Follow Up--responding to Lindsey for 1/28 class

Although Lindsay says that the Declaration of Sentiments was mainly focused on women's suffrage, I still believe that many of the sentiments listed are still relevant today. In particular is the statement "He has created a false public sentiment...a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquinces which exclude women from society, are not only tolerated, but deemed of little account of man." Despite the fact that raunch culture is quite prominent, a moral double standard still exists today; in fact, I believe it is actually getting worse! Its like what Levy said: "either you are a virgin or you are a slut." Men sleep with multiple women and are praised, called players, cheered on by their peers, and are often more desirable to women . Women who sleep with men are considered sluts by both male and female peers--this calls back to Lindsey's statement that today "women are oppressing women." What has happened to the strong sisterhood of the first and second waves of feminism. Today, women call other women sluts, women sexually exploit other women, women feel the need to be competitive and catty. Today, we are dealing with female chauvinist pigs, not just male.

Another statement I found interesting in the Declaration of Sentiments is: "Whenever any form of government becomes destructive...it is the right of those who suffer...to insist upon the institution of a new government."--this I believe is the belief of Radical Feminists who, unlike liberal feminists (Betty Friedan) who hope to get things done by forming an already existing political system, believe that the solution is to overhall society as a whole. Whether this theory works or not is another issue.

DuBois's article was also interesting: despite the radical (at the time) notion of abolition in the first wave, and the radical notion (at the time) of civil rights and anti war rallies, these movements were still too conservative to allow women. So although the women's movement has sprung from moments of opportunity like the Civil War, Civil Rights Movement, and Vietnam War, women had to take their rights into their own hands. Although this may have caused tension, I believe that focusing on themselves was the only effective way to get recognized.

And to briefly address Soujourner Truth's speech--is it true that she revealed her breasts? Cause that is an interesting point Lindsey makes...

- Regan

Some Thoughts...Streaming Consciousness

In the DuBois article, she discusses the "woman's sphere," which today would be synonymous with the "private sphere." I wonder who would claim that sphere now? I think it would still be women but in a different sense; in general, "career women" outsource their responsibilities as housewives to cleaning-ladies or housekeepers, whom are mostly women. The labor that women perform is the same, but now a person can say they work in the "private sphere" instead of the "woman's sphere" but is it really much better?

In the DuBois article, she also claims that feminism must include an analysis of the oppression of women. I'm not sure I agree with that anymore. Considering our reading for Tuesday, I feel like women are oppressing women by perpetuating a culture of dominance. Instead of claiming how women "feel" oppressed, DuBois claims that they are. I think during her time there was physical oppression but I think now there issue is more about mental oppression.

The Declaration of Sentiments was interesting to read but it mainly focused on women's suffrage. Interestingly, women's suffrage had not solved all of oppression that women face. If Mott was alive today, she would be very disappointed. I also think its noteworthy that men signed the Declaration of Sentiments; I wonder if this movement felt like it needed their signatures to gain legitimacy.

The Truth article was fun and inspiring to read. I Wikipedia-ed her and found that, "In 1858, someone interrupted a speech and accused her of being a man; Truth opened her blouse and revealed her breasts." Could that be the beginning of Raunch culture?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sojourner_Truth

Main post for 1/21

Some women say taking off your clothes and participating in raunch culture is empowering. If it’s so empowering, then why aren’t men also taking off their clothes to attain “power” for themselves? —I believe this is one of the most profound statements Levy makes in the Introduction and first chapter of Female Chauvinist Pigs. Men aren’t “parad[ing] around in their skivvies as a means to attain power,” (32) so why are women? Levy uses perfect examples that would get any reader thinking: Janet Jackson exposes her breast on live TV while Justin Timberlake stands completely clothed. Both are equally powerful, famous musicians—so why does Jackson feel the need to expose herself to attain more fame? Jay Leno “sits floppy faced and chunky in a loose suit behind is desk” (32) while guest, Katie Couric wears a low cut top and flaunts her legs. Both are equally successful at their television careers, so why does Couric have to show sex appeal? Jackson and Couric already have power and it infuriates me that they feel the need to be “sexy” to keep that power and seem “fun.” Even Oprah, one of the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world learned how to do the “stripper walk”—I saw this episode, and let me tell you, it was APPAULING. Women like Jackson and especially Couric, and Oprah are supposed to be role models--wow, they are setting a great example. I’m guessing that straight men would not take pleasure in a naked man spinning around a stripping pole…so why would straight women want to watch another woman doing that? (34). Is indulging in this raunch culture empowering to women? —No, because who is benefitting the most from this? Men are.

There is a HUGE difference between the sexual culture of our generation and the one before us. Perhaps Levy will explain why this change occurred. One of the main causes, as I learned last semester in my US Women’s Rights History class, are the changes in free speech laws. Before the 60s and 70s, pornography was illegal—it was not considered an expression of free speech because it violated the sacred bodies of others. However, with Supreme Court Cases in 1973 and 1974, that drastically changed and pornography was ruled as a part of free speech. Dramatic changes in porn laws were implemented. Pornography which was once a bootleg, seedy, hidden industry is now commonplace. With technology and media becoming more advanced, should we readdress pornography as an element of free speech? Levy comments that people have different views on what is beautiful or sexy. I’d have to disagree with her. I feel that, with the widely spread porn industry, more and more people, sadly, have a single view of what a woman’s body and face should look like.