Seeing to believe

This week I've been talking to a lot about people about what they're gonna do after graduation. I'm moving to Austin, and that's basically what I've got figured out. Despite the fact that I'm leaving Ithaca College with $80,000+ in debt, I don't much more about what the future will hold. But more and more, I'm getting nervous. Most of my male friends already have jobs lined up, especially the business students. Of course, I could have been a business student if I wanted those same opportunities but that was not the path best suited for me. But then there's my female roommate, a hard-working, incredibly intelligent business student. She recently went through the interviewing process and finally landed a job with a starting salary of $40,000-- not too bad I know, but compared to my male friends who are making at least $65,000 its a bit frustrating. The difference in pay between men and women has gone down over the years, but the fact still remains: women are making less money than men doing the same jobs.

In an article I recently read from 2010, the discussion of women in the workforce turned to education. A point was made about the presence of women in liberal arts colleges, claiming the dominance of women in arts and humanities. Earlier this semester, our class discussed the prevalence of women in jobs involving the sciences: chemistry, biology, etcetera. A speaker came to our class and she asked us to close our eyes an picture a scientist. Most people in the class envisioned a white man in a white lab coat.

Now close your eyes and picture a billionaire. Who do you see?

From the other side...

At the Correspondents' Dinner, Seth Meyers' had quite a few jokes up his sleeve but one in particular caught my attention: "The White House Correspondents' Association is an organization of journalists who cover both The White House and the president, but earlier Sen. John Kyl told me 90 percent of what they did was abortions."

Despite how great it was to see smug rich men get completely put into their place, the realities that act as inspiration for these jokes is quite depressing. In class, we watched the documentary 12th and Delaware, made by the same ladies who brought you Jesus Camp. This documentary exposed the binary nature of the abortion debate and the extreme measures taken by both sides (admittedly, more attention is given to the extreme measures taken by the pro-life camp). But what this documentary really made clear to me was the need for empathy and understanding in our debate and thinking. I find it difficult to empathize with any criticisms given by men regarding abortion because men do not have uteruses therefore they lack the ability to be in the physical situation of being pregnant.

But, I am not a devout Christian, or even very religious at all, so my challenge is to see abortion through a new light. This is a difficult struggle because above all else, I believe in a person's right over control of his/her own body.

Rethinking Violence

Yesterday, Osama Bin Laden's death was announced to us by our president. Obama's speech was a carefully structured string of sentiments that was meant to calm our nation's fears, denounce the enemy that took the lives of our people, and ultimately, reaffirm the US as the greatest country in the entire world. I will make no secret of how I feel about our president, despite all of his shortcomings, I have the utmost respect and hope for his vision as our leader. Yet, the death of Bin Laden and the reaction of our country is still a bit alarming. A close friend of mine lost his father on September 11, 2001, he was a firefighter who sacrificed his life to save others. My friend believes justice has been done with the death of Bin Laden.

I stumbled upon this quote in many of my friend's facebook statuses, blogs, twitters, etc:

"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." --Martin Luther King Jr.

Besides the fact that this quote was actually never spoken by MLK, I tend to appreciate the meaning. I won't lie, I also have personally rejoiced in the death of this horrible person that took so many innocent lives. But more and more, I think of how this momentous murder is acting as a sort of huge billboard advertisement for militarization, violence, and murder itself. There are so many controversies today that center around the very validity of violence: the death penalty, Guantanamo Bay, the use of drones, and our own imperialist foreign policy, and yet the threat of normalizing violence is still underreported. Our lives our becoming militarized more and more every day, so much so that we don't even realize or care. But we should! As an American, I have the privilege of living in peace; I don't have to be scared to walk outside, or be fearful of the safety of my loved ones. But as a feminist, I know that the militarization of our everyday lives is extremely connected to the structure of patriarchy that dominates the US, so much so that it is actually perpetuating this structure of inequality. Promoting violence as a means to achieve peace seems quite contradictory, yet it hasn't been seen that way by the majority of our leaders, past and present. Despite all this, I still struggle with this moment in history. Bin Laden's death won't bring back all those who died because of him, but still there's some feeling of relief associated with his murder that I can't shake, and it is this internalization of violence that makes me nervous about the future of our country.

In the wake of recent legislation aimed to cut funding to Planned Parenthood and further limit the the access to abortions in the United States, I thought this article was interesting and eye-opining, especially if we are to think more inclusively in our feminisms.

Right to Life in Guatemala

All Natural?

In recent class discussions, I've been thinking a lot about the term 'natural.' In talking about the environment, there are many perspectives that have intrigued me. If humans are natural than how can anything we do be unnatural? Conversely, humans as natural creatures need to recognize the manmade negative impact on our natural environment-- forests, oceans, etc. Ecocritics, or environmental critics, are those that aim to examine the relationship between the environment and humans. However, these critics often view inequalities in our society as results of our impact on nature, not as results of social constructions of hierarchy and privilege --- and if they do acknowledge this as a reason, they place the environment as a more important cause for the moment. I'm not quite sure how I feel about all of this debate. More and more, I am troubled by the idea of our environment completely falling out from under us, withering away from the chaos we force upon it. But I am equally and more frequently troubled by the inequalities presently and historically perpetuated in our society through systems of privilege. I mean, if we aren't going to have an earth to even be equal on then what would be the point of trying to combat inequality? What do you think?

Which came first, the soup or the pot?

I just finished every season available to watch of Mad Men and besides anxiously awaiting its return in order to see how the plot will progress, I am equally excited to continue learning about life in the 60s. The show slightly began tying in references to the Civil Rights movement, and Peggy Olsen (Elizabeth Moss) is grappling with the idea of civil rights and her role and status as a woman. This post will be short since I simply wanted to share this quote from the show that I found so completely thought provoking. Peggy is talking to a friend (who happens to be a lesbian) about why the men she dates can't deal with her work schedule.

The friend says: "It's like men are this vegetable soup. You can't put them on a plate or eat them off a counter so women are the pot. [Women] heat them up, they hold them, they contain them. But who wants to be a pot? And who the hell says we're not soup?"
Peggy disagreed with this quote, what do you think? This quote is obviously rooted in a historical context, but I think the sentiment is still relevant. Do you think today women have become the soup?

Work, work, work

More on Mad Men...

The relationship between men and their secretaries during the 1960s, especially in the advertising field was something that particularly interested me. These women are made to keep the secrets of their boss no matter what, whether it be about a secret affair, a drinking problem, etc. As of 1996, 98 percent of secretaries, unfortunately this was the most recent statistic I could find. What implications does being a secretary still have when you are a woman today?

Here's some interesting articles I found regarding this discussion:

Women in the workforce

More male secretaries, please!

Mad (Sad) Men and the Strongest Women

I recently started watching Mad Men. I know, I'm really ahead of the curve. Anyways, I had watched an episode before, the series premiere, on a plane ride to Austin, TX to see my boyfriend. During the episode, I decided to write down every line that pissed me off. Then I stopped because it was impossible to do while fluently watching the show. Either way, I had written down a few lines that especially sparked my interest in some way. A line in particular goes like this, "I never realized it till this moment but I guess it's hard to be a man, too." The irony, however, is in the fact that it was said by one of Don Draper's mistresses (at least from my recollection so I could possible be wrong). Despite who said the line the fact is that this show is very powerful. Its subtlety can be misleading -- it actually is an entertainingly eye-opening examination of the way gender has been constructed and simultaneously perpetuated throughout history.

It is not just the women who are constricted in roles where little equality or self-agency is apparent, it is the men as well. However, it is at times a grueling task to sit through near hour long episodes of man after man abusing his power to sleep with attractive secretaries. Nevertheless I continue...

Don Draper is just a quintessential character for the show and for the time period. He comes from a broken home, no family left; he is a war deserter, a womanizer and a seemingly gentle yet tortured soul. You see the goodness in him shine through only to be ruined when the next attractive woman walks through his line of vision.

So it was also hard to be a man?

I definitely see this in some of the male characters of the show. But I see it in almost every female character. But the thing is, it's almost as if I get more upset when the woman succumbs to sexist traditions. Like the way Joan (Christina Hendricks) asserts her confidence in the office yet has to be especially cruel when a secretary has made a mistake. In order to affirm her authority she acts aggressive, all-knowing, dominant-- the most masculine of qualities. Likewise, when Peggy pitches asks Don Draper for the job of copy-writer, she is told by him she needed to ask like a man. It is here we see the prioritizing of masculine qualities which just so happen to benefit men. Is it all their fault? No. It is all women's fault? No. Do we often contribute to this prioritization? Yes.

Neither men or women are fundamentally happy in Mad Men (Maybe with the exception of Sterling right now with his young wife --- I'm only on Season 3 so I'm sure this will change). It is because everyone felt constricted in some way; Men like Don Draper keep their whole identity hidden to the people he cares about most (presumably) and only allow vulnerability to show in the most extreme of cases -- in Don's case he shows it to the wife of the man who involuntarily gave him his identity. To me, however, my heart goes out instead to Peggy, sitting in her own office after giving up for adoption a baby she never knew existed. She is one of the woman I worry most about yet have the most confidence in (and I haven't even mentioned Betty played by January Jones, that's another post in of itself). I believe she will be successful and that's good, but I also fear that she will not allow all of herself to come to the forefront, to make a stand as the woman she really is deep down, not as a man.

I guess we'll all see.

Making Realities: Reality T.V. & Structured Genders

A few days ago, submitting into pressures of current company and perpetual boredom, I watched Tabatha's Salon Takeover. At first I was surprised by how genuinely nice Tabatha actually was, having constantly seen previews showcasing her no bullshit managing technique. Tabatha was called in after the boss lost control of his salon (a boss frequently referred to as a "pussy" and having a "mangina" as well as needing to "take back his balls"). The show's premise centered around the male boss's need to reclaim his manhood by seeking control of his salon, or to put it more crudely, to let go of his mangina.

Ultimately, I ended up spending a long time internally debating the problems posed by this show. Reinforcing the idea that labeling someone who is unable to successfully run a business as possessing female instead of male genitals feels like semi-camouflaged sexism. What then does it say when women are among the majority of viewers of these type of shows? Are we our own worst enemy? To me, the sex organ between your legs doesn't directly correlate to your ability to manage a business. Do you think watching these shows is damaging to women's perception of gender identity? Do you watch these shows? If so, why?

"Wearing the pants" and other fashion faux pas

Have you ever wondered what the hell wearing pants has to do with having a good relationship? Why is there always someone trying to wear them, or someone trying to get them back from his or her partner. How many times have you heard someone say “wonder who wears the pants in that relationship.” Ever realize how that rhetorical question always comes up, in the most drawn out and inappropriate cadence, when a relationship seems to be controlled more by the woman (or simply not enough by the man). I was a sophomore in high school, dating my first real boyfriend, when the term was used about me. A free-spirited friend of mine, with no filter spoke aloud to our entire class (A semester-long study of the Holocaust) that in my relationship with my then boyfriend, I indeed wore the pants. He took it rather well. He shook his head in agreement, proclaimed that it was true, and I reveled in the satisfaction of feeling empowered. But what exactly is empowering about acknowledging your own domination of another person? And what does wearing pants have to do with any of it?

Examining a history of wearing pants shows their historically exclusive nature. It wasn't even acceptable for women to wear pants until WWI, when women rushed into the workforce with men off fighting. Asking the question "who's wearing the pants in that relationship?" is implying that there should be someone with more power, and that person should be wearing pants. Since the pants wearing have historically been done by men, the saying simply reinforces a structure of sexism as being necessary to any relationship.

What are people really asking then with the whole pants inquiry? Is a good relationship really measured by who's wearing the pants?

Unveiling Privilege, Finding the 'Elsewheres'

Recognizing my own privilege in order to reach a more inclusive feminism is something I've struggled with since I began learning about feminist theory. Professors I have had at Ithaca College such as Zillah Eisenstein, have consistently fueled this effort, unveiling hidden layers of socially constructed oppression while simultaneously illustrating the hierarchical structures of power that seek to perpetuate this systematic oppression. In the unending effort to identify my own privilege in all its forms I constantly find contradictions and complexities that threaten to break down the strength of my feminist beliefs.

Last semester I attended a panel on the discussion of female infant genital reconstruction -- specifically Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia. The panel specifically addressed female infants born with atypical genitalia that had no medical need for genital reconstruction. Instead, these surgeries are cosmetic in nature, ultimately acting as a means to "fix"; In essence, to reconstruct what is "abnormal" in order to fit into the normalized perception of female genitalia.

The panel was created as a reaction to specific cases of procedures by Dr. Dix Poppas, a doctor working at Cornell University. Dr. Poppas is a highly acclaimed doctor who is well-respected in his academic and local communities. However, his practices caused concern among some members of the Ithaca community, many wanting to address the issue of gender and children's rights.

The panel, consisting of representatives from the academic and medical community, also offered the opinion of a woman born with this kind of atypical genitalia. She explained that what is meant by atypical genitalia in the cases presented is an "abnormal" largeness of the clitoris, spanning from 1/2 inch to 1 1/2 inches in size. Furthermore, the panel explored the follow-up procedures, performed by Dr. Poppas after the surgeries. These infants undergo surgery then return for tests that aim to gage the success of the surgery. In the cases being discussed, with the supervision of her parents, Dr. Poppas, and his assistant, each patient's clitoris was to be tested for sensation response. These tests include stimulating the clitoris with a vibrating device, pressing down on the clitoris with a q-tip until turning white then releasing and timing how long it takes for the blood to become visible again. Another cause for concern in these procedures is that if the surgery isn't successful -- if sensation is not retained -- the patient can not simply get it fixed. Any nerves damaged by the surgery are forever gone, as if they were never there to begin with.

While listening to the speakers I found myself outraged at the thought of this happening in my community. The panelist born with atypical genitalia shared her feelings of inadequacy, of anger toward her parents for giving consent to change her body. Instead of the intended result of the surgery, the guarantee that she would be able to feel normal as a person if her genitalia was reconstructed, the opposite actually happened. Growing up she felt as if her true self was thrown away in favor of gaining the paradigm of "normal" female genitalia. At the same time, after hearing the testimony of some parents, I began to sympathize with their positions. There is no intentional malice in these parents when they volunteer their infants for these surgeries. Instead, it is a fear of societal reaction. They don't want their child to ever feel he or she is an outcast, is not good enough or that something is wrong with him or her.

The complexities then arise. Living in the West, there is a constant narrative of third-world desperation and savagery. We are made to believe that humanity as told through the lens of the West is all inclusive. Yet in practice we condemn those who fail to meet the Western standards of "civilization", "democracy" and "equality." bell hooks criticizes white privileged women's historic claim over feminism in the way they essentially said, we figured this whole gender equality thing out perfectly and now we're gonna tell every "uncivilized" country exactly how to do it too. Condemning historically rooted traditions as oppressive and unacceptable, these privileged women dispelled the secrets to gender equality through the lens of Western patriarchal capitalism.

The problem? While privileged feminists condemned the "savage" acts of oppression abroad, they actually further perpetuated the racism imbedded in sexism while simultaneously letting slide the oppressive practices at home that are hiding in the culture of patriarchal capitalism. Even when I began examining the issue brought about in this panel I was referring to the reconstructive surgeries as female genital mutilation (FGM) without realizing the implications of those words. The experience of forced surgery on an infant who is unable to give consent is obviously a serious cause for concern, but it is not the same as FGM in other countries -- I'm not trying to place higher importance on either of these situations here, I am instead trying to illustrate the way language can alienate and through that ambiguity, allow for the continued oppression to remain unseen.

As bell hooks says, a woman is not a feminist because she is born female, it takes education, recognition of self privilege, and true soul searching. But because I have been privileged enough to obtain an education, doesn't make me an expert able to pass judgement on those without that same access. It has taken me till now to see that the fact I am even able to freely examine these issues means I am more privileged than most women across the world. Because of this it is my responsibility to bring to light the oppression happening in the country I was born, but I now see that it is necessary to recognize that multitude of forces at play. Racism and class discrimination play crucial roles in perpetuating sexism, and vise versa. In seeing the ways these structures of oppression and domination exist, movement toward a truly inclusive humanity -- not simply a Western constructed humanity -- is possible. In my eyes, each step taken to reach this inclusive humanity is a step taken to strengthen truly feminist theory.

Links and more information regarding the panel and issues discussed are to be posted shortly for those interested in learning more.