class readings, to explore Miami culture and what it means to be a young woman on Oxford’s campus.
What Miami looks like to other people...
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Issues: Capitalism > Feminism, Humans, Justice...
Many people see globalization as this great force sweeping the world, the new Industrial Revolution, the next logical step in the advancement of humanity. In school, we’re taught to believe this, and that information has never been more readily available throughout the world, and the people can communicate with each other all over the world. We’re told that it’s beneficial to all societies, that it offers jobs that stimulate the economies of poor countries, and brings them “opportunity.” But, as Woodhull points out in the very beginning of her essay, “[most of these feminist websites] mistakenly assume that their sincere appeal to feminist action, self-help, and solidarity really addresses a worldwide audience” (IWS 255).
I’d like to ponder the following quote from Woodhull’s essay: “A transnational public sphere is important because it is rooted in civil society, that is, a social space that is controlled neither by the market nor by national government…” (IWS 256). I hate to be so skeptical, because I’m usually so optimistic, but does this kind of transnational public sphere really exist? How can it, unless globalization is redirected into a more collectivistic endeavor?
The individualistic focus of the “American Dream” scares me enough when it’s contained inside of the U.S., but the more I think about globalization, the more I feel like the US is in a constant war against US domination, and their (our?) only goal is to spread “democracy” and capitalism, because those two in conjunction seem to be just [sarcasm font] so effective [/sarcasm font]. But what do they achieve? And how do women fit into the picture – not just American women, but women of the third world, as mentioned in the readings? How is it beneficial that while major US corporations benefit from outsourcing, the factories discriminate against women in numerous ways, such as pregnancy tests and unlivable wages (Sex Discrimination in the Maquiladoras, IWS 467)? How can American feminists, the middle-class women with the time and skills to program a website directed at a world-wide audience, be so blind to the truth that women in the third world aren’t checking their emails for their feminist listserv updates?
I had to look up Juarez on Wikipedia before I read the graphic novel, and I’m glad I did, because it set up a good context in which to read the graphic novel. The examples of police reactions were horrifying, such as the one police officer telling the people searching for Claudia to “mind their own business” (I Live Here 3). Over 400 women have been victims of “sexual homicides” in Juarez. How can officials not do more to help? How can this mentality be perpetuated? Is it because stopping, intervening, giving women a voice, would have too many other expensive implications? If women were given a voice with which they could defend themselves against these kinds of acts, wouldn’t they then stand up to the Maquiladoras, and cost the multinational corporations incredible amounts of money because of the loss of cheap labor, the gain of justice?
I feel like my thoughts are all over the place, and I think it’s honestly because I’m distressed. Basically, my thoughts come down to this: globalization should really be called, “a war on US domination, and the relentless spread of capitalism, at any cost, in order to make sure that the US is the supreme world power.”
☹ I need a hug.
I’d like to ponder the following quote from Woodhull’s essay: “A transnational public sphere is important because it is rooted in civil society, that is, a social space that is controlled neither by the market nor by national government…” (IWS 256). I hate to be so skeptical, because I’m usually so optimistic, but does this kind of transnational public sphere really exist? How can it, unless globalization is redirected into a more collectivistic endeavor?
The individualistic focus of the “American Dream” scares me enough when it’s contained inside of the U.S., but the more I think about globalization, the more I feel like the US is in a constant war against US domination, and their (our?) only goal is to spread “democracy” and capitalism, because those two in conjunction seem to be just [sarcasm font] so effective [/sarcasm font]. But what do they achieve? And how do women fit into the picture – not just American women, but women of the third world, as mentioned in the readings? How is it beneficial that while major US corporations benefit from outsourcing, the factories discriminate against women in numerous ways, such as pregnancy tests and unlivable wages (Sex Discrimination in the Maquiladoras, IWS 467)? How can American feminists, the middle-class women with the time and skills to program a website directed at a world-wide audience, be so blind to the truth that women in the third world aren’t checking their emails for their feminist listserv updates?
I had to look up Juarez on Wikipedia before I read the graphic novel, and I’m glad I did, because it set up a good context in which to read the graphic novel. The examples of police reactions were horrifying, such as the one police officer telling the people searching for Claudia to “mind their own business” (I Live Here 3). Over 400 women have been victims of “sexual homicides” in Juarez. How can officials not do more to help? How can this mentality be perpetuated? Is it because stopping, intervening, giving women a voice, would have too many other expensive implications? If women were given a voice with which they could defend themselves against these kinds of acts, wouldn’t they then stand up to the Maquiladoras, and cost the multinational corporations incredible amounts of money because of the loss of cheap labor, the gain of justice?
I feel like my thoughts are all over the place, and I think it’s honestly because I’m distressed. Basically, my thoughts come down to this: globalization should really be called, “a war on US domination, and the relentless spread of capitalism, at any cost, in order to make sure that the US is the supreme world power.”
☹ I need a hug.
Monday, June 7, 2010
@GeorgesCuvier...
To: Mother Cuvier, mamacuvier@gmail.com
From: Laura Foley, foleyle@miamielementaryschool.net
Cc: Principal Hodge, principal@miamielementaryschool.net
Subject: Georges’s Dismissal On Grounds of Verbal Assault
Date: 2 November, 2009
Dear Mrs. Cuvier,
I regret to inform you that this is the last time I will be in contact with you concerning Georges’s misbehavior, although since I have not received a response from you yet, I will assume that you have not gotten any of my messages.
Starting in the beginning of the school year, Georges has been harassing one of the students in our class, Sarah Baartman. Sarah is from South Africa and she is of Khoisan descent, giving her characteristics that differ from many children here, but all of the children in our class and, indeed, in our school, have been very accepting of Sarah as a person. Georges, on the other hand, has not, at all.
On the first day of school, Georges announced to the class at recess that he had a “scientific” interest in Sarah. I asked him what he meant by that, unsure of what constituted a scientific interest for a fifth grader, and he told me that he wanted to examine her without her clothes on. I intervened immediately, and Georges had appointments with the school counselor to talk about sexual harassment, but that helped little. A few weeks later, Georges made some very disturbing remarks to other students about his plans to take plaster molds of her body and pickle other of her body parts after she dies (Sarah Baartman, Course Docs). These remarks caused Sarah much grief. When I learned of these remarks, I went straight to the principal, unsure of what I should do, since I had received no response from you after the voicemails I left on your home answering machine. The principal and I both agreed that Georges’s comments were very serious, and could not be ignored.
Georges recently informed our school counselor that his family saw “white people,” particularly people of European descent, as genetically superior to people who have darker skin or are from different areas of the world, and that wanting to gawk at an inferior person was normal. He also explained to me very calmly that he couldn’t help it if he was part of a genetically superior race than Sarah, and it was his duty to gather information on her to share with other people of his race. When I asked him where he learned these things, he said, “Why, everyone knows these things – it’s just the way they are!”
I am extremely disturbed by what seems to be an overtly racist atmosphere that you have provided for Georges’s growth at home. It is common knowledge today that “race” has no basis in genetics; in fact, there is more racial variation among members of the same “race” than between members of different “races.” Racial biologization is almost completely rejected by science now (Lopez, IWS, 53), so I am saddened that Georges is being provided with faulty information.
All in all, it is with regret that the administration must expel Georges from Miami Elementary School on the basis of harassment. I hope that this prompts growth for you, Georges, and all of your family, and I hope that you and Georges search for more accurate information. I also hope that Georges is one day able to reconcile with Sarah.
Sincerely,
Ms. Laura Foley
5th Grade
Miami Elementary School
From: Laura Foley, foleyle@miamielementaryschool.net
Cc: Principal Hodge, principal@miamielementaryschool.net
Subject: Georges’s Dismissal On Grounds of Verbal Assault
Date: 2 November, 2009
Dear Mrs. Cuvier,
I regret to inform you that this is the last time I will be in contact with you concerning Georges’s misbehavior, although since I have not received a response from you yet, I will assume that you have not gotten any of my messages.
Starting in the beginning of the school year, Georges has been harassing one of the students in our class, Sarah Baartman. Sarah is from South Africa and she is of Khoisan descent, giving her characteristics that differ from many children here, but all of the children in our class and, indeed, in our school, have been very accepting of Sarah as a person. Georges, on the other hand, has not, at all.
On the first day of school, Georges announced to the class at recess that he had a “scientific” interest in Sarah. I asked him what he meant by that, unsure of what constituted a scientific interest for a fifth grader, and he told me that he wanted to examine her without her clothes on. I intervened immediately, and Georges had appointments with the school counselor to talk about sexual harassment, but that helped little. A few weeks later, Georges made some very disturbing remarks to other students about his plans to take plaster molds of her body and pickle other of her body parts after she dies (Sarah Baartman, Course Docs). These remarks caused Sarah much grief. When I learned of these remarks, I went straight to the principal, unsure of what I should do, since I had received no response from you after the voicemails I left on your home answering machine. The principal and I both agreed that Georges’s comments were very serious, and could not be ignored.
Georges recently informed our school counselor that his family saw “white people,” particularly people of European descent, as genetically superior to people who have darker skin or are from different areas of the world, and that wanting to gawk at an inferior person was normal. He also explained to me very calmly that he couldn’t help it if he was part of a genetically superior race than Sarah, and it was his duty to gather information on her to share with other people of his race. When I asked him where he learned these things, he said, “Why, everyone knows these things – it’s just the way they are!”
I am extremely disturbed by what seems to be an overtly racist atmosphere that you have provided for Georges’s growth at home. It is common knowledge today that “race” has no basis in genetics; in fact, there is more racial variation among members of the same “race” than between members of different “races.” Racial biologization is almost completely rejected by science now (Lopez, IWS, 53), so I am saddened that Georges is being provided with faulty information.
All in all, it is with regret that the administration must expel Georges from Miami Elementary School on the basis of harassment. I hope that this prompts growth for you, Georges, and all of your family, and I hope that you and Georges search for more accurate information. I also hope that Georges is one day able to reconcile with Sarah.
Sincerely,
Ms. Laura Foley
5th Grade
Miami Elementary School
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Questions for Demere
The DSM-IV lists gender identity disorder as a pathology, assuming that it can be treated or dealt with in some way. The DSM says, "To make the diagnosis, there must be evidence of clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning (Criteria D)," criterion D being "D. The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning" (DSM-IV). This criterion is present in many diagnostic criteria for pathologies listed in the DSM, not just GID. So here are my questions:
Is GID in the DSM because it causes distress, or does it cause distress because it's in the DSM?
We can look at this through a historical lens and view homosexuality as it existed before it was taken out of the DSM; it was much more unacceptable back then than it is now. Could that be why homosexuality caused distress at the time? Did the distress lessen once it was out of the DSM?
If we remove GID from the DSM, will that de-stigmatize the trans community and make transgenderism and transsexuality more acceptable?
I'm asking this because when we talked about GID being in the DSM, at first I thought, “Well maybe it’s in the DSM because it causes distress, like many other listings in the DSM.” But once I started to really think on it, I realized that it could in fact be the other way around! Something that Feinberg said in hir essay comes to mind as I think on these questions: "As long as people try to bring me into focus using only those two lenses, I will always appear to be an enigma" (Feinberg, 7). As long as we try to bring all people into focus using only the lenses we’ve been taught over and over again are right – healthy or sick, man or woman, normal or abnormal, like us or not like us – people will continue to be devalued and marginalized.
Is GID in the DSM because it causes distress, or does it cause distress because it's in the DSM?
We can look at this through a historical lens and view homosexuality as it existed before it was taken out of the DSM; it was much more unacceptable back then than it is now. Could that be why homosexuality caused distress at the time? Did the distress lessen once it was out of the DSM?
If we remove GID from the DSM, will that de-stigmatize the trans community and make transgenderism and transsexuality more acceptable?
I'm asking this because when we talked about GID being in the DSM, at first I thought, “Well maybe it’s in the DSM because it causes distress, like many other listings in the DSM.” But once I started to really think on it, I realized that it could in fact be the other way around! Something that Feinberg said in hir essay comes to mind as I think on these questions: "As long as people try to bring me into focus using only those two lenses, I will always appear to be an enigma" (Feinberg, 7). As long as we try to bring all people into focus using only the lenses we’ve been taught over and over again are right – healthy or sick, man or woman, normal or abnormal, like us or not like us – people will continue to be devalued and marginalized.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Other
Whenever I fill out a form for something, there always seems to be an "other" option for many of the categories, such as occupation, education, race, household income. However, this "other" category on forms is never seen for the sex question; according to these forms, you're either male or female, or your form is incomplete.
Leslie Feinberg's essay We Are All Works In Progress was a very compelling and informative piece on the struggles faced by people in the trans community. The most important thing that I learned from this essay is that you have to abandon fear if you want to make any progress. As silly as this may sound, sometimes I regret that I am not a woman of color, or a lesbian, or a transgender person, or someone who otherwise lives in the interstices of categories, because it makes me feel like I have nothing to fight for, and it makes me fear that I’m not “different enough” to discuss differences with people who are perceived as “more different” than me. But Feinberg completely turned that around, when ze stated that "if you do not identify as transgender or transsexual or intersexual, your life is diminished by our oppressions well…Your individual journey to express yourself is shunted into one of two deeply carved ruts, and the social baggage you are handed is already packed" (Feinberg, 6). Ze is totally right. While I currently don't feel particularly oppressed in my life, I still have to stay within the very narrow path of "woman" in order to, according to the world, be successful, happy, and truly fulfilled. And to make progress in this movement, I have to abandon the fear that members of the movement would reject me for not belonging to the trans community. The trans community has to abandon the fear that they will not make progress. As for the rest of the world, I think they have to abandon the fear that different means wrong, and welcome change.
The Shuklenk, et al article discusses genetic research on homosexuality and uncovers yet another way we try to compartmentalize sexuality and what “causes” variations in sex and sexuality. The article said something about biases that really struck me: “…it is unlikely that the sexual orientation research of any scientist (even one who is homosexual) will escape some taint of homophobia” (Shuklenk et al, from IWS, p. 48). This interested me because I had not previously thought of what a homosexual scientist’s reasoning would be for wanting to do genetic research on homosexuality. But after I read both this article and Feinberg’s essay, it occurred to me that a homosexual scientist conducting research on homosexuality seems to be just as compelled to find an “answer” as a heterosexual scientist, which means that the homosexual scientist still believes there’s an explainable reason for his/her/[other!] difference, or that the difference needs to have a reason. I wonder if we will ever reach a stage where we believe differences exist because human existence is an extensive pallet of experiences, not because something went wrong somewhere to cause the difference.
Trying to erase the line between man and woman, and open the eyes of the world to the idea that there are not just two compartments, but many compartments…that's a task that will take a lot of time. But is worth fighting for, for the sake of justice and equality and celebration of humanity.
Great 20/20 story on Transgender Children: read or watch
Leslie Feinberg's essay We Are All Works In Progress was a very compelling and informative piece on the struggles faced by people in the trans community. The most important thing that I learned from this essay is that you have to abandon fear if you want to make any progress. As silly as this may sound, sometimes I regret that I am not a woman of color, or a lesbian, or a transgender person, or someone who otherwise lives in the interstices of categories, because it makes me feel like I have nothing to fight for, and it makes me fear that I’m not “different enough” to discuss differences with people who are perceived as “more different” than me. But Feinberg completely turned that around, when ze stated that "if you do not identify as transgender or transsexual or intersexual, your life is diminished by our oppressions well…Your individual journey to express yourself is shunted into one of two deeply carved ruts, and the social baggage you are handed is already packed" (Feinberg, 6). Ze is totally right. While I currently don't feel particularly oppressed in my life, I still have to stay within the very narrow path of "woman" in order to, according to the world, be successful, happy, and truly fulfilled. And to make progress in this movement, I have to abandon the fear that members of the movement would reject me for not belonging to the trans community. The trans community has to abandon the fear that they will not make progress. As for the rest of the world, I think they have to abandon the fear that different means wrong, and welcome change.
The Shuklenk, et al article discusses genetic research on homosexuality and uncovers yet another way we try to compartmentalize sexuality and what “causes” variations in sex and sexuality. The article said something about biases that really struck me: “…it is unlikely that the sexual orientation research of any scientist (even one who is homosexual) will escape some taint of homophobia” (Shuklenk et al, from IWS, p. 48). This interested me because I had not previously thought of what a homosexual scientist’s reasoning would be for wanting to do genetic research on homosexuality. But after I read both this article and Feinberg’s essay, it occurred to me that a homosexual scientist conducting research on homosexuality seems to be just as compelled to find an “answer” as a heterosexual scientist, which means that the homosexual scientist still believes there’s an explainable reason for his/her/[other!] difference, or that the difference needs to have a reason. I wonder if we will ever reach a stage where we believe differences exist because human existence is an extensive pallet of experiences, not because something went wrong somewhere to cause the difference.
Trying to erase the line between man and woman, and open the eyes of the world to the idea that there are not just two compartments, but many compartments…that's a task that will take a lot of time. But is worth fighting for, for the sake of justice and equality and celebration of humanity.
Great 20/20 story on Transgender Children: read or watch
Saturday, May 29, 2010
It's blooming season!
In Mapping the Margins, Kimberlé Crenshaw asks readers to view violence towards women through an intersectional lens, incorporating specifically race along with gender, which sets up a helpful frame for reading Helen Clarkson’s War Crimes and Dorothy Allison’s Two Or Three Things I Know For Sure.
Clarkson’s article was extremely disturbing and sad, but there’s no way I can say what I’d like to say about it in 500 words or less, so I’ll skip to Allison…
Just because Dorothy Allison’s story is not about the struggles of a woman of color does not mean that the intersectional approach needs to be abandoned – as we have discussed in class, race is just one aspect of intersectionality that applies to the concept of being a woman. In Dorothy’s case, class and sexuality play a huge role in the violence perpetrated against her throughout her life. In terms of gender roles, she was not what others expected her to be as a little girl: she was “mean and stubborn,” among other things, qualities which irritated her stepfather into wanting to exercise control over her. When it comes to class, she characterizes her family as “peasants.” I would never assert that child rape does not happen in middle-class households, but I believe her living situation aggravated the abuse – she had no option but to keep returning home to her abusive stepfather.
“Because of their intersectional identity as both women and of color within discourses that are shaped to respond to one or the other, women of color are marginalized within both” (Crenshaw, IWS 201)
I have always recognized that antiracist groups and feminist groups existed to attempt to address the problems of racism and sexism, but I never thought that instead of women of color benefiting from both movements, they would actually be marginalized by both of them. I think the Crenshaw article makes a very clear point that is not often (almost never?) made in our society: overlap into more than one category does not mean that you benefit from the movements that benefit those specific categories. It seems to me that people who don’t take the time to educate themselves and listen to other possibilities end up perpetuating the myth that everyone is being taken care of by some movement or another. This perpetuation can be completely accidental, too – take me, for example. Before I read the Crenshaw article and before I was introduced to the idea of intersectionality and life in the “interstices” (discussed in Alsultany’s article), I probably would have assumed that a woman of color benefits from both the feminist movement and antiracist movements. Was my ignorance an act of hate? I would certainly like to hope that it was not at all. But the point is, marginalized voices are not heard unless people go looking for them – people like Crenshaw, or students of women’s studies. Not everyone is a student of women’s studies, which means the voices need outlets through more people. The ones who are already hearing just need to keep listening and keep passing on the story.
Clarkson’s article was extremely disturbing and sad, but there’s no way I can say what I’d like to say about it in 500 words or less, so I’ll skip to Allison…
Just because Dorothy Allison’s story is not about the struggles of a woman of color does not mean that the intersectional approach needs to be abandoned – as we have discussed in class, race is just one aspect of intersectionality that applies to the concept of being a woman. In Dorothy’s case, class and sexuality play a huge role in the violence perpetrated against her throughout her life. In terms of gender roles, she was not what others expected her to be as a little girl: she was “mean and stubborn,” among other things, qualities which irritated her stepfather into wanting to exercise control over her. When it comes to class, she characterizes her family as “peasants.” I would never assert that child rape does not happen in middle-class households, but I believe her living situation aggravated the abuse – she had no option but to keep returning home to her abusive stepfather.
“Because of their intersectional identity as both women and of color within discourses that are shaped to respond to one or the other, women of color are marginalized within both” (Crenshaw, IWS 201)
I have always recognized that antiracist groups and feminist groups existed to attempt to address the problems of racism and sexism, but I never thought that instead of women of color benefiting from both movements, they would actually be marginalized by both of them. I think the Crenshaw article makes a very clear point that is not often (almost never?) made in our society: overlap into more than one category does not mean that you benefit from the movements that benefit those specific categories. It seems to me that people who don’t take the time to educate themselves and listen to other possibilities end up perpetuating the myth that everyone is being taken care of by some movement or another. This perpetuation can be completely accidental, too – take me, for example. Before I read the Crenshaw article and before I was introduced to the idea of intersectionality and life in the “interstices” (discussed in Alsultany’s article), I probably would have assumed that a woman of color benefits from both the feminist movement and antiracist movements. Was my ignorance an act of hate? I would certainly like to hope that it was not at all. But the point is, marginalized voices are not heard unless people go looking for them – people like Crenshaw, or students of women’s studies. Not everyone is a student of women’s studies, which means the voices need outlets through more people. The ones who are already hearing just need to keep listening and keep passing on the story.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Cracks.
One theme that the Alsultany, Martin, and Clare articles all share is the idea that none of these authors fit into a neat category, and therefore are often placed into categories that they don’t feel do justice to their true identity and what really matters. For Evelyn Alsultany, this is played out when strangers try to “pigeonhole” her into a racial category or easily digestible ethnic background. Lauren Martin experiences that same racial and ethnic pigeonholing, and also experiences gender and sexuality categorizing as well. Eli Clare experiences unwanted categorizing into brackets of sexuality, gender, and physical and cognitive ability.
My first reaction when I was reading the articles was this: I imagined that “we” (the people who don’t experience significant blurring of category lines) line people up on a giant sidewalk, and the people who fit into certain categories are placed on certain sidewalk squares, while the people who don’t fit neatly into a particular sidewalk square are forced to live in the cracks, or the interstices (“los intersticios”).
My father uses a wheelchair due to difficulty with AVM 20 years ago, and his soft pallet also droops, making him difficult to understand to people who aren't used to his voice. His speaking voice leads many people to the conclusion that he has cognitive disabilities, which is not true at all, and has been a major source of frustration for him and for the people who know and love him, especially because he has 2 PhDs and is extremely intelligent. But growing up in a gawker society is not easy for anyone. Even as the child of a person who uses a wheelchair, I still face the fear of being labeled as a gawker, because nobody is taught how to not gawk, or at least not seem like you’re gawking, or not be perceived as if you were gawking. Even though my father is not a huge fan of using a wheelchair, I still link wheelchairs with my love for my daddy, and summer days I spent riding on his lap in the park, and rollerblading while holding on to the back of his chair; because of these memories, I always feel the urge to smile when I see a person using a wheelchair, especially a young person around campus. But what’s not fair is that I could be perceived as gawking, or smiling out of pity, or smiling because I don’t want to be awkward, or smiling because I don’t want to just stare, or just look away. Growing up in a gawker society is not easy, even for those who seem to fit into neat categories: a white, straight, woman, not too ugly, not too fat, with socially acceptable goals and desires. Does that kind of person never live in the cracks, just because she seems to fit neatly into the cubbies? Are these categories into which I fit the most important part of my identity, or is it still something more important? Is it fair for me to ask these questions, considering that I don’t know what it’s like to live in the interstices? (Or do I?...)
Alsultany says on page 293, “When we’re not acknowledged as complex unitary subjects, we become caught in los intersticios, haciendo caras [making faces] to get by.” But my question is this: just because I don’t seem to live in the interstices, does that mean that I am acknowledged as a complex unitary subject? Who acknowledges these subjects? And what about the acknowledger? Is the acknowledger acknowledged as a complex unitary subject?
Clare asks in his article, “The gawkers never get it right, but what I want to know is this: Will you?” (224, 227). I want to say yes, because I understand – I am not gawked at, but I understand. But will you give me the chance to understand, and to prove that I do, or is any acknowledgement of difference automatically regarded as gawking? What can I possibly say or do that will be neither treating you have no differences, and treating you like your differences make you an untouchable “other”? Where is that middle ground, and how can we help people find it?
People discussed in Clare's article that I had to look up:
Brandon Teena
Billy Tipton
My first reaction when I was reading the articles was this: I imagined that “we” (the people who don’t experience significant blurring of category lines) line people up on a giant sidewalk, and the people who fit into certain categories are placed on certain sidewalk squares, while the people who don’t fit neatly into a particular sidewalk square are forced to live in the cracks, or the interstices (“los intersticios”).
My father uses a wheelchair due to difficulty with AVM 20 years ago, and his soft pallet also droops, making him difficult to understand to people who aren't used to his voice. His speaking voice leads many people to the conclusion that he has cognitive disabilities, which is not true at all, and has been a major source of frustration for him and for the people who know and love him, especially because he has 2 PhDs and is extremely intelligent. But growing up in a gawker society is not easy for anyone. Even as the child of a person who uses a wheelchair, I still face the fear of being labeled as a gawker, because nobody is taught how to not gawk, or at least not seem like you’re gawking, or not be perceived as if you were gawking. Even though my father is not a huge fan of using a wheelchair, I still link wheelchairs with my love for my daddy, and summer days I spent riding on his lap in the park, and rollerblading while holding on to the back of his chair; because of these memories, I always feel the urge to smile when I see a person using a wheelchair, especially a young person around campus. But what’s not fair is that I could be perceived as gawking, or smiling out of pity, or smiling because I don’t want to be awkward, or smiling because I don’t want to just stare, or just look away. Growing up in a gawker society is not easy, even for those who seem to fit into neat categories: a white, straight, woman, not too ugly, not too fat, with socially acceptable goals and desires. Does that kind of person never live in the cracks, just because she seems to fit neatly into the cubbies? Are these categories into which I fit the most important part of my identity, or is it still something more important? Is it fair for me to ask these questions, considering that I don’t know what it’s like to live in the interstices? (Or do I?...)
Alsultany says on page 293, “When we’re not acknowledged as complex unitary subjects, we become caught in los intersticios, haciendo caras [making faces] to get by.” But my question is this: just because I don’t seem to live in the interstices, does that mean that I am acknowledged as a complex unitary subject? Who acknowledges these subjects? And what about the acknowledger? Is the acknowledger acknowledged as a complex unitary subject?
Clare asks in his article, “The gawkers never get it right, but what I want to know is this: Will you?” (224, 227). I want to say yes, because I understand – I am not gawked at, but I understand. But will you give me the chance to understand, and to prove that I do, or is any acknowledgement of difference automatically regarded as gawking? What can I possibly say or do that will be neither treating you have no differences, and treating you like your differences make you an untouchable “other”? Where is that middle ground, and how can we help people find it?
People discussed in Clare's article that I had to look up:
Brandon Teena
Billy Tipton
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
More Volume, Please.
Ni Hao, WMS201ers...I am joining late due to a trip to China, so I'm going to try to post three things about myself...
1. I love music more than just about anything, and I like it loud, hence the title of this post. (The title also applies to my hair.)
2. I sing in Miami's only co-ed a cappella group, The Mergers, and they are my babies.
3. My favorite color is purple.
1. I love music more than just about anything, and I like it loud, hence the title of this post. (The title also applies to my hair.)
2. I sing in Miami's only co-ed a cappella group, The Mergers, and they are my babies.
3. My favorite color is purple.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
