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?

What would you do..

..if you were born a hermaphrodite?

Anne Fausto-Sterling's chronological mapping of the exposure of the intersexual points to the various ways in which such gender-perplexed people have been cared for and dealt with throughout time. As Aristotle believed, "hermaphrodites truly belonged to one of only two possible sexes (33). As such, historically, hermaphrodites have been urged to choose a gender, unless their gender has been chosen for them at birth. Yet how does one decide which sex characteristics will prevail? In choosing a gender, hermaphrodites have been influenced by the social and political norms of the time period in which they live; traditionally, hermaphrodites have chosen to live as males in order to attain economic benefits through work and political power through the right to vote. Another frame of thought involves the individual choosing their sex according to their dominant personality. Do all intersexuals have a dominant, gendered personality, aside from the sex as which they were raised? Couldn't an intersexual live with conflicting personality traits? Living as an intersexual is not discussed as a life option in this chapter, which brings me to the present options afforded hermaphrodites. As the title of this post poses, what would you do had been born with traits characteristic of both sexes? Would you submit to the "Age of Conversion" (40), and choose your sex, male or female Or would you remain an intersexual, facing societal challenges and internal complexities on a daily basis? Either lifestyle presents strength of mind and character; to live as Cal does, changing his course completely and accepting his new life as a male, though raised as a female, or to live as an advocate for intersexual recognition by living out your life with the natural body you inherited.

I found a point at the start of Sterling's chapter extremely interesting, and also troubling. "Researchers have nearly completed development of technology that can chose the sex of a child at the moment of fertilization" (31). This kind of control over the sex of ones child symbolizes what gender means to us in contemporary society. We must evaluate the value we place on different genders, so much so as to be able to choose whether or not we'll have daughters or sons.

Newsflash: SPW Commentator belongs in the Dogg-hizzle

Mike Abrahamson and all Women’s Studies haters, I’m calling you out.

In the February 4^th edition of the Maroon News, commentator Mike Abrahamson responds to an article written by the Women’s Studies Assistant Heather Dockstader. Her article, featured as a commentary piece in the Maroon News’ January 28^th paper, calls the Colgate community to question its reasoning for potentially bringing Snoop Dogg to campus for Spring Party Weekend. Regardless of Dockstader’s message, Abrahamson’s article reflects an ignorance of the Women’s Studies center and all those who support it through their coursework, careers and lifestyles. The fact that this piece was verified such publicity causes me to fear that the author’s skewed vision of the concentration and those people associated with it is a widespread stance taken throughout the Colgate community.

Dockstader’s article features several valid points. She expresses her concern with funding a Snoop concert on campus, especially in light of the alarming results of the Colgate Campus Life Survey. The numbers on the survey do not lie; Colgate students are generally dissatisfied with conceptions of race, gender roles, sexual harassment and assault issues and the hook-up culture on and off campus. Dockstader’s fearlessly states that by bringing Snoop to campus, we “will feed the systems of prejudice that cast men of color as gangsters and women as sex objects when we proclaim to be fighting these very issues with funds and dedication during the work week.” And she’s right. Snoop’s visit to campus as an entertainer would only perpetuate unresolved issues of race and gender that presently scourge a large percentage of the student body.

Abrahamson seems to blame Dockstader’s article as the impetus for removing Snoop as a potential SPW performer. In fact, neither Dockstader nor her commentary piece had anything to do with this act; once again, Abrahamson’s ignorance has led to his false claims. The title page of February 4^th’s Maroon News cites that the “decision was made due to the security problems with accommodating the large crowd that Snoop would likely attract” (read the article here). Of this decision, Dean of Students Scott Brown said, “it has nothing to do with the type of performer” Snoop is, that is, a misogynistic rapper. The administration decided not to bring Snoop to campus, yet their reasoning is based on worries that drastically differ from Dockstader’s. Snoop will not be entertaining the student body at SPW, and this is not because of his offensive lyrics, or because of his performance status. Instead, Colgate claims that the size of the institution is insufficient for hosting such a big name, as many people would likely travel to see Snoop in concert, and the university would be unable to control a crowd of such magnitude. Abrahamson may want to his facts straight before he decides to publicly expose himself as an idiot and attribute Snoop’s cancellation to Dockstader’s “headache-inducing borefest.”

I completely agree with Dockstader’s point. But I’m also a huge fan of Snoop; I’ve loved him since his early days with Dre. I loudly sing “Gin and Juice” at every chance I get, and recently, I can’t get Snoop’s “Gangsta Luv” out of my head. Am I a misogynist? No. I simply like Snoop’s music (to a point) for its entertainment value. This, I think, is what Abrahamson aims to prove. He finds fault with Dockstader’s article for he finds it insulting that she would pin the Colgate student body as so easily impressionable as to believe Snoop’s misogynistic lyrics. His point is proven by his words, “it’s condescending to think that any free-thinking adult would take to heart an oppressive and antiquated view because they waved their hands in the air while listening to it.” Colgate students can have fun singing and dancing along with Snoop, even if he is bearing insulting messages, for we do not necessarily take them to heart. The music industry, an integral aspect of popular culture, is filled with messages that we as individual consumers are free to interpret on our own terms. This can be a dangerous line to draw, as some listeners take pop icon messages to heart, and truly believe such degrading lyrics as “I got a pocket full of rubbers and my homeboys do too/ So turn off the lights and close the doors/ But (but what) we don't love them hoes.” We think that as informed and intelligent undergrads, we are able to rise above the meaning and simply enjoy the music. As a student body we are not, as Abrahamson puts it, so impressionable so as to let performers such as Snoop, “decide our deepest beliefs.” I believe the university trusts us with this ability. Yet the very act of listening to such messages perpetuates the popularity of those who write, and believe, their lyrics to be true. I realize it, and I’m sure all of us so-called Snoop supporters do too. I don’t love Snoop’s messages; therefore, I shouldn’t sing his lyrics. Yet I do. I like his beats. I try not to read too much into the raunch culture he supports, yet in listening to him, I perpetuate it. Check out the video to Snoop’s latest: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MuZfZDVbPI. The video’s style is pretty simple, and far less offensive than most contemporary hip hop music videos. Still, it involves Snoop riding in a car full of women grinding on him in bikinis. Maybe these women just love to dance in bathing suits, but I’m fairly certain that Snoop and his producers aim to expose women as hot objects to be attained. I’m sure that Levy would argue that the women in the video, who may feel empowered being next to naked, are really just bones in the Dogg-house, that is, player’s in the man’s game. And to the Colgate women, who would be dancing to Snop in bathing suits on stage, as they were at Lupe Fiasco last year, Levy would question, “why is this the ‘new feminism’ and not what it looks like: the old objectification?” (81). By buying into the raunch culture that Snoop’s lyrics lay out, the Colgate student body would in turn continue his messages of female objectification, drug use, and ‘gangsta’ identities on campus. Thus I completely understand the contradictions we perpetuate by potentially bringing Snoop to campus.

As one who understands each writer’s piece, I still object to Abrahamson’s commentary for its tone. His article is reflective of the ignorance that pervades this campus involving open discussions of gender and understanding. There is a lack of communication between the Women’s Studies Department, as Abrahamson calls it, “the other Colgate demographic…the ‘Brown Bag Luncheoners,’” and other campus niches, which is a serious problem that must be addressed. Abrahamson likened Dockstader’s article to “ceaseless whining and petition-making.” His continual use of insulting terms to describe this representative of the Women’s Studies center is what I find most objectionable about his article. He associates Dockstader with all things condescending to then pin the entire Women’s Studies institution as “haters” and “perpetual petition-makers.” This stereotyping and grouping is insulting, yet unfortunately also extremely typical for the Colgate community. Little does he know that I myself, now a student of the women’s studies center, love Snoop. He groups with Dockstader all people who “hate fun” and generalizes an entire concentration as people who “only have one gear- incessant bitching.”

Abrahamson makes biased claims against an entire Colgate population solely because he is upset that his favorite rapper was banned by the administration to perform at Spring Party Weekend. Perhaps he is right, that “no one cares about the messages of the performers we bring to campus.” Surely, as well-informed students of the liberal arts, we should. And this is precisely what Dockstader is arguing; that in light of such recent results of the Colgate Campus Climate Survey, we ought to think hard and clear about the type of people we choose to pay (and pay beyond our budget at that) to bring to campus. Perhaps by bringing this issue to light we’ll lessen the ignorance that spurred Abrahamson’s rude article and think more clearly for ourselves the impact of our words and actions.

Who I want to be like and why I can't and why I know why I can't (Lead post for 2/16)

Anne Fausto-Sterling’s Dueling Dualisms brings up some very interesting ideologies. As an Anthropology and Sociology major, I am constantly aware how my social upbringing creates certain options for me to act upon and schemas for me to place people within. I understand that my culture only allows me to see specific outcomes and I can’t even imagine others. However, I saw a major flaw in one of her arguments that I believe I can see as a member of my generation, a generation that supports Raunch culture.

On page 18 she discusses Herdt’s role-specialized homosexuality as a term for “cultures that sanction same-sex activity only for people who play a particular social role, such as a shaman.” She goes on to say that it is in deep contrast with the modern gay movement because acting “gay” means joining a social and sometimes political group. I think this example is precisely what Herdt had in mind; for example, a gay man can be flamboyant and democratically politically active in such a specialized role, but cannot be say, a republican conservative. The gay man is a specialized role. I was also thinking a lot about our class discussion on Thursday about same sex kisses at parties on public display; what would their social role be? The women who kiss other women for The Male Gaze are still role specified as heterosexual women looking for male approval. However, the men who participated in the male homosexual kiss we could not place in a specified role. Here, my training in anthropology points to the possibility of a new role being created. I cannot place them anywhere (as Fausto-Sterling discusses) so I must create a new category. I think this category is a direct response to Raunch Culture and men’s desire to participate.

While Levy’s chapter dealt mainly with the Lesbian community, some of the bois are worth noting in terms of schema and ideology. They treat the women they have sex with in the same way that society tells men it is okay to treat women. They see the schema that already exists for men and women and even though they blur some gender lines, they use others to perpetuate their own social standing. I think this reiterates how we were saying that patriarchy is a system that we all participate in and perpetuate regardless of our desires. These are lesbians who cannot fall into gender categories but still abide by their role-specific activities of the role they desire to inhabit.

Jennifer Reid Macy Myhre, has created her own role in a binary gender society. A clear minimizer she has lived her life in direct contrast to what Fausto-Sterling discusses about maleness and femaleness; it is not inherent. Yes, some aspects cannot be changed, but the general nature of men and women is essentially the same. Society creates gender and Jennifer works (or stops working) to create another type of gender. I wish I could be like her too. However, with all these years of social schema forming in my head, I would probably stair at her on the street. Anthropology has made me realized why, but I have no idea how to change it. Here is a picture of a "butch woman" I look up to (or a butch character- Shane from the L word).

News Flash: Sarah Palin, Feminist or Phoney?

Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska and Republican Vice Presidential candidate for the 2008 election, is a caricature of herself. She uses and abuses patriarchy to push forward in the political sphere and is not ashamed of it. Her use of raunch culture, invisible privilege and patriarchy helped her to gain power and money. Recently she was the keynote speaker at the Tea Party Convention, a gathering of a new political movement against increased government taxes and spending. Palin, who no longer has an official political office, is not responsible to any governing body and is free to push her personal agenda. Her speech at the Tea Party convention provides confirmation of her status as a political icon and sexual symbol and her manipulation of her sociopolitical stature is a major factor in her success. Check out an article about it here. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/us/politics/08palin.html?scp=1&sq=sarah%20palin%20tea%20party&st=cse
To speak at the Tea Party Convention, Sarah Palin received $10,000. Her speech agreed completely with the party’s objectives, “declaring the primacy of the Tenth Amendment in limiting government powers, complaining about the bailouts and the ‘generational theft’ of rising deficits, and urging the audience to back conservative challengers in contested primaries” (Zerink, 2010, p. 1). After the crowd chanted “Run Sarah Run” and gave her standing ovation, Judson Phillips, the chief organizers of the convention said, “I think you like her!” (Zerink, 2010, p. 1). This is indicative of the origin of her power, which stems less from her original ideas and more from her confirmation of pre-existing ideologies. I take the Tea Party convention as an example of Sarah Palin’s success as a result of her true understanding and performance of all the aspects of patriarchy including raunch culture and privilege.
Interesting to note that Judson Phillips said, “I think you like her” not “I think you agree with her.” Most of Palin’s career has been defined by moments like this. She is an intelligent woman who uses her sociopolitical status to move up the hierarchical patriarchy. Palin, the 1984 “Miss Wasilla” beauty pageant winner, uses her looks to push her political career forward (Wheaton, 2008). Always seen in a skirt suit, she appeals to Raunch Culture and the privilege of being attractive. She uses the idea of sexy to get power. Ariel Levy explains, “Sex appeal has become a synecdoche for all appeal: People refer to a new restaurant or job as ‘sexy,’ when they mean hip or powerful…sexiness is no longer just about being arousing or alluring, it’s about being worthwhile” (Levy, 2005, p. 30-31). Being sexy requires being attractive, but being sexy gives you more than sexual attention, it give you power and legitimacy. Sarah Palin is sexy; The Tea Party likes her meaning that her ideas are worthwhile.
Sarah Palin also used the invisible privilege in her backpack to push her career forward (McIntosh, 1988, p.1). As a white woman, she was able to tap directly into three of the conditions Peggy McIntosh during her campaign for the vice presidency:
7. When I am told about our national heritage or about “civilization,” I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.
19. I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trail.
43. If I have low credibility as a leader I can be sure that my race is not the problem. (Peggy McIntosh, 1988, p. 2-4)
Number 7 helped Palin fit a schema that already existed for white women in the political sphere. While it was groundbreaking to have a woman as a serious candidate from both major parties, Palin was a heterosexual, Christian, white woman so her gender, nor her sexuality nor race nor religion were examined. She can also appeal to the very politically conservative Tea Party movement because she looks like one of them. Being the norm or default race also gave her an opportunity not to put her race on trail. Hillary Clinton’s involvement in the 2008 election gave Sarah Palin the opportunity to speak without putting her gender on trial. Sarah Palin offered the opposite approach as Clinton in being a politically powerful woman. She did not have to put her race or her gender on trial. She spoke as one woman, not as White Women. Lastly, her poor approval by the democratic north gave her a low credibility, but as 43 notes, her race was not the problem. Sarah Palin’s personal actions were responsible for her public image, not her race; that is a real privilege.
Patriarchy also helped Sarah Palin gain the southern public’s admiration because she played up her role as a woman behind a man. There is a famous quote that “behind every good man stands a great woman.” Sarah Palin ran for the Vice Presidency behind a white man. She, unlike Hillary Clinton, used the patriarchic image of woman as pure standing behind a man. This was a path of lower resistance than the one Hillary Clinton chose to take (Johnson, 2002, p. 32). Now in the Tea Party movement she does not ask to be a leader,
“The speech was closely watched as a potential signal of Ms. Palin’s political future and the extent to which the convention would embrace her. But Ms. Palin, while aligning herself firmly with the Tea Party, nevertheless urged the 1,100 delegates who had gathered in a hotel ballroom not to let the movement be defined by any one leader” (Zernike, 2010, p.1).
Sarah Palin still uses the schema for women not as leaders but as motivation behind something more powerful than them as individuals. By appealing to the mentality of women in the supporting role, she is able to get more attention and respect because her power is contained within the system. Sarah Palin uses her role in patriarchy to bring herself more success in terms of political power and money.
Sarah Palin’s role in the Tea Party political movement is one example of her abuse of patriarchy. Even though she works as an impressive and powerful woman, she is not a feminist. Sarah Palin works within oppressive and patriarchic systems. Audre Lorde would argue that Palin’s work only betters herself and not women in general (Lorde, 1984, p. 1). Sarah Palin is as Johnson notes a member of the patriarchy and works within it to gain personal strength. Just as her removal from public office freed her from responsibility to other people, her actions as a female leader distanced her from the feminist movement.




Works Cited

Wheaton, Sarah, Marcia Allert, Catrin Einhorn, Celina Fang, Lisa Iaboni, and Gabriel Dance. "Milestones: Sarah Palin." The New York Times. 29 Aug. 2008. Web. 14 Feb. 2010. .


Zernike, Kate. "Palin Assails Obama at Tea Party Meeting." The New York Times. 6 Feb. 2010. Web. 14 Feb. 2010. .

"Without community there is no liberation" --Lead post for 2/11

Audre Lorde stresses education as the tool to truly unite women of all kinds: Black and white, poor, middle and upper class, gay and straight. She urges us as a society of females to acknowledge our differences in order to achieve female interdependence, for "without community there is no liberation." According to Lorde, "difference is that raw and powerful connection from which our personal power is forged." If we take advantage and utilize our differences, we can find freedoms we have not yet encountered. Surely it is important to understand our differences in race, socioeconomic background, and sexual preference; yet I'm not sure that this is, as Lorde says, "key to our survival as a movement." The women's liberation movement would definitely be strengthened by taking into account the various positions of its members. Just as we discussed in relation to Levy's book, the main women affected by/involved in raunch culture are white, straight and of the middle class. Yet how are we to find "new ways of being" as a divided movement in seeking to strengthen and unite women of all kinds? Doesn't this seem contradictory?

On this note, I find McIntosh's point a valid inquiry into how white women are unaware of the ways in which they live out their white privilege. I can identify with her stance, and in particular, was struck by her idea that "whites are taught to think of their lives as morally neutral, normative, and average, and also ideal, so that when we work to benefit others, this is seen as work that will allow 'them' to be more like 'us.'" As I near the end of my collegiate years, I seek to find a career that brings meaning to my daily life; ironically, I am interested in working to benefit people of a lower socioeconomic status than myself, and by association, this involves people of a different race. In applying to such jobs, do I myself feel that in helping others, I'll actually be helping 'them' to be more like 'us,' like myself? This thought had not crossed my mind, until reading McIntosh, and I now realize that though such is not my intention, the idea behind her words reigns true. I seek to work for an organization that indirectly supports white privilege. Now that I'm aware of it, I must ask myself and my peers, in what ways do we unknowingly perpetuate aspects of white privilege?

Newsflash: Sex Needed to Sell Plus-Size Models & The Inconsistency of Levy’s Argument

WMST 202 B

Newsflash 1

Newsflash: Sex Needed to Sell Plus-Size Models

& The Inconsistency of Levy’s Argument

Link to News Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/fashion/MODEL.html

“Fashion Magazine to Salute Large-Sized Women”—seems like a step in the right direction for women’s rights and how they are portrayed in the media. But, after reading Ariel Levy’s Female Chauvinist Pigs, is the way these plus-sized models are dressed just another product of raunch culture? After reading Female Chauvinist Pigs, for some grey issues it is hard to decipher what’s raunch culture and what’s empowering.

Raunch Culture, ironically, has not deeply infiltrated the high fashion industry. High fashion models tend to have boyish, androgynous figures considered unattractive when compared to main-stream fashion looks like Cover Girl, Abercrombie & Fitch, Candies, Victoria’s Secret, etc. Look at the photo comparison of “sexy” models in mainstream fashion and models in high fashion:

Mainstream: http://cm1.theinsider.com/media/0/78/67/candiefergie22.0.0.0x0.449x584.jpeg

High fashion: http://www.ifashion.co.za/images/stories/articleimages/trends/0309/androgyny.jpg

In the Candies ad, Fergie is overtly sexual: her finger flirtatiously rests on her lips while she lifts her shirt to reveal her toned stomach. The high fashion models, on the other hand, do not express the usual conception of raunch sexy: clothed head to toe, they reveal very little skin; their hair is cut short and slicked back; and their outfits reflect traditional menswear. Marc Jacobs, for example, even takes this “unsexy,” “androgynous” trend one step further by putting scrawny men in women’s clothes:

http://blog.photoshelter.com/image/marc_jacobs_08-09.jpg

True, this male model has a provocative stance (the purse is strategically placed over his lower half); however, one would not consider it a part our male-pleasing raunch culture. Marc Jacobs’s form enforces this High Fashion trend: models that are not “sexy” because their actual sex is ambiguous. Unlike most modes of media, the high fashion world often breaks from the constraints of the heteronormative, patriarchal society defined in Johnson and Frye’s articles.

High fashion publications like “V” (which is the magazine discussed in the article) deems themselves “progressive” by showing plus size models in their magazine. But why, if they are in a high fashion magazine, must these plus-sized models be sexed-up in order to be accepted? All the plus sized models in the article have long, wavy hair.

One model tugs down her sweater to expose her cleavage and hikes up her sweater dress unnecessarily high above her thighs. Another model wears a skintight leopard leotard and pumps out her breasts.

The swimsuit on the third model is ill fitted and too tight, exposing unnecessary stomach bulge that makes her look heavier than she probably actually is.

The clothes these models are wearing lean more toward trashy than high fashion: “The eye-popping centerpiece of the magazine’s “Size” issue features several voluptuous women clad in skimpy swimsuits, bra tops and low-slung jeans. The models flaunt bulging tummies, powerful thighs and fleshy midsections — with love handles intact.” Why does raunch culture infiltrate high fashion when it comes to plus-size models? Is it because they have butts and breasts that are more appealing to men than the wafer-thin, pre-pubescent looking models? High fashion models are not crammed into ill-fitted clothes. — So why should plus models be? Is this really empowering for plus-sized women or are these “high-fashion” photos actually making them look heavier and feel more uncomfortable?

The typical skinny model in her avant-garde attire represents a fantasy world into which the reader can escape. I applaud high fashion magazines for having plus-sized models—I only wish that these magazines represented the plus-sized models in the same high fashion, avant-garde way that skinny models are presented. Skinny models are dressed in trendy apparel, so why can’t plus-size models be styled in a trendy, fantastical, avant-garde fashion? After all, it’s this fantastical setting that makes high fashion an art form. It’s a similar argument to tall women’s clothing: tall clothing tends to be frumpy rather than stylish. Likewise, the clothing modeled by plus-size women in “V” tends to be more trashy than trendy.

It is interesting to see the wide array of comments on this New York Times article. Several comments presented the following questions and arguments: Why are models either sizes 00-4 or 12-16? Both size categories seem to be at opposite ends of the weight/health spectrum: either anorexic or overweight. Despite the fact that America has an obesity problem and a majority of women are overweight, why should fashion magazines honor the overweight woman any more than the underweight woman? What about women who are at a healthy weight and a size 6 to 12? — Why aren’t they represented in the high fashion world? In Female Chauvinist Pigs, Levy points out the negative influence media can have on women: media’s definition on what is beautiful and sexy is far too narrow. In the world of high fashion there seems to be only two definitions of female beauty, the pre-pubescent anorexic look or the voluptuous double D breasts look. Why can’t there be a happy medium—a positive healthy looking example for young female readers?

This argument, in a sense, could be seen as a microcosm for the polarization of the women’s movement today. When it comes to women’s issues (or the portrayal of women’s bodies in fashion, which this article specifically addresses) why do only polar opposites exist? We are the slut or the virgin, pro-porn or anti-porn, the lesbian or the housewife, the anorexic or the plus size model. Why is the portrayal of women in society always a dichotomy? What happened to the happy medium? Women who think they aren’t curvy enough get boob jobs; women’s whose boobs are too large get reductions. Women who are naturally skinny and struggle to keep on weight are accused of being bulimic; women who are big-boned and curvier are accused of not eating healthy or exercising. To quote the 128^th comment on this article: “Can we please stop obsessing about size? If you want to be hollow cheeked and bony, then go for it. If you want to be plump, that's just fine too. Just be comfortable with your weight and quit worrying about what people "should" look like.” I feel the average woman would agree with this statement, but the media—and in this particular case, the high fashion scene—has yet to catch on to this sentiment.

Re: Post for 2/9-- Yous a sexy bitch!

So I seem to be doing a lot of thinking about WMST at the gym, but today I was pondering patriarchy while pumping some iron and the song “sexy bitch” came on my ipod. I usually skip this one because it makes me feel uncomfortable but for whatever reason today I let it play through and listened closely to the words. The line that struck me was, “I’m trying to find the words to describe this girl without being disrespectful” which leads into the chorus. Now the best thing that David Guetta and Akon could think of to tell the girl they think she is a good dancer is “Dam you’s a sexy bitch.” Check out the song here.

Your (and my) first reaction would be an insult to music today, or these stars specifically but after reading Johnson’s chapter, I can see that these men have been socialized to think in this way. This is not to say they can only think about saying shes a “sexy bitch” but that it is a path of least resistance. They comment more on her sexuality than her ability, which relates closely to what we discussed in class last time. It is also interesting that they use the word “bitch” because as Johnson discusses how the bitch was originally was Artemis-Diana, goddess of the hunt. Now when a woman assumes authority in a hunt she is usually considered a bitch. In this song men take authority over the dancer’s talent but do use the word bitch with a powerful connotation.

The rest of the article was interesting and worth understanding but it does not give an acceptable solution to the problem it poses. His discussion of political action as a way to change the system, I believe was unfounded. Laws literally define acceptable social norms and political action changes laws. Now legislation on ideologies is difficult to pass, but it is one understandable and effective solution. I understand it is not meant to be a manifesto, but I need a little bit more excitement and engagement if I am going to try to fight “the system” he defines.

I agree with Regan’s comment about the Frye article, that the whore/virgin dichotomous role that women can fill is frustrating. However, Frye seemed to be ranting as opposed to offering real solutions. She came off as a frantic, crazy woman, not a woman with legitimate concerns. While her issues were important, she did not present them respectably and therefore lost all legitimacy. Women like Frye discredit the conversation around a social movement.

Lead post for 2/9

There were many interesting points in Johnson's essay, a few of which I'd like to address. Firstly is the process of socialization, men nor women are responsible for violence against women, but violence against women is ingrained in patriarchal society, a society in which males and females participate. This society then cycles back and affects us: socialization. Socialization, as Johnson defines it is quite similar to the idea of "programming" outlined in Neuborne's essay that we read earlier in the semester. We may not be overtly sexist, but sexism is programmed into our everyday lives.

Another interesting point is the variety of possible actions after one hears a statement of prejudice. I feel it is our responsibility to no longer follow the path of "least resistance," to no longer simply "go along" in fear that we could provoke social resistance. This can be applied to any statement of prejudice whether it is sexism, racism etc. Many people may think statements of prejudice are wrong, but many people are too afraid to stand up for what's right. We need to stand up to prejudice for if we do, soon it will be the racist, or sexist who fears social repercussions rather than ourselves. Johnson brings up a good point when she says--"having a bad experience with someone who wears glasses is unlikely to cause antipathy toward people who wear glasses, but people often say their prejudice against groups such as blacks, women or Jews is based on a few bad experiences" with these particular groups. This statement is sadly quite true. Over the summer, I was talking with an obvious racist and naive person who used the "N Word" and felt they were justified in using such a deragatory term simply because he was once mugged by a group of African Americans. This logic completely baffled me, however, as I tried to explain to this completely ignorant person that just because he was once mugged by people of a certain race does not mean that entire race deserves his racist labels.

Similarly, patriarchal cultures are more likely to support war in fear that being a pacifist is deemed "unmanly." This point made me think of my history seminar in which we have discussed why America felt the need to participate in certain unnecessary wars simply because there was an innate manly sentiment of militarism and imperialism.

The change in vocabulary as society became more patriarchal is another intriguing point to Johnson's essay--words like "crone, witch, bitch, and virgin" used to have positive connotations but are now insults.

One part, however, where I disagreed with Johnson is when she stated that "'real' sex with intercourse" is "far more conducive to men's pleasure than women's." I believe this statement may be true in some cases but is a complete stereotype and generalization. I know many women who enjoy "real" sex just as much if not more than men. Johnson's statement reflects a radical feminist view I've seen and read before: this unfounded (and stereotypically lesbian associated view) that women do not need men for sexual pleasure. Johnson seems to assume that women prefer other sexual acts over intercourse--this belief is completely untrue when applied to the entire female race. I know many women who prefer intercourse. All women have different preferences and the assumption that women don't enjoy traditional "real" sex (intercourse) as much as men is completely unfounded.

What stuck out most to me in the Frye article is something we have discussed in class before: the dichotomy of the whore/virgin and how both are seen as deragatory. This societal sexual dichotomy really frusterates me: if a girl is sexually active, she is deemed a slut / if a girl is a virgin she is seen as cold, frigid, a tease, or may be thought of as a lesbian even if she is straight. There is a particular article in Cosmo that addresses this dichotomy, it's about Fergie and how she tries to be the the Italian image of the whore and the virgin:

http://www.celebitchy.com/79127/fergie_brags_about_josh_duhamel_in_pre-stripper_scandal_interview/

Why does she have to be both? Why can't she be neither?--Why isn't being neither a slut nor a frigid tease an option?

However, like with Johnson's essay, I have a point of disagreement with Frye's as well. I dislike her assumption that men hold the door for us because we are "incapable." This belief is absurd. Personally, I enjoy an act of "chivalry" once in a while; I enjoy when a man opens the door for me, when a man pays for dinner, etc.

Raunchy Jersey (Media Project)

The television show, The Jersey Shore is a chauvinist pig’s playground for women who “get it,” men who own it and everyone else in-between. Ariel Levy in Female Chauvinist Pigs explains the so-called “raunch culture” of popular American media as an expression of power through sexuality, specifically the female heterosexual and ownership of “it.” She describes this “it” as an ego boost in the form of treatment as an honorary man (page 117). In The Jersey Shore the female characters work the raunch culture to their advantage. Keep in mind this is a reality TV show which has a lot of controversy about its portrayal of Italian Americans, but not so much of women. The characters/people spend most of their summer on the New Jersey shore looking to “hook-up” but not fall in love; however sex is perfectly acceptable. Now I’m not judging having sex without love, but I what wish to examine is why people feel empowered by sex without love specifically through the character Snookie. I will also examine how violence perpetuates raunch culture though and around sexuality.

In the third episode, Snookie is hanging out in the house eating pickles and wearing a hat with the label “porn-star in training.” The conversation starts when one of the male cast members says, “Snooks, who are you hooking up with Snooks?” She responds, “I don’t know, lets find me a man to bring home.” She then takes a pickle out of the refrigerator and two of the male cast members start laughing at her about eating the pickle. She tells them how she eats the pickle (sucking the juice out first) and the scene ends with Paulie, a male housemate, telling her she “really is a porn-star in training” (see right). Snookie here is appealing to raunch culture to try to “bring a man home” or perhaps entice one of the men she to whom she is talking. Her overt sexual innuendo about sucking on a “pickle” while wearing a hat that portrays her idols as porn-stars, exemplifies her real goal of finding a man.

Ariel Levy would say that most of Snookie’s behavior is an attempt to gain power by subjecting herself to objectification. I agree that Snookie’s actions are motivated by an attempt to gain power, but I think she can only understand her power through affection from a man, not respect from a man like Levy says. Snookie and the other female characters on the show use sex as a way to find love. They consider love the only thing that can validate them as people. They are all female chauvinist pigs in the sense that they use their bodies and attempt to be “in” on the joke of female objectification, but their main goal is not equality but love from a man. Levy discusses raunch culture in the eyes of the educated white upper/middle class woman and definitely not through the “guidos” at the Jersey shore. Snookie’s actions on the show represent how most women, not women with the highest forms of education, understand raunch culture. They see it as a way to empower themselves through validation of being considered “hot” and worthy of a man’s love. Levy tries to show it as an understanding and attempt for respect, but I think she is off the mark. Most women are using raunch culture to snag a man, not a job.

The condoning of violence on The Jersey Shore is also worth noting within this notion of raunch culture. Sex and violence have become two activities closely linked through alcohol. On The Jersey Shore, most nights start with a search for sex (by men with the goal of finding a woman just for the night and for women with the intention of finding a man to fall in love with), use alcohol as a lubricant to increase the sexual tension to encourage people to act more raunchy, and can either end in sex or violence. In http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/12/11/the-sexist-outcry-over-snookie-getting-punched-in-the-face/, Amanda Hess notes the different times when violence is part of the norm on the show. Is violence part of raunch culture? I wonder what Levy would say.

Violence usually stems from a power struggle and Levy notes that sexuality in the raunch culture also stems from a power struggle. However, with these images of violence, women have not created a way to be “in” on the joke; they still do not think it is funny. For example, when Snookie gets punched in the face over a power struggle for a drink, the community on screen and off is outraged (see right). However, as Hess points out, if women really wanted equality, violence toward women would be acceptable as long as it was equally abusive to men. Here, Levy falls short of including the Maximizers argument. I would have to agree with the Maximizers because on average, most women are physically weaker than men so receiving cross-gender violence will never have the same impact on women than it does on men. On the show, Jwow tries to punch a male character but the offense is seen as much less dire as the one that happens to Snookie (see left). In this way, women can never be 100% equal to men.

Perhaps this is why raunch culture developed, because men use violence for power but women could not so they used sex instead. Maybe women created raunch culture to gain men’s attention, to tell them to stop fighting with each other and look up at us. It is cool to think that women were really in control of this exploitation and perhaps we are gaining some power out of it. Slowly, I believe we will figure out a way to use this raunch to be even more powerful then physical power. Right now we are in an in-between stage; Levy’s book should have been a manifesto to bring us to the next point, not a critique of what we have done so far.

Artistic Raunch Culture: STILL Raunch Culture

Eileen O’Brien

WMST 202B

Professor Levy

February 4, 2010

Artistic Raunch Culture: STILL Raunch Culture

The Grammy Awards show is arguably the biggest night in pop music, in which contemporary musicians receive awards for their achievements and enjoy performances. On January 31, 2010, contemporary pop culture icon P!nk (pronounced as 'pink') performed her song “Glitter in the Air” off her Funhouse album. The artist has achieved tremendous commercial success and is most famous for her punchy, emotive lyrics and in-your-face style attitude (see below).

http://www.insidesocal.com/tomhoffarth/archives/pink-cigarette-5001139.jpg

As a symbol of what Levy classifies as 'raunch culture,' P!nk is typically clad in short, tight, 'punk' style outfits, exuding an image of simultaneous femininity and toughness. This contradiction is in part what Levy means when she describes raunch culture as a way for women to embrace their sexuality and independence on their own terms. P!nk challenges ordinary conceptions of what it means to be feminine through her lyrics, music videos, clothes, and her relationship with men, as she proposed to her current husband, motocross racer Carey Hart. Though her Grammy performance this year was a departure from her typical style, the way in which she chose to portray her song and dance is consistent with her reputation as a product of raunch culture.

The singer, songwriter, dancer and producer emerges on the stage cloaked in a white, floor length cloak. A vision of purity, she sings to only a piano and guitar rift accompaniment, so the music suits the tone of the performance. Yet as the drum beat enters and she sings the lyrics, "have you ever let a stranger come inside," she removes her cloak to reveal a nude body suit, adorned with glitter, covering her private parts with white straps across her body. P!nk then sits on a cloth that connects her to a globe of Cirque de Soleil acrobats, and together they ascend above the crowd. She sings while suspended in this white hammock, proving her vocal talents and athletic ability, moving her legs like that of an acrobat. P!nk is thendipped into a pool of water and rises again, sprinkling the audience with her wetness as she spins and sings.

http://www.nj.com/entertainment/celebrities/index.ssf/2010/01/pinks_grammy_performance_up_in.html

-------->

http://beat.bodoglife.com/entertainment/pinks-stunning-grammy-performance-54180.html

The performance literally brought tears to my eyes. It was so beautifully constructed, so artistic in nature, that I could not believe such an act had come from the artist herself. On stage, P!nk was graceful and delicate, a heavenly vision in white. Her acrobatic feats displayed her strength of body and of voice, connecting the audience with her saturation. But don't take my word for it; see for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BknDYi-IQ4

Can this be the same raunchy P!nk seen in the first image? This act of art is so far from what Levy constitutes as raunchy that it is hard to believe. Yet perhaps Levy's definition of what is raunch is too limited. Need women be displayed on a centerfold to be considered a product of raunch culture? Must they be dancing topless for cameras on their spring break? Attending CAKE parties, publicly wearing thongs, kissing other women in front of men? Certainly not. For I feel that P!nk's performance, though light and gentle as compared to her other more aggressive acts, is also a product of raunch culture. No, she is not on her knees, mud-wrestling in a bikini, nor is she exploiting herself in the name of all that is sexual. Yet the very performance that portrays her as a graceful artist also serves to embody the raunch culture in which we live. Think about it. P!nk is wearing sky high heels and a nude body suit. She is suspended above the heads of the crowd as something to look at. She is wet and touching herself. In this way, P!nk performs as an object, as a woman with a nice, wet body, instead of as a talented vocalist.

http://www.awardsdaily.com/?p=18754

P!ink's "Glitter in the Air" performance is a gorgeous work of art. She both challenges and adheres to contemporary conceptions of femininity. Her body is not that of a typical ballet dancer or Cirque de Soleil acrobat, with a certain figure, body shape and breast size. Yet she portrays a sexy, wet, contemporary pop-culture vision of female sexuality. Levy’s argument, then, is too narrowly focused. She does not entertain the grey areas in which women like P!nk live; in which women like all of us live. A woman can be a sex icon with a fiery attitude, and she can be graceful and artistic. Women today need not choose to be one or the other. Part of the freedom the third wave allows women today is the freedom to be who we are, be it racy or delicate or both. We can embody those typical characteristics of women of the past, or of today's new raunch culture. Or we can, and are, creating a new status quo, a new conception of what it means to be a woman. P!nk's performance of art in action shows us that we can have it both ways.

http://blog.singersroom.com/celebs/?p=9606

The Vagina Monologues: Just Another Part of Raunch Culture?

2/4/10

WMST 202

Media Culture Project

The Vagina Monologues: Just Another Part of Raunch Culture?

So I was originally cast as “the Moaner” in Colgate’s production of the Vagina Monologues, which will be performed Thursday, February 25^th and Friday, February 26^th at the Palace Theater. Then I thought to myself, “hmmm what would Ariel Levy think about this play?”.

The Vagina Monologues is an off Broadway play written and directed by “feminist” Eve Ensler, only women are allowed to perform in it, and the majority of the audience tends to be female: a classic scenario of “female chauvinist pigs”—women “make[ing] sex objects of other women and of themselves” (Levy 4). The monologues cover a wide array of “women’s issues” from “sex, love, rape, menstruation, mutilation, masturbation, birth, orgasm, the variety of names for the vagina, or simply as a physical aspect of the body” (Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vagina_Monologues).

“The Moaner” monologue, entitled “the Woman Who Loved to Make Vaginas Happy,” is about a former straight tax attorney turned lesbian dominatrix. Here’s the monologue in full:

I love vaginas. I love women. I do not see them as separate things. Women pay me to dominate them, to excite them, to make them come. I did not start out like this. No, to the contrary: I started out as a lawyer, but in my late thirties, I became obsessed with making women happy. There were so many unfulfilled women. So many women who had no access to their sexual happiness. It began as a mission of sorts, but then I got involved in it. I got very good at it, kind of brilliant. It was my art.
I started getting paid for it. It was as if I had found my calling. I wore outrageous outfits when I dominated women--lace and silk and leather--and I used props: whips, handcuffs, rope, dildoes. There was nothing like this in tax law.
There were no props, no excitement, and I hated those blue corporate suits, although I wear them now from time to time in my new line of work and they serve quite nicely. Context is all.
There were no props in corporate law. There was no wetness. There was no dark mysterious foreplay. There were no erect nipples. There were no delicious mouths, but mainly there was no moaning. Not the kind I'm talking about anyway. This was the key, I see now; moaning was the thing that ultimately seduced me and got me addicted to making women happy. When I was a little girl and I would see women in the movies making love, making strange orgasmic moaning noises,
I used to laugh.
I got strangely hysterical.
I couldn't believe that big, outrageous, ungoverned sounds like that came out of women. I longed to moan.
I practiced in front of my mirror,
on a tape recorder,
moaning in various keys,
various tones,
but always when I played it back, it sounded fake. It was fake. It wasn't rooted in anything sexual really, only in my desire to be sexual. But then when I was 10 I had to pee really badly once. On a car trip. It went on for almost an hour and when I finally got to pee in this dirty little gas station, it was so exciting, I moaned. I moaned as I peed. I couldn't believe it, me moaning in a Texaco station in the middle of Louisiana. I realized right then that moans are connected with not getting what you want right away,with putting things off. I realized moans were best when they caught you by surprise, they came out of this hidden mysterious part of you that was speaking its own language. I realized that moans were, in fact, that language. I became a moaner. It made most men anxious. Frankly, it terrified them. I was loud and they couldn't concentrate on what they were doing. They'd lose focus. Then they'd lose everything. We couldn't make love in people's homes. The walls were too thin. I got a reputation in my building and people stared at me with contempt in the elevator. Men thought I was too intense, some called me insane. I began to feel bad about moaning. I got quiet and polite. I made noise into a pillow.
I learned to choke my moan, hold it back like a sneeze. I began to get headaches and stress-related disorders.I was becoming hopeless when I discovered women.
I discovered that most women loved my moaning, but more importantly I discovered how deeply excited I got when other women moaned, when I could make other women moan. I made love to quiet women and I found this place inside them and they shocked themselves in their moaning. I made love to moaners and they found a deeper, more penetrating moan. It was a kind of surgery, a kind of delicate science, finding the tempo,
the exact location or home of the moan. That's what I called it. Sometimes I found it over a woman's jeans. Sometimes I snuck up on it, off the record, quietly disarming the surrounding alarms and moving in. Sometimes I used force, but not violent, oppressing force, more like dominating, "I'm going to take you some place, don't worry, lay back and enjoy the ride" kind of force. Sometimes it was simply mundane. I found the moan before things even started, while we were eating salad or chicken just casual just right there, with my fingers. "Here it is like that,"real simple,in the kitchen, all mixed in with the balsamic vinegar. Sometimes I used props--I loved props--sometimes I made the woman find her own moan in front of me. I waited, stuck it out until she opened herself.
I wasn't fooled by the minor, more obvious moans. No, I pushed her further all the way into her power moan. There's the clit moan, (a soft in-the-mouth sound),
the vaginal moan, (a deep in-the-throat sound),
the combo, clit-vaginal moan.
There's the pre-moan, (a hint of sound),
the almost moan (a circling sound),
the right on it moan (a deeper definite sound),
the elegant moan (a sophisticated laughing sound),
the Grace Slick moan (a rock singing sound),
the WASP moan (no sound), the catholic moan (forgive me), the jewish moan (no, no, no), the african american moan (oh shit, oh shit), the mountaintop moan (yodeling sound), the baby moan (googie googie googie goo sound),
the doggy moan (a panting sound),
the uninhibited militant bisexual moan (a deep, aggressive, pounding sound),
the machine-gun moan,
the tortured Zen moan (a twisted hungry sound),
the Diva moan (a high operatic note), and finally,the surprise triple orgasm moan (intense, multifaceted climactic moan).

The monologue includes a wide array of raunchy details: “come,” “open mouths,” “wetness,” “dildos,” “props” etc — Sounds like a porno flick, right? Furthermore, it stereotypes women: as if women of different races and religions have different moans. Aren’t feminists trying to get away from stereotyping women? Also, why is sex treated so lightly here, why is sex being portrayed as a humorous experience? This monologue is quite racy, concluding with various orgasmic moans as seen in this video clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5FfVY-5Mcw. I imagine Levy would think these moans are borderline pornographic. With out porn, no one would really know all the possible versions of moaning because moaning should be a private experience. Levy would see this “moaner” as a terrible role model: a human who achieved success as a lawyer has now stooped to become a prostitute?! — ABSURD. If both men and women watched this performance, Levy may feel that men would get more gratification from watching her moan while many women would merely feel uncomfortable.

Levy talks about the difference between the performance of sexuality and the experience—all of these monologues are a mere performance. In the first chapter of Female Chauvinist Pigs, Levy discusses the Girls Gone Wild phenomena. On page ten, Levy quotes a young woman named Cope who is a regular participant in Girls Gone Wild. Cope states: “People watch the videos and think the girls in them are really slutty, but I’m a virgin! —As if that fact justifies her behavior. This statement especially struck me as I debated whether or not to perform in the Vagina Monologues. I called a friend from another college who had performed the role of “the Moaner” a couple of years ago. And guess what? She is a virgin too! Her performance of moans was a complete charade, a complete performance of sex, something she had never actually experienced. It reminds me of the young virginal Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson who danced around barely clothed and imitated sexual behavior even though they themselves never had sex.

Furthermore, the monologues portray an extremely slanted point of view. The monologues are quite male bashing: most, but not all, of the monologues associate sex with a man as rape and sex with a woman as fulfilling. But not all women are lesbians. If the Vagina Monologues was truly about female empowerment, it should speak to all women. In addition to the moaning monologue, another monologue I believe Levy would especially disapprove of is “The Little Coochie Snorcher That Could”—a story of a younger girl who enters an illegal sexual relationship with a much older woman. This is not love or discovering one’s self. This is rape, statutory rape. The Vagina Monologues, perhaps in Levy’s opinion, is the view of sex positive “feminists” like Candida Royalle, Emily Kramer, and Melinda Gallagher who are pro porn and overtly sexual. The Vagina Monologues may also share the views of separatist feminists, radical feminists who say you must be a lesbian and refuse to get married if you truly believe in female empowerment.

And again as I’ve stressed in my other blogs, we must think of the double standard here. Would men ever put their sexuality on display? Why isn’t there a Penis Monologues? Why do women feel the need to be overtly sexual in order to show their power? The Vagina Monologues has a monologue entitled cunt. Why should we venerate a derogatory word like cunt? —A word that was created by men to oppress women.

I believe Ariel Levy would think the Vagina Monologues, a play supposed to be about female empowerment, actually plays into today’s raunch culture. And if Levy does indeed believe this, I’d agree with her. So today, after much thought and consideration, I sent out an email to the cast of Vagina Monologues telling them I’ve dropped out.