Newsflash: “The Boys Have Fallen Behind”

In his OpEd article, featured in The New York Times on Sunday, March 28, 2010, Nicholas Kristof shares somewhat surprising news: boys have fallen behind girls in school. Girls in the United States and other Western countries have surpassed boys in verbal skills, and are roughly even with them in math. Kristof points to the latest statistics issued by the Center on Education Policy which demonstrates lower achievement by males in reading in each and every U.S. state and in each level tested: elementary, middle and high school.

Using verbal skills as the main issue in the gender gap, the author draws other stats from these fundamental findings. They include female dominance in National Honor Societies and the number of bachelor and master degrees earned. Certainly I am not against narrowing the reading gap, but find it interesting how much attention this gap demands when the math achievement gap between males and females went years without much attention. In my years as a middle school student, girls excelled in reading and English classes, while boys tended to dominate at math. I cannot attest to this discrepancy as it carries on to high school years, for I attended an all-girls high school. Yet in my SAT prep courses, I recall my fellow females having less trouble with the verbal sections than with math. Why, then, is it only recently that so much attention is paid to this issue?

Only on the very top of the charts do boys beat out the girls, especially in math. In 2009, boys earned 62% of triple perfect 800 SAT scores (that is, a perfect 2400 on the SAT), with 69% of all math 800 scores also registered by the boys. Yet this dominance relates to very few students. In reading this part of the article, I could not help but think that the boys with these perfect scores have access to SAT preparatory courses and remarkable educational opportunities. The broader results regarding reading cover most of the general school population across the nation.

Some argue that the world is more verbal and boys have not adjusted as well to this reality. The method to learn these skills is less action-oriented and may bore the boys who turn off early, thus escalating their reading problems in middle and high school. Using research by Richard Whitmire, Kristof describes the lower grade point averages for boys, and the higher likelihood that boys will repeat a grade, be suspended and/or ultimately, drop out of school. Whitmire thus suggests using more adventure, even “gross-out” books to get boys reading. One website that sorts books in ways to appeal to boys even list titles that contain “at least one explosion.” I can readily understand how the reading problem stems from the early school years and agree that educators may need to use more appealing means to focus boys on the reading task at hand. Yet what does that say about gendered education methods? If we begin to cater to boys’ special needs for adventure and excitement, how are we leaving out the girls? I feel that the use of technology may be used to enhance the reading skills of males, rather than a focus on highly gendered genres of literature. Many males are game-oriented, and using games that require a combination of reading and button pushing may engage boys and help them improve their skills while they enjoy the game technology. I prefer this solution as a supplement at home or after school to the “gross-out” books suggested in the article, as these will only lower expectations of males as they make the leap, in literature and in life.

In my last NewsFlash, I discussed the gender inequalities that still exist in the working world. Though women in general have made great gains in the workplace, we have a long way to go; today, men grossly overpower certain fields, as even Kristof notes that “men are still hugely overrepresented in Congress, on executive boards, and in the corridors of power.” As Critenden mentions in her article, “The Mommy Tax,” measuring the gender gap usually only compares wages of men and of women who work like men, free of family and domestic responsibilities. Critendon writes, “the average earnings of all female workers in 1999 were 59 percent of men’s earnings” (93). Our class discussion on wage differences between men and women in the very same fields was just as eye-opening. Clearly, be it in teaching, law, table waiting or human relations, men are earning more than women, though both sexes devote an equal amount of time and effort to the job.

Kristof ignores the irony of this gender gap and instead focuses on how decelerated male performance will affect the fate of the U.S. He believes “our future depends on making the best use of human capital we can, whether it belongs to girls or boys.” Yet I feel that he is only concerned that boys are failing because these boys will not become the aforementioned men at the head of business or with political power. Not once does he celebrate the intelligence of girls across the country and in other Western nations. His male-oriented article neglects to appreciate that female educational advances will have an immense impact on the future of Western nations. As women continue to excel in school, they will assume more prominent roles in what Kristof calls “the corridors of power,” spreading positive female influences and conceptions all over the world.

News Flash: Abortion and Hormone Therapy, Who Pays?

The 1997 Oscar nominated Simon West film, Con Air, is a story of an ex-convict being transferred home on an airplane that is then taken over by other convicted felons. One of the peripheral characters is a transvestite named Ramon “Sally-Can’t Dance” Marinez played by Renoly Santiago. Check out a picture of the character on the right. While this effeminate prisoner serves as comic relief in the film, his character brings an interesting conundrum to light: the issue of transgender inmates and how they maintain their sexuality while in prison.

On March 31st, 2010 in Madison, Wisconsin, a judge declared inmates have the right to hormone therapy paid for by state issued health care. The New York Times published the article “Judge: Transgender Inmates Have Right to Therapy” by the Associated Press discussing the victory that American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin and Lambda Legal, a national gay rights group, won for transgender prisoners in Wisconsin. Continuing the discussion of the government’s role in deeming what Americans can and cannot do with our bodies, the plight of these inmates aligns closely with that of women seeking reproductive rights while on Medicade. In a case where individuals’ well being are the responsibility of the state, where should government funding for medical procedures end?

Gwendolyn Mink in “The Lady and the Tramp (II): Feminist Welfare Politics, Poor Single Mothers, and the Challenge of Welfare Justice” discusses the implications of welfare on poor women and the de facto control the government has over individuals bodies. She uses welfare as a way to talk about freedom and choice, or lack there of. Mink says, “We should not think of welfare as a subsidy for dependence but as insurance for the rights that comprise independence” (Mink 1998:59). In this regard, welfare serves as a control for the socioeconomic status of an individual in order for him or her to completely utilize his or her freedom. Welfare recipients are then seen not as a burden upon the state, but rather the norm. This guarantees all people the right to express their full freedom regardless of their socioeconomic status, as Mink argues is protected by the constitution. If we use this logic to look at the case of inmates with gender identity disorder and women on Medicade who want to have an abortion, we see these individuals not as deviant but as the norm. They are individuals who want use all of their liberties as United States citizens. People who can afford or have the ability to pay for these operations on their own are then very luck, but not the standard.

The original authors of the law, which prohibits transgender inmates from receiving taxpayer-funded hormone therapy, are appealing the decision made by U.S. District Judge Charles Clevert who declared it unconstitutional and unenforceable. They are arguing to Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen that this overturn will soon allow for taxpayer dollars to go to sex-change operations, which Clevert did not address in his three-page decision. According to Mink’s logic, this fear is un-American because it denies some individuals freedom to explore their sexuality while granting that liberty to others. Clevert agrees, claiming the law violated the constitutional ban on “cruel and unusual punishment” because the disregard for inmates with gender identity disorder denied them medical attention that was already determined necessary by medical care professionals. During the lawsuit, Clevert placed a temporary order forbidding prison guards from stopping hormone treatment for inmates already receiving it. The law was originally supported by both parties and signed by Governor Jim Doyle after an inmate tried to sue a prison to pay for his sex change (Associated Press 2010).

Following the famous Roe vs. Wade court decision, Medicade covered abortions for women without any consideration. However in 1977 the Hyde amendment began the long succession of rulings that slowly chipped away women’s rights to have abortions, especially those on Medicade. As of September 1993, Medicade covers abortion only in cases of rape, incest or life endangerment (NAF 2010). In this case the government refuses to pay for medical treatment because some individuals deem the medical procedure controversial. Their argument is that pro-life believers do not want their money paying for abortions. While this makes sense on one level, the practical implication of it creates a situation where wealthy women are able to obtain abortions and poor women are not. It also puts the government in a position of power denying poor women the choice to have an abortion. The inmates are also denied the choice to fully explore and understand their sexuality.

In both of these situations, men and women who are dependent on the government for medical attention are denied procedures that seem optional because of the controversy surrounding the medical assistance and because of the expense. In the case of hormone therapy the individual does not appear to have a life-threatening disease so medical attention paid for by taxes seem excessive. However, I wonder what would happen if gender identity disorder were a physical as oppose to a mental disease. If inmates with gender identity disorder had an external symptom like the loss of a limb, and this law denied them help, in lets say the form of a prosthetic, it would more obviously seem like cruel and unusual punishment. In the case of abortion, poor women are continually disadvantaged because they are denied access to medical care that will better help them manage their lives. If the women are in a situation where they are on Medicade and do not think they could support another person, abortion is a logical explanation. However, by denying poor women access to abortions, the government continues to oppress these women because they are deprived of the same financial freedoms women who can afford abortions enjoy. The system also works against these poor women because it creates greater strains on the women, as more children will be dependant upon her.

With the passage of the new health care public option, Obama had the opportunity to change the ideology around controversial medical procedures. He could have made all situations pro-choice, allowing federal funds to give individuals the opportunity to choose their course of action. However, in order to pass the act, the health care plan took a conservative approach to many controversial issues such as abortion and, as gender transition is rarely covered, the public option mimicked the transgender policies of current health care insurance agencies. The public option did create a point of weakness in the oppressive structure for changes in policy, but in this first step progress for reproductive and transgender rights have been left out. I encourage activists to use the public option as a starting point for pushing for all individuals to enjoy their full freedoms!

References

Associated Press. 2010. “Judge: Transgender Inmates Have Right to Therapy.” The New York Times. Retrieved April 11, 2010 (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/04/01/us/AP-US-Transgender-Inmates-Wisconsin.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=hormones&st=cse).

Human Rights Campaign 2010. “Health Insurance Discrimination for Transgender People.” Washington, DC: Human Rights Campaign. Retrieved April 13, 2010 (http://www.hrc.org/issues/9568.htm).

Mink, Gwendolyn. 1998. “The Lady and the Trap (II): Feminist Welfare Politics, Poor Single Mothers, and the Challenge of Welfare Justice.” Feminist Studies 24(1):55-64.

National Abortion Federation 2010. “Public Funding for Abortion: Medicaid and the Hyde Amendment.” Washington, DC: National Abortion Federation. Retrieved April 13, 2010 (http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/public_funding.html).

Welfare: To Fare Well as an Independent

Gwendoyln Mink's article "The Lady and the Tramp (II): Feminist Welfare Politics, Poor Single Mothers, and the Challenge of Welfare Justice" posed some interesting ruminations about what it means to be a feminist and what it means to be pro-choice. She reprimands middle and upper class white women who claim they are feminist but focus mainly on their own identity politics . She also condemns herself and other scholars and activists in her same situation who fight for poor women but will probably never receive a welfare check in their lives. Both of these arguments are valid, but combined they leave little room for wealth (or semi-wealthy) women to fight for poor women. If poor women cannot fight for themselves because they need to work at least 2 jobs (a paying one and caring for their children) who is supposed to fight their battles? Mink makes upper class women (or maybe just me) feel both guilty for not helping and guilty for helping when their help is condescending.

Mink makes an interesting argument that I am calling pro-choice; she promotes women's ability to choose to raise their children themselves or to go to work outside of the home. She also says that single men would benefit from childcare wages, which would encourage more men to stay home and raise their children. I think this is the true embodiment of feminism and freedom, the ability to choose the life you would like to lead regardless of the opportunities you have been given. A critic would say this puts a burden on other women and men taxpayers who must then support you financially. I argue against that because if everyone agreed to give a steady small amount, none of the taxed people would feel a burden and all of the people receiving the welfare would be able to have access to the assistance they need, which in turn will help them leave the welfare program.

The most interesting quote from the article was "We should not think of welfare as a subsidy for dependence but as insurance for the rights that comprise independence" (Mink:59). I never thought of welfare as a way to insure independence, especially since it deems people dependent. However, welfare allows people to be individuals and dependent on the U.S. government, not another individual. It gives women and men the opportunity to exist as citizens in conversation with their government and not through a mediator.

Newsflash: “Nighttime March on Campus Spreads Sexual Assault Awareness”…Or does it?

Newsflash: “Nighttime March on Campus Spreads Sexual Assault Awareness”…Or does it?

Link to article: http://www.maroon-news.com/nighttime-march-on-campus-spreads-sexual-assault-awareness-1.1311742

I really wish I could have been a part of this march on Monday, April 5^th but sadly I was out of town. For those who missed it (like myself) a group of one hundred women and men joined together in a march to raise awareness of sexual assault on campus. And this is where my argument comes in: why did only one hundred people participate in this? The absurd amount of sexual assault that has happened on this campus has affected all of us. And yet, only one hundred students of the 3,000 that go here participated in the march. My question is why? Why such a little number? Was the event not publicized enough? Or are people really not appalled by what’s going on on our campus? I think it’s a little bit of both.

The surprising statistics that came out in this year’s Campus Climate Survey should be discussed amongst the entire student body, especially men. All classes should have been talking about this issue and, yet, the only classes that have talked about this that I have been in are both Women’s Studies classes of which women make up the majority of students. Yes, there are a few men who have really spoken out about this issue but I bet the majority of those marchers were women. And to be frank, it’s the men at this school who need to be educated about sexual assault because more often then not, perpetrators tend to be male. It’s those ignorant boys, like the ones who yelled ““You’re making me horny!” and “Shut the hell up!” that need to be educated about sexual assault. Yes, I understand the school has implemented a “mandatory” lecture on sexual assault but I know for a fact that the majority of students never bothered to go because it was never enforced.

I think another problem is publicity. News that this march was going to happen only seemed to be publicized through the Women’s Studies email outreach and posters around school. Events like this should be emailed to the entire student body. In no way by saying this am I criticizing the march’s organizers; I commend them for started this in the first place. I only wish that it was more broadly publicized and encouraged by faculty and other students.

The Speak-Out and the march have both been two truly important steps to raising awareness on this campus; however, I think the effort needs to be expanded for the whole school to hear and participate in. When I heard about the Speak Out, I really expected it to be ground breaking. Before the Speak Out, I imagined hoards of students and professors walking out of class and joining in the protest. I expected the academic quad to be packed with concerned students and professors. But in reality, only about 50 students were listening and while 50 are better than nothing it is still not enough. When racist slurs were written on the bathrooms of Alumni Hall last year, there was a huge gathering in the chapel in which all different groups of students (for example, Greek and non-Greek) gathered. A huge presence that is missing from sexual assault awareness gatherings are members of Greek life—the institution that, frankly, is somewhat responsible for the sexual assaults that occur on this campus and the way men and women interact and are treated. In a brown bag last semester in which we discussed how to better improve the sexual atmosphere at Colgate, a faculty member stated that it used to be mandatory for all fraternities to go through sexual assault awareness and prevention lectures-Why does this no longer exist?

At the Speak Out, I personally recall one extremely emotional student speaking up about how she was fingered in the Jug by some random dude. I heard whispers around me from both men and women students saying “Yeah, that happened to me too, I never thought of it as sexually assault. I mean it happens all the time. Who cares?.” Situations like that happen ALL THE TIME at the jug and frat parties. It happens so often, that people are blind to the fact that it is sexual assault and is WRONG. We must let the perpetrators and those who watch assault going on and say nothing that this behavior is NOT ok and NOT normal (no matter, sadly, how often it happens on this campus). Colgate’s next step is to organize a sexual assault awareness demonstration that truly reaches out to the entire student body because until awareness reaches everyone, sexual assault on this campus will continue.

Lead Post for 4/13

While reading "The Mommy Tax," at first I thought, wow Critenden makes a really good point. But then I turned to page 90 where she talks about the difference between the French and US government and how supposedly France better supports Moms. And then I thought, hmmm...what would I rather?: lose my money through the "mommy tax" or lose money by paying actual taxes in order to support other Moms? Sure, as Critenden states, the "mommy tax on French women is...one of the lowest in the world" (90). What Critenden fails to mention, however, is that France has one of the highest tax rates in the world. I'm gonna be selfish and take my chances--i'd rather the "mommy tax." Because even if I was a Mom, I still would have the potential to earn alot of money and would rather not see more of my income going to yet another taxation funded program. I'd rather choose the capitalist system we have than the socialist economic system of France, because, frankly, I should be able to keep at least some of my hard earned money. That way, at least I'll make some money before kids too.

Addressing Ehrenreich's article, I am appauled at the way Merry Maids are forced to scrub on their hands and knees. How incredibly degrading! And the fact that women hire women to clean on their hands and knees is appauling! What happened to sisterhood here? (Note photo of Merry Maid cleaning on her hands and knees...think she's really as "Merry" as she appears? Doubtful!)

Another thing that came to mind as I was reading this article was an experience I had last year while staying at a friends place in Central Park West, NYC. I was shocked and appauled by the number of minority nannies pushing around white babies--I was even more shocked by the fact that the mothers clad in their designer sunglasses and handbags were right, talking on their blackberry, while the minority nanny carried/pushed in a stroller the white, rich woman's kids. My friend embarrassingly pointed out that most of these white, rich mom's were housewives anyway but simply hired a nanny so they didn't have to deal with their own, whining, spoiled rotten kids. Being from Buffalo, this was a complete culture shock to me. White, spoiled kids then grow up to believe minority women are meant to serve them. And this is the educated, sophisticated New York City I'm talking about not some "confederate flag" bearers as Ehrenreich mentions on page 61. Stories like Elizabeth Senghor (pg 64) may be more common than we think.

Hakim-Dyce did not have a "Reality Check"--she made a choice to be a go-go dancer. Considering she had a college education, Dyce had many more job options; thus, frankly, it is difficult to feel sympathy for her.

Rangel makes some excellent points in her essay. It is about time for College institutions to modify. It's surprising that still today, class is not considered nearly as much as race, gender, and sexual preference, when in reality it is class that most greatly divides humanity. The fact that she was not granted the same benefits of traditional students is absurd. I'm curious if any colleges, Colgate included, has addressed the modifications suggested by Rangel.

Modern Family-Lead Post for 4/6

Until reading Ettelbeck, I had never realized that gay men and lesbian women may be opposed to marriage rights. Her article surprised me, for I cannot understand her belief in the importance of remaining unmarried, as marriage would be an injustice to her lifestyle. I find her argument to lack conviction for she is opposed to marriage for the sameness and assimilation it brings to gays as they 'enter' mainstream culture. Though marriage is a time-honored tradition that once celebrated only certain people, that is, straight people of the same race and religion, with time, the institution has changed, as it should, to meet the needs of the people. Interracial marriage is widespread, as are mixed religion marriages. Why then must gay marriage mean the assimilation of gay people into mainstream culture? Ettelbeck thinks that gay marriage will lead to the "outlawing of all gay and lesbian sex which is not performed in a marital context" (307), yet just as straight people often choose not to welcome the institution of marriage into their lives, so too may gay couples choose their own lifestyle without being "cloaked in and regulated by marriage" (307). I recognize that such lifestyle choices are uncommon and often looked down upon; perhaps then we should fight to alleviate this type of prejudice against non-married same-sex or straight couples. I think it's important to remember that this was published in 1989; today, the radical "reordering of society's views of family" (308) is well underway: Does anyone watch Modern Family? Mitchell and Cam's lifestyle, with adopted baby Lily, is far different than, say, that of Colin Firth's character in A Single Man, who is not even welcome at the funeral of his partner of 16 years. I am more on board with Naples, that instead of fighting this fight against same-sex marriage, we should be questioning, “How can we harness the political energy that has been unleashed by the debates over same-sex marriage and queer parenting to destabilize the taken-for-granted notions of what counts as a family and what can be in the best interests of children in resilient and inclusive society?” (682). Let's stop fighting against marriage as an institution, Ettelbeck, and instead advocate for the acceptance of family units and lifestyles of all types.

Lead Post for 4/1: Taken with a grain of salt.

I was strongly disappointed by the Crenshaw article. She set out to explore "the race and gender dimensions of violence against women of color" but spent the entire article confirming stereotypes of domestic violence, berating white policy makers and institutions that fail to help women of color because they are simply ill-equip to handle them (page 1). I learned nothing new and felt defensive throughout the entire article. In the example of a shelter not helping a woman because she did not speak English, Crenshaw condemn the shelter for not taking care of the woman. If the shelter itself would not be able to help her, why should it be responsible to do so? The shelter should be able to contact other shelters that may be better able to assist her, but the shelter itself is not at fault. This is a constant theme I am seeing in a lot of humanitarian aid work; if an individual organization knows it cannot assist a specific population so does not try, it should not be reprimanded. Instead, the system that exists to oppress the population and the lack of support for that specific population should be addressed. It does no good to attack do-gooders for not being do-everything-gooders.

The Steinem article was equally infuriating. (I guess I'm feeling sassy tonight.) I do not think that those few anecdotal pieces of violence denote a real sample of the reasons for "teen" and/or white murders. Each of those convicts are clearly facing more serious issues than being too supreme. I see how they take their place in social hierarchy as legitimatizing their actions, but I do not think it is the root of their issues. I think these people were clearly messed up from the start and used their social location to push their own agenda's forward. When Steinem discusses changing the gender of the teen murders to female, she points to a very basic notion that an "unmarked" status is male. Changing their gender will mark them and bring a conversation of gender to the table but this point does not further her argument. While I feel guilty disagreeing with a woman like Steinem, I have to say that she lost me with this article. Here is a picture of her as a playboy bunny!

Although, the article about G.I. sexual abuse confirms Steinem's argument about men asserting there supremacy. In most of the cases discussed, the men were of a higher or equal office in the military than the women they harassed. I also found it interesting that men were less likely to report an incident, which relates to the point I made last class that sexual harassment can, and does, go both ways. Again, the officer who stalked Captain White was a serial aggressor who could then, maybe, be discounted in the same way I discounted the murders Steinem discusses. Committing such a series of attacks leaves me to believe that these people have serious issues with their supremacy status and are not the common byproduct of our current cultural norms. While I do not think they should be disregarded all together, I do not think they proved adequate evidence for claims like Steinem tries to make. The film also added an interesting light to the story but my feelings remain the same.

The Living and Fighting Alongside Men article was the only article I really agreed with. Granted it was the only one with a positive message, but I felt it was more true than the others. I was intrigued that all of the women proved themselves through their performance and did not expect to be treated differently because they were women. They did perform better than some men, one officer said he had relived men but never women from their posts, which confirms the old notion that for women to be equal to men they must be better than men. Overall the women seemed to be accepted into the armed forces because they acted as if they were already welcome.

Lead Post for 3/30

Although this may not be the purpose of Levy's argument in "Pigs in Training" (I'm guessing she is condemning oral sex amongst young teens in general), I find it particularly interesting that it is only boys who are receiving oral sex and not girls...it's completely one sided. As for the swiffer-girl, I remember hearing of this story when I was in highschool. I just thought it was an urban legend and can't believe it's true! On page 148, Levy mentions the phrase "hooking up," the words ambiguity may lead people to think promiscuity is more common and thus indulge in it themselves. The problem is hooking up could mean anything from a simple kiss on the dance floor to full on sex and anywhere in between. Levy also brings up the point of looking sexy vs. actually doing sexual things on 150--this once again causes ambiguity for young teens who may think sexual behavior is the norm because of the judgements they make from people's dress or the media. Levy makes a good point on page 151--boys will like girls no matter what they wear; its the girls who are "distracted by competition to look and seem sexy."

Brownmiller asserts that rape is an act of violence, that the typical rapist is not a "victim" as Freud defines it nor a psycho or loner. That rape is not an impulsive act of lust but something that is "planned" (71%) (pg 279).

Addressing Walker's article, why is it that women are told not to fight back because it will make the criminal more angry. What really is the better thing to do?-fight back or do what the rapist says? This is a tricky question and I am really curious as to what the answer is.

Morgan's story was beyond upsetting. The title was especially powerful, why are women who have been raped called a survivor? Yes, its not as bad as losing ones life, but still their lives are changed forever. Morgan's story made me wonder whether the third rape happened in a college setting which then led me to think about the speak out at Colgate last semester. For those in class that attended the speak out...how did it affect you?

There's No Wrong Way.... To Have a Baby -Lead post 3/25

Which baby was delivered vaginally, and which was extracted from a C-section?

The mystery of childbirth is no longer a mystery for me after reading this article. No detail is too small for Dr. Gawande in his description of how each of us came to first breathe on our own, be it via vaginal birth or C-section. Rourke intended to deliver her baby at the hospital without any medication. Unfortunately for her, exhaustion and pain led her to finally agree to surgery. I wonder, had she waited any longer for surgical intervention, what might have happened? Would her own health and her baby's health have been compromised had she withheld the C-section?

Goer points to how conditioned we have become to trust in Western medicine to help us deliver our babies. Rourke had wanted to avoid an epidural, an intrusive doctor, any unnatural practices that typically help women in their deliveries. Yet without the use of such modern advances in medicine, Rourke would most likely have died. Right? Goer thinks not. The dangers of childbirth that are raised in Gawande's article factor into a larger issue which Goer reveals, that of hospital childbirth as an industry. Gawande writes, "clinicians are increasingly reluctant to take a risk, however small, with natural childbirth." At first this seems bizarre to me, as natural childbirth is how women gave birth for thousands of years before current practices were adopted. Within the industry of childbirth, C-sections a particular niche market for those who aim to avoid the complications that may arise...and for their OBGYNs. Did you know that a C-section costs $10,000? And such a surgery is highly convenient for a doctor, who can schedule for 'Jill's' baby to come out on a date that works for him/her, instead of waking up at 3am to deliver for 'Jill.' It is only within the last 80 years that natural childbirth has become less common, perceived as taking a 'risk.' Yet it was also the leading cause of death for women. So although it seems strange that women and their doctors avoid giving birth in the most natural way possible, doing so can literally save lives.

Though Goer contests this point, and highlights the greater risks involved in C-sections for both mother and child, neither writer comments on the preference of pregnant women. I'm interested in learning how women are informed of their choices. I cannot speak from personal experience; I can only hope that a pregnant woman is fully informed of her rights and is aware of the likelihood that any dangerous aspect of childbirth/surgery can arise. As long as she makes her own decision, it's the right one.

If you want to look at what a C-section looks like, click on the link below.... I couldn't bring myself to actually watch, but from what I did see, it's graphic. You've been warned. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjgxKcjnimY&feature=related

*If you ever need a quick pick-me-up, google image "baby"....

Newsflash: The 2010 Gender Gap-Workplace Equality Is Still a Myth

Have we filled the gender gap? The authors of this article prove that though women have 'come a long way,' we still have gains to make in the workplace. Bennett and Ellison clearly provide multiple facts and examples that support the reality that gender equality in the corporate world does not exist. Despite the increase of women in the workforce, within the U.S. and around the world, the advancement of women in the workplace has increased minimally.

Although women now make up the majority of college graduates and law school graduates, only 3% of Fortune 500 CEOs and the minority of law firm partners and politicians are women. Many employers think that simply hiring women makes the workplace equal, but women “still make 78 cents for every dollar a man earns in the United States, according to the National Committee on Pay Equity.” 78 cents for every dollar? Still? Now, I suppose I must first commend women for doing so well overall; women comprise 52% of U.S. workers, a remarkable increase since the days of Betty Friedan's Feminine Mystique. Yet what would Friedan think? Would she praise the gains that women have made in the workplace, as opposed to questioning the missing element from their lives as homemakers? Perhaps at first. But I believe she would argue for gender equity, as would Gloria Steinem, Adrienne Rich, Ellen DuBois and the other new wave feminist thinkers we have studied. All these women argue that where we are is not enough; Steinem even asks, in her "Sex, Lies & Advertising" piece: "Can't we do better than this?" Though she refers to the portrayal of women in ads, the message applies to gender inequality in the workplace. And we can do better. But how?
The authors cite that the biggest obstacle to workplace equality is generally perceived as motherhood. Yet"the problem is far bigger than motherhood alone;" the article insists that women without families suffer from the gender gap as well. Today's innumerable resources for working mothers explain how such a barrier no longer prevents women from success in the workplace. Day care, nannies, Au pairs and the like provide for women who choose to work while they raise their children. So how is it that even in industries such as journalism, film, broadcasting, even the web, in which women appear to serve as the majority of employees, still do not quite compete with their male co-workers? For example, a female founder of a popular copywriting web site changed her web name to male and actually enjoyed double the economic success. Why could she have not made such money under her true, female name?
A Catalyst study and other data show that legal enforcement against gender discrimination has not done its job. Ibarra, one of the study’s authors, instead blames “culture, culture, culture” as the roadblock to encouraging the advancement of women towards economic equality. It is our “masculine or patriarchal corporate culture” that poses the biggest impediment to women rising in the workplace. Is this male-dominated corporate world the one we see in films, filled with golf games and cocktail parties, where men can share cigars and whiskey while making sexist jokes? Certainly this type of male camaraderie exists within certain fields. I know from my own personal experience, the financial world is completely unequal with regards to gender. My own brother, a former college lacrosse player, first learned of his current job from a teammate; this is not uncommon for his athletic peers. At his country club, where he talks finance with co-workers and clients, there is an entirely separate section of the dining room, the 'men's club,' restricted to female members. We discuss this establishment, and though he acknowledges their customs as unequal, he still partakes in such traditions. I wonder how the few women in his office feel, for how can they compete if they're not even allowed to have a drink with their co-workers in this room? It is this type of by-product of the corporate culture in which we live that restrains women from achieving all that they are entitled to. Americans like to think that we can have it all, that women can and do achieve just as much as men, on the same scale- but this equal success is not yet a reality. Lack of change in the patriarchal system hurts not only women, as the authors point out, but also the success of companies, and our nation's economy as a whole.
I find it amazing that the male name of the company made such a difference in success; this reminds me of when women authors (George Elliot) routinely took male names in the days when it was not thought proper for a woman to even be an author. We are still hiding, yet this time, for economic gain. When will this end? Perhaps as more women enter and rise within the corporate world, they will help change the culture and the norms that presently exist.
Surely it is discouraging to read how women still dominate the entry level jobs and are paid less. As I approach the job market myself this year, I cannot believe that "young women, a year out of college, bring home just 80% what their male colleagues do, regardless of profession." Still, I am hopeful that changes in culture are possible. The authors cite research from the London Business School that points to the added value to companies when men and women in leadership positions work together, reinforcing the idea that gender difference makes a positive difference in the workplace. I am optimistic that the increase in using teams in learning in elementary, middle and high school, and in college as well, will eventually make its mark on the workplace culture that values the interaction of males and females.
Lastly, I sadly reflect that we cannot always legislate what is widely known as 'the right thing to do.' Our society needs to recognize such as the right thing to do in order for it to become a reality. Simply having the laws on the books does not fill the gender gap. I know that I will have to work to change the status quo in order to see real results; hopefully, the women of my generation will unite to demand gender equity in the workplace.

Lead Post for 3/23

Reading the actual account of the Opinion of the Court on Jane Roe v. Henry Wade was very interesting. First, if everyone knew that Norma McCorvey was Jane Roe, why did she use a pseudonym? Or maybe they did not know she was pressing charges but I would just like to find out more about her choice to use a pseudonym. I also found the discussion of privacy very interesting because the Constitution never discusses privacy directly but does work to protect it for individual persons. Is privacy then a requirement for personhood? The Muscio reading also came to an interesting conclusion about privacy-- the idea of an organic abortion is very personal and allows the woman to reclaim her body through her own actions, not through a machine. I definitely agree that organic abortions should be more heavily researched but wonder if they are not because there is probably an industry devoted to machine-centric abortions. Here is a picture of the "abortion machine."

The list of ideas revolving around the notion of medical health and cultural understandings in the court ruling were also interesting because the court simply could have said that they are ruling in favor of privacy. Instead the court named all of these reasons why it ruled the way it did, which read a little bit like excuses. Also, my roommate just told me that the Norma McCorvey has since become a pro-life activist, is this true? Here is a picture of her from the early days.

Looking at the language of the court decision after looking at the Arcana piece made me think about cultural changes. The court decision noted that the laws about abortion were developed in the latter half of the 19th century in order to uphold Victorian ideals which discouraged illicit sexual conduct. This related to Arcana's historical notes that society used to respect women's understanding of their bodies. The court decision did not agree that women's power over their bodies were absolute but Arcana showed how history (or herstory) has typically allowed women complete control over their bodies and their children. I wonder when this switch developed and I wonder if it is more feminist in making family life more of a partnership or less feminist in taking power in the family away from the mother.

The Crews piece was really fun for me to read because it is exactly how I feel, except I would probably choose to have the abortion. Crews took ownership of her position in a way that freed her from social constrains; this is the right that Roe fought for, the right to claim our own bodies. Interestingly, my mother always told me that if I got pregnant before I was ready to rear a child I would not have a choice and would have to get an abortion. We are Jewish and believe that the soul enters the body at first independent breath. But now that I come to think about it, she raised me as a Jew and she claims that I would have to get the abortion she fought for as a feminist activist in the 1970s. The more I think about it, the less feminist this actually sounds. She is claiming my choices over my own body, saying that she sacrificed too much for me to just have a baby. But what if that was really what I wanted? Now, in no way am I ready to be a mother nor is that what I want at all, but if feminism is really about being pro-choice in all aspects of our lives, how can any feminist, even my own mother, try to control my choices. In my life, my mother replaced patriarchy with matriarchy and I am looking for not anarchy but simple freedom.

News Flash: iSex, denied.

As of February 22^nd, 2010 the Apple Application store went from a place of free expression of intellectual creativity to a regulated location confined to social norms. In response to customer’s complaints and in preparation for a new target group for the iPad, Apple decided to remove some of its applications with “objectionable” and explicitly sexual content. Check out an article about it here. At first this censorship seems progressive because it limits the sexualization of women’s bodies and the exposure of children to objectified sexual images. However, it also denies a freedom of sexual expression, specifically of exploration for the Apple’s new target market. Addressing the sexual nature of App store is a step towards an open conversation, but is not the solution.

Particular developers are upset by this change while others are excited about it. Fred Clarke, co-president of On the Go Girls, said that all 50 of his company’s applications are no longer available and is concerned about his possibility to profit. However, Wally Chang, founder of Donoma Games, is looking forward to increased revenue because he felt that all of the racy applications were “cluttering up the App store” and feels his non-sexual applications will now have a better chance of being seen. However, applications like the Sports Illustrated app and one by Playboy were allowed to remain. When questioned about the seemingly arbitrary censorship, Philip W. Schiller, head of worldwide product marketing at Apple, said, “Apple took the source and intent of an app into consideration. The difference is this is a well-known company with previously published material available broadly in a well-accepted format.”

The Apple App store was a place of intellectual developer’s freedom that turned into a haven for Raunch Culture. In order to reclaim the space from a total raunch identity, Apple took control of the merchandise sold in the virtual store. Ariel Levy in Female Chauvinist Pigs discusses the evolution of a Raunch Culture where popular culture has become the sexualization of women’s bodies as a form of so-called empowerment. Women are supposed to feel powerful when they can assert their sexuality, but often times this expression of sexuality is fueled mainly by social patriarchal forces. The women in the objectionable applications were not empowered by the applications, only by the money that came with displaying their bodies. This new censorship denies raunch in the App Store and stops the exploitation of these women. However, the censorship itself created a situation where both the developers and the women in the raunch applications were exploited. The developers were cheated by Apple because the worked hard to develop their programs, only to have them banned from the site. The women in the applications were cheated first by the developers who used images of their bodies for money and second by Apple who took away this exploitation but also the funding that came with it. The women are again in Kenji Yoshino’s double bind.

Last summer, Apple began a parental control and ratings system to keep sex-themed applications away from children. Unfortunately for the developers, Gene Munster, an analyst who watches Apple, said that the sex-themed applications still reached a point beyond where the company was comfortable. Some of the sex-themed application developers are intending to continue developing for Google’s Android and other similar market places that do not censor their applications. Some wonder if the Android will now become a place mainly for sex-based applications. If the sexual applications will still exist in the world, we should address them and their possible uses, not just deny them one particular space. We should also examine why we want to deny children and teens access to highly sexualized virtual applications.

The censorship of the App store brings up a discussion of the necessity of censoring sexuality from children. Apple is hoping that the iPad will appeal to children and teens and will be used for educational purposes. Because of this new target population, they began to monitor sexual expressions through the App store. But why does our society deem sexuality something that needs to be monitored? Every person has some sexual identity and when we block sexuality from society, we loose ownership of this sexual drive. It becomes hidden not only from the outside world but also from ourselves. In a popular activist performance called The Vagina Monologues, produced by Eve Ensler, many of the women discuss never being comfortable with their sexuality. The purpose of this show is to raise awareness about women’s issues and give women an opportunity to explore their sexual inquiries. One monologue in particular asks a 5-year-old girl about her vagina. The questions are simple and include: what your vagina would wear or what does it smell like, but they expose the girl to idea that her vagina is part of her body and that she can take ownership of it. Apple on the other hand, is working to exclude the notion of sexuality from its new educational tool. The Apps Store may not be the safest place to learn about sexuality but excluding it from the conversation overall will not deny the children and teens an understanding of their sexuality.

While the banning of “objectionable” material from the App Store will stop the exploitation of some women’s bodies and deny raunch culture a place to flourish, it will also deny users an opportunity to explore their sexuality. A compromise would be to develop a sexual education application that can be downloaded. The application would have accurate information and a forum for the users to ask questions they might not feel comfortable asking their peers or guardians. Another possible solution would be to create an adult section within the App store that requires a certain age minimum or password. Both of these options would help the developers of the programs and consumers continue to explore their sexual intentions through software. It would also be a progressive move by including sexuality in an open way in our everyday lives. Instead of forgoing a conversation about sexuality, it would be the first of hopefully many steps in creating a sexual revolution, a revolution to promote openness, consent and an understanding of power politics.

Lead post for 3/9

Collins "Black Sexual Politics" had many interesting points, some which was valid and one (that I will state first) that was not...I do not understand why J-Lo was included in this article. J-Lo is not African American.

Collins brought up a great point when discussing Destiny's Child--a point that I have often contemplated myself. Destiny's Child, and now just Beyonce solo have songs that are supposed to be centered around girl power, financially independent women. And yet these women are prancing around in animal skin bikinis...how is this empowerment? They're songs and music videos are completely contradictory, they sing about female empowerment as they, wearing barely anything, shake their butts to the camera. For example, here's their video "I'm a Survivor" where they are wearing strictly animal print. This song was written for the Charlie's Angel's movie. How is this movie supposed to be about female empowerment? The angels are in their bikinis pretty much the entire movie and use their sexuality to make men weak. Wow, how empowering (note sarcasm).

An

It's interesting to see that African Americans and animal imagery is still pervasive in today's society, especially when it comes to black men. It seems to stem from believes in the Jim Crow South where the rape myth orginated: black men were seen as hypersexualized, animalistic beings who would rape white women. This "rape myth" served as the justification for lynching. Although its not as clear today, Collins shows that this animal imagery still exists. Black rappers have names like Snoop Doggy Dogg and Little Bow Wow, Why? Collins compares a music video to watching something live--that white people may feel comfortable watching Ja Rule grab his crotch on TV but live, in real life people would deem this threatening (32).

One music video I thought of right away that really pertains to this article is Outkast's "I Like the Way You Move" (i could not embed the video cause it won't allow it but here is the link to the video): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvYZpB_sTx4

If you go to the 2:30 point part (approximately) you will see a man looking through binoculars at women, who portrayed like animals are walk through the African dessert.

Frankly, I found Walker's article absurd. This woman obviously has zero self esteem and to say having sex at 11 is something she is proud of is a complete self denial on her part. "When Bryan sai I was too black I straightened my hair...For Miles I was a young virgin, nervous and giggly"--Uhhh, how is conforming to what each guy wants empowering? This girl never seemed to have a childhood and I find that quite sad. It's obvious she didn't think of the repercussions of STDs and pregnancy when she was having sex at the age of 11. Ridiculous.

Shah's story was interesting--even Indian culture has their own sexual dress.

Newsflash 2: "Sexual Assaults on Female Soldiers: Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Newsflash 2

Newsflash: “Sexual Assaults on Female Soldiers: Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”

Article: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1968110,00.html

* Note: all quotes are from the news article unless otherwise noted in parentheses.

While the Time Magazine article “Sexual Assaults on Female Soldiers: Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” brings up an important issue that needs to be heard, the article fails to get at the center of the problem: plain and simple, the perpetrators need to be PUNISHED in order to prevent sexual assault from happening in the first place. It is not the woman’s responsibility to do everything to not be raped; it is the military’s responsibility to prevent rape and punish the perpetrators when sexual assault happens.

The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” rule in the military was initially put in place to protect homosexual soldiers from facing discrimination. However, this saying has had more negative than positive affect on the armed forces. The saying “don’t ask, “don’t tell” has filtered into sex relations between men and women. Women, influenced by the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy are forced, as Kenji Yoshino would put it, to “cover” their regular behaviors. The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy has swayed commanders to not ask and victims to not tell when there are sexually assaulted. And these are not behaviors that are inherently feminine as “covering” usually implies. You would think female soldiers have done everything to “cover” their femininity: they wear masculine camouflage military attire, their hair is tucked tight in a bun and hidden under a cap, they do not wear any makeup

and a profession in the military is as masculine a job there is. The covering I’m talking about here is the covering of normal, everyday behaviors—habitual and necessary behaviors performed by all men and women. These female soldiers have to alter their everyday processes so as not to be raped. Women “stop drinking water after 7pm to reduce the odds of being raped if they have to use the bathroom at night;” women who “went out for a cigarette…fear she would be demoted — for having gone out without her weapon.”

Women are forced to cover everyday habits while men are not. Rape should not be something women must try to avoid; it should be something men should not do. The problem is, these men aren’t being punished so they continue to rape while it remains the responsibility of the woman to not be raped…this is ABSURD.

In his article, “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us,” Allan G. Johnson states that both women and men participate in patriarchal society and, thus, both can influence it. However, it is in the hyper-masculine society of the military where I believe Johnson’s theory cannot apply. These female soldiers, who are participating in this “intrinsically violent and hyper masculine” society have no influence and have no control.

The article also points out that there are “not nearly enough mental-health professionals in the system to help” these victims. Although the “Intersex Society of North America Agenda” covers a vastly different issue than the topic at hand, it does introduce the importance of counseling and mental health needs: this is also effective when applied to victims of sexual assault. It is not an coincidence that “female vets are four times more likely to be homeless than male vets” becomes incidences of sexual assault have lasting emotional and mental effects on victims. But once again, this article falls short of the real solution here. Yes, it is important to treat rape victims but how about trying to prevent the rape from happening in the first place?

Ariel Levy, in Female Chauvinist Pigs, discusses how women’s participation in raunch culture has worsened their relations with men, causing both men and women to exploit women and view them as sexual objects. Radically interpreted, Levy’s argument could reflect the argument that women who dress and act like “sluts” are more likely to be raped. But how can Levy’s argument fit into military life? Female soldiers who are victims of sexual assault are far from indulging in raunch culture. They are clothed from head to toe, their looks are completely de-feminized…and yet, they are being sexually assaulted at a rate that is twice the civilian population (statistic from article). Raunch culture is not nearly as pervasive in the military, and yet it is in the military where women are exploited the most.

The main problem with this article is that it seems to blame women, as if it is the woman’s fault for not telling that she has been raped. However, the women that do tell aren’t seeing justice. Women who tell are often removed from their unit for “protection” while the perpetrator goes unpunished; in the military “only 8% of cases that are investigated end in prosecution, compared with 40% for civilians arrested for sex crimes.” No wonder women don’t tell…justice is not being served. The article states that “both Congress and the Pentagon are getting serious about this problem:” “it is now possible for victims to seek medical treatment without having to report the crime to police or their chain of command.” More field hospitals have trained nurse practitioners to treat the victims; more bases have rape kits.” Yes, it’s great that these victims are now receiving the proper treatment but WHAT ABOUT THE PERPETRATORS?! Nowhere in this entire article does it talk about punishing the rapists. If these sexual predators go unpunished the assaults will just continue. It is as if rape is condoned as long as the victim receives medical treatment. The article falls short of the true problem and the true solution: there needs to be some sort of step to prevent rape from happening in the first place, not just treating women who have been raped.

Work It Out for Mind and Body Soundness, Not Societal Standards: Lead post for 3/4

Valdes' essay raises important validation issues as to if and/or how exercise can be justified as empowering for women. I understand the contradictions the author lived through and I see how her job as an aerobic instructor perpetuates society's obsession with striving for an ideal shape; simultaneously, her job provides women with the tools they need in order to lead healthy lifestyles while enjoying upbeat, encouraging and motivating self-challenges. Women who choose to work out are not at fault if they do so to keep their hearts and minds in shape. Yet women who dance in Valdes' class, or who partake in any type of cardiovascular exercise simply for the sake of burning off calories in order to achieve a desirable body type are products of a society that values exercise as a means for physical attraction above its health benefits. Valdes' decision to leave her high-paying job was her own, for she felt she was reinforcing the idea that women needed to dance for hours in aerobics classes and the like in order to achieve their ideal bodies. In some ways, Valdes is right. Take Colgate's gym and phys ed class atmosphere, for instance. How many of the women who jog and sprint on treadmills, move on ellipticals, bike, jump and crunch are doing it for the sake of their health? How many are there because they worry that without a workout, they'll put on pounds, or be unable to go out that night and drink their calories, or become undesirable in the eyes of their Colgate peers? College athletes are a different case, for they practice a sport; it was not as if Valdes was coaching a sport, fostering teamwork, commitment, and leadership skills while giving her team a great workout. Instead she found she was just dancing in front of a room of women.

Still, I to agree with Young and Morgan, whom she cites as proponents of the idea that "consciousness as a human being is related not to the intellect alone, but also to the body; the body is the vehicle thought which everything comes to and goes from us" (30). Valdes provided the means for women to strengthen their bodies, thus strengthening their minds and "women's ability to achieve our goals" (30). There is nothing more empowering than the feeling of self-accomplishment, knowing that after a hard workout, you've challenged yourself to do your personal best in making body and mind stronger. Check out the pic of the women crossing the finish line, thrilled to have accomplished a goal. If this happens in spandex, so be it. It's when women feel they need to don spandex and work out in order to slim down and achieve an ideal in order to meet societal standards of what is beautiful that exercise becomes problematic. The individual exerciser is not at fault; instead, our societal values need correcting.

Switching topics, Sexton's poem may seem vulgar to some, but I respect her audacity in creating a work that focuses on what is a traditionally unexposed topic. To have published her piece in 1969 was certainly against the conventionality of the time, which shows great confidence on her part. I am struck that exposure of a completely natural topic was interpreted so delicately by readers and critics; why is it that the vehicle of life, "this thing the body needs" (332,) should be considered taboo content? Those who shudder at the intimately female nature of the poem should at least compliment Sexton's beautiful message "in celebration of the woman I am and of the soul of hte woman I am" (331).

Advertising Rules the Unruly body-- Lead Post for 3/2

Brumberg’s issue with the “stunning new freedom” of new female fashion that implied a “greater internal control of the body” is an interesting take on the role of mass media and industrialization on female self-esteem (98). She notes that over time women regained control over their bodies by rejecting the corset but then had to diet to maintain the appearance the corset created. But why do women have to control their “unruly” bodies at all? This piece would have been more effective if it analyzed why all the diaries exhibited individual insecurities and not systematic trends. I wonder when it was published because I feel as a young woman I personally note my own insecurities as a result of the institutionalized control over female bodies. I’m almost sure that is a factor of the Women’s Movement and feminist ideologies.

Brumberg discusses the early sexualization of women’s bodies as a result of the new industrial market for underwear. “Training bras were a boon to the foundation garment industry, but they also meant that girls’ bodies were sexualized earlier” (118). Young women became a market with buying power but with this power came sexualization. This connection proves Levy’s Raunch culture; how economic power and independence from the family unit gave women the ability to leave the home but also subjected them to objectification. Other forces than family influences shaped their understanding of themselves. (Look at this picture to see how some women have asserted their individuality or how they have accepted and internalized industrialized notions of beauty.) However, women’s emergence as a economic power mass was fueled by advertising.

Gloria Steinem continues to discuss the role advertising plays in bringing women onto the economic market. However, since advertising has so much control over women’s economic power and ability, it oppresses progress and maintains order. The goal of Steinem’s magazine was to empower women and had nothing to do with sexualization per say. However, advertising had to control the articles published and therefore women’s understanding of themselves and the products they need to make themselves better. Just as in the bra case, Ms. lost its emerging power through the sexualization of women by being forced to publish stories about make-up, bras, etc or go under.

In tandem, both articles reveal the role of advertising in creating a beauty norm. With this norm comes the question of what is not a norm. Cal from Middlesex had a lot of trouble fitting into these norms and I wonder if women still made their own underwear, if Cal would have been able to confront and come to terms with her condition earlier.

Lead Post for 2/23--Is Eugenidies just worsening the stigma against intersexed persons?

Eugenides has both positive and negative affects on the acceptance of intersex people. While this fictitious novel brings attention to the possibility of an intersex gender to a wide audience who may not even know intersex persons actually existed, Middlesex also creates untrue stereotypes. As described in the novel, Cal's intersex gender is linked to, and the probable affect of the incestuous relationship of Cal's parents. Yes, this novel is a work of fiction but it may be creating stereotypes here. In actual life, is intersex gender linked to incest or does Eugenides just make this up? The fact that Cal's undefinable gender is the product of incest creates a stigma against intersex persons as if they too have a dark familial past of incest.

One point in Sterling's "Of Gender and Genitals" that really intrigued me is the fact that intersex births are far more frequent than albino births (53)...yet everyone knows albinos exist and albino's are accepted. So why is society so focused on "fixing" intersex persons right away, when in actuality it is far more common than one would think?

Another point I thought of while reading both Sterling and Eugenides is what if an actual gender is never achieved. For example, Callie was born a girl but then became Cal because his body and mind was telling him he was a male; he related more to men. Is there such thing as intersex persons whom after puberty still do not identify with either gender or identify with both? Either people are given a sex right at birth with a surgical fix, or later in life like Cal with a gender reassignment. But what about people who never realize their gender? After all, in actuality, they aren't male or female so why would/should they identify with one or the other (whether at birth or later in life). Is the formation of a new third gender needed? Or even perhaps a fourth gender?--Like male, female, both, or neither? Not only would the amount of genders or the definition of gender change but also the amount of sexualities or definition of sexuality would also change... the subsection entitled "Defining Heterosexuality" of tonight's Sterling reading addresses this issue. Is an intersex person always heterosexual because as both sexes like one sex or the other is still acceptable? If an intersex person was attracted to another intersex person, would that be considered homosexuality? The sexuality of intersex people cannot be defined...hence more sexualities must exist.

So there can be the option of creating more genders or definitions of sexualities OR possibly more radical...should categories of gender and sexuality be erased all together in order to be all inclusive? It's such a difficult issue because social construction and actual biology is blurred and complicated. What is the best solution to these issues?