Monday, February 21, 2011

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?


Wednesday, February 16, 2011

"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?

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

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.