Women’s Lives: Chapter 77, “Consumption (1991): North American Perspectives” H. Patricia Hynes

This is was a great last chapter for me to end on with this book and this class in general. It was the first chapter in general that truly connected almost every issue with gender, power, the environment, and American society, and how this complex web of values, standards, ways of living, beliefs, institutions, and notions of gendering and power effect the enviroment on a local level in North America, and a macro-level, internationally. For such a short article, Hynes covers a lot of ground, with evidence of how the “American Dream”, starting with the nuclear family in the 1950s on a material level has made no one person in society (overall) truly any happier. One of the most thought-provoking statements Hynes makes in the article is “Describing the pitfalls of consumerism and the manufacture of discontent that keep middle-class people locked into a work-and-spend cycle, she calls for overcoming consumerism, revaluing leisure, and re-thinking the necessity of full-time jobs”(562). This quote truly spoke to me in that I can connect it to my social location as a full time student, from a working, middle class family. This statement exemplifies much of the core issues when it comes to changing our consumerism addiction in American culture and society in general. How can we support the economy in this time of crisis but also cut back on the massive amount of unnecessary material items to help reduce the average environmental impact footprint? The fact that the middle class is stuck in this consumerism-prism keeps the out reach to those that have little resource needs in impoverished communities a reality. I thought it commendable that Hynes was able to put this in perspective and connect it to how so much of the time the ignorance that surrounds poverty-stricken neighborhoods of color have been so boxed-in in current society and media that it leads to no progression in the movement to overall consume less as a society, and to instead place importance on social interactions and small communities helping each other.
Another statement that spoke to me as reader was “ ‘Twelve-step’ programs to break the consumer habit offer good techniques borrowed from self-fulfillment and self-control support-group settings, but they are no substitute for social responses to persistent poverty, to misogyny that sells women as sex to be consumed, to child labor and sweatshops, to the consumption engine of militarism and military spending that siphons the life force out of societies, and to all oppressions of ‘the other”(564). This quote in itself represented so much of the core issues that society turns a blind-eye to when it comes to the roots problem(s) of how we as a community of earth will be able to protect it and respect it enough so that future generations can still have a place to live. I thought it interesting of Hynes to bring in the factors of selling sex, the consumerism of the woman’s body, and how that gendering of female have contributed to the systems of militarism- contributing meaning creating a hierarchy system in society where masculinity is much more “prided on” then femininity, and the concept of masculinity has contributed to so much of the consumerism culture. Masculinity has for the most part been boxed into the norm of “bigger is better”; “the more the better”, and these mentalities have slowly seeped into the cultural definition of American society as this massive consumer. We even market and advertise to “go green” which in so many cases go against what “going green” truly means, because it is becoming a trendy advertisement, as a mass concept, not as individual decisions to simply consume less and create to building a better society by contributing to smaller communities, and starting at the local level. The way we as a North American culture place value on gender and power, and the systems that has created in society is slowly but surely destroying the earth, and the idea of inner happiness as a culture, I believe, and I truly the new political movement in the US will be able to change that for the generations of tomorrow.

image from: http://risingtide.org.uk/files/rt/Cartoon%20-%20Consumerism%20for%20Beginers.jpg

Dream Worlds Part II, by Sut Jhally

This movie truly changed my perspective on the media, books, TV, newspapers, advertising, etc. forever, as dramatic as that sounds, but it truly shed light on what it means to be gendered as a woman in society. It made me ask question, who controls this gendering? How do woman and men let this power of gendering control values in society? More importantly who controls this gendering, and how do we as citizens of the massive culture of America, let it have so much control?

Some key terms/ideas/phrases emphasized in this presentation:
Male, sexual fantasy world- female sexual stories told by men. Story telling: male fantasies, what makes a fantasy? Female sexual desire “devouring” men, men having “easy freedom” Woman being desperate for men, must find “substitutions” Waiting for me to save the day, a bleak world for woman without men. Who’s dream is this really? Men’s Dreamworld?
Two main arguments I found in this presentation:
It is a mans’ Dreamworld, therefore they, they being woman, act, dress, and show their “real desires” in wanting to rip their clothes off all the time.
Female artists are still in a very men-dominated Dreamworld, but he pressure to fit into the men-Dreamworld is too great to over power in our society. An example that really spoke to me was Madonna’s music videos.

How do these concepts presented intersect with gender, power, sexuality, and race?
Woman are even stuck in the Dreamworld in their own world, still in a man dominated society, men still have the power. It is perfectly legitimate to watch, explore, analyze woman, woman are now just body parts to be watched and used. None of these concepts presented makes these woman human, and these values that are portrayed essentially rip woman of intellectual and spiritual needs as basic inhabitants of this planet.

When it comes to this presentation and how it involves me directly at my social stand point, being a woman on a college campus, these ideas of needing and wanting to be desired as a physical object is extremely prevalent in the culture and world a woman lives in at a public university.
Knowing that people have been raped, and the amount of guilt it has caused them (the victim) because they felt it was their fault because they were dressing inappropriately, or sent the wrong message, or did not say “no”. It really blew my mind how acceptable our rape culture is in the US media, we really have taken the time to acknowledge that we do live in a rape culture, but the fact that we accept that in our every day society is so dangerous.

Image from: http://musicremedy.com/webfiles/artists/PussycatDolls/PussycatDolls-10-big.jpg

Gender Matters: "Performing the Border", film by Ursula Biemann

Blogg Posting: "How and why Gender matters and how does that intersect with power?" was the first question that came to me during and after watching this film. The questions asked are great, and made me step outside my own global stand point and try and put myself in these womans' shoes, so to speak.

Is Gender a Form of 'citizenship'?
Yes, in this culture of living on the border, there is a certain reversal when it comes to the life at the border, catering to citizens of the woman, yet woman during the day are defined as labor citizens, because of how they have been gendered in the society they live on and in.

How does national borders function to sustain gender, a system of constructed, unequal social relations?
There is no real educational system or real community support for the young and easily influenced females of the border culture- no outlet to explore other options, other roles in society. The roles are just instilled in the gendered female concept of the border. Because these woman do not have an education, there is no knowledge of where else to go, or challenge their place that society has put them into, so as a result they are frozen in that cultured and suppressing role as a laborer and a sex object in society- and they know no better.

How do national borders function to sustain race, a system of constructed, unequal social relations?
Border culture: turning the race of the citizens into disposable workers, exchanging bodies, in a robotic society. Serial killers emerge from these border cultures, in order to separate themselves from such a robotic and constructed place in society. They take advantage of the class and social place of the gendered women.

How do nations maintain their economic "growth" at national borders though gender and race, two systems of institutionalized power relations?
The border maintaining this "economic growth" by becoming a robotic and programmed society in the national borders. The woman are gendered and controlled by this power of gender by working in these already placed factories, because they are prime candidates for this form of work: the border is an impoverished place, with little growth to come from the people, and this factory offers hope for income and stability, much of what these woman do not have. Education is not of high priority in this culture, and by being a female, and gendered and controlled by this gendering, it seems to be a box that these woman are socially frozen, because of the fact that the border is a place of isolation, communication and voice recognition is obsolete in this culture.

Image from: http://employees.oneonta.edu/farberas/arth/Images/ARTH200/Women/kahlo/border_Mexico_US.jpg

April 26th 2009 Reading Response: Principles of Environment Justice (1991) and Native Hawaiian Historical and Culture Perspectives on Environmental...

These two articles, together and separately, brought shocking realities to the surface of how culturally, socially, and environmentally suppressed and torn apart the Hawaiian land has become as a result of forced US policies. Having the first article explain The First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit, and the extensive narrative by Trask concerning how the act has been instilled with the Hawaiian islands, or rather the reasoning behind such extreme proposals for the respect of the Mother Land for the natives, brought to light the issues of US policy, and the intersecting of two different foundations of society; Apple Pie America, and the Mother Earth society of the Hawaiian people. These proposals that were stated in the Principles of Environment Justice were at some points dramatic and almost unreal to me…yet when reading the connecting article by Mililani Trask it became clear that these statements and proposals were not in the least dramatic at all, but extremely necessary for the natives of Hawaii. The more I read, the more appalled I became, and speaking from a tourist perspective, I realized my own contribution to the disrespect of the Hawaiian culture and physical land. I remember my trip to Hawaii, the summer of my sophomore year in high school. I was touring with my church Bell Choir on the Big Island, and everyone was very warm and welcoming. Yet this article brought to mind a now disturbing thought. When Trask mentions how tourists in Hawaii want the natives to leave the beaches, because they are “in the way”, I thought how rude! But when reflecting on my own trip there, I remember contributing to such ignorant conversations, contributing to the waste on the land, and not seeing the true native Hawaiian culture for what it truly is, and not grasping how much we have taken from them as a peoples. I also compared much of the statements that are declared in this environmental and cultural protection act to how we as citizens that live in the states treat our land- and we do none of the sort. So much of global America is surrounded by production of material items, material items that we truly have no idea of where they came from, we do not look into the production, the processing, and the waste our society and culture create because so much of the time we are protected by ignorance. Not to randomly go off on a tangent, but I feel as though so much of the readings in Woman’s Lives reflects how much we as an American culture rely solely on ignorance to keep us safe and innocent of so much of the destruction we create. The fact that Hawaiian natives were basically stolen of their land, and the culture is not respected by there “fellow” Americans is something that the current generation needs to recognize, because with recognition comes change, and change is necessary for the respect of this land.

Image from: http://hawaiiwego.com/11-hawaiian-oceanfront-vacations.jpg

April 24th 2009 Reading Response: Chapter 12, WL. Women and the Environment

“Rose Moon”, Sandra Steingraber

This article was one that was almost disturbing to read, yet a reality that so much of the world has ignored. The idea of toxicities in the enviroment, and how these chemicals physically affects the people living in this enviroment, but more importantly to Steingraber, how we as a society handle the awareness and reality of how sick these toxins are making the people living in the enviroment, and how this affects the future children of the generations to come. Steingraber not only brings up how toxins are brought to the public attention, but more importantly how vital and aware these toxins are shared with society, in which the government ultimately controls, until people can use their voices to fight the constant term used: “ In ignorance, abstain” (550). What are we ignorant about? What does it mean to be ignorant when it comes to the health of one’s own baby? How do we as a society handle ignorance? Do we ask more questions, and find why the answer of “ignorance” is so easy to use? Or do we simply follow “ignorance is bliss”, and look no further into the problem, because that would make the problem a reality. This is the main message I received from Steingraber’s article, behind the intense and disturbing stories about the toxicities in the earth, particularly lead, and the lead in lead paint, and the extreme effects it has had on generations and generations of children and families, and still happens today, the government has so many times turned a blind eye. Steingraber brings up these tough realities, realities we as society are not willing to face, because then it makes it true. It makes it a real problem that we as a society have control over, we have the ultimate power to not use lead, to fund companies to extract the toxicities that are imbedded in the soils and walls of these towns and areas so devastatingly affected by these poisons. Yet the easy way out is ignorance, because then in the mind set of so many there is no reality to such a huge issue. We as a society utilize science to the fullest in so many ways, yet the information we release to the public, and the way the information is released is what we need to question as a community that could be affected by toxins, and unborn children could be affected by these toxins, because that is what will give the people the power to find ways to bring the realities to the surface, and more importantly, fix these problems, not feed into more ignorance.

Chapter 11: WL. “The Search for Peace and Justice (1998)”

This section of Woman’s Lives was a new perspective on the many “catch-twenty-two’s” the United States Army offers to those that join it. Despite its many and incredible benefits it gives to those that only have a high school diploma, with little or no money, no future, it is one of the most sexists and as Jean Grossholtz states, “-the biggest welfare state in the world…”(521). Yet she goes on to say that “We [her fellow comrades] complained and raged against the Army’s peculiar ways of trying to break our spirit but all of secretly gloried in our new wealth and were shamed into lying about our pasts, making up stories that were nowhere near true”(521). This has to be one of the most ironic infrastructures within the cultural norms of the United States Army. On one hand, it gives one so much pride and respect within so much of the United States’ communities, a free education, and something to participate in that is bigger then one’s self. All these incredible benefits come with a huge price, much larger then the rewards given: censoring. The Army is one of the most gendered organizations, and with this gendering comes levels of power, and within this power comes the censoring of many men and women and pushes many into an identity crisis of who they truly are versus who they want to be. Grossholtz seems to be a perfect example of that in being from a small town, with no money, and an outsider because of her sexual orientation as a lesbian. The Army offered her an amazing education and a place of growth as a beneficial person to society, yet it silenced her beyond belief in that it told her that who she was as a gay women, as a women, was not right or acceptable, and needed to be silenced in ordered to be accepted in this world. The gendering that occurs within the hierarchical system of the Army is threatened by the gay and lesbian communities because it challenges the masculinity of the male dominance within the Army culture, and women that join are still socially seen as lower in the power structure. So why was Grossholtz marching for lesbians to be active the Army, when it was such a censored and dark place at so many points in her life? She states that “Because if they acknowledge the existence of queers in their ranks, in their leadership, and among those who make the decisions that vote them budgets, then they can no longer adhere to that male ideology of exclusion and machoism”(524). Who is “they”? Who is “them”? How do “they” have power? Who gives “them” that power? It seems as though the Army culture still feeds into many of the ignorant and prejudice views so many Americans have in current society, so what needs to change first? Gendering? Or rank of power?

References

"The Barbie and G.I. Joe Complex: The Projected Image of Gender?" Ignite The Mind. 11 Jan. 2009. 1 Apr. 2009 .

Glanton, Dahleen. "Barbie turns 50, but dolls forever young in eyes of U.S." Www.chicagotribune.com 29 Feb. 2009. Chicago Tribune. 1 Apr. 2009 .

Yelland, Nicola. Gender in Early Childhood. London: Routledge, 1998. Http://books.google.com/books?id=BYv1JsKjG54C&printsec=copyright&dq=gendering+in+the+media. Google Book Search. 1 Apr. 2009.

Revised Abstract

Sierra Schaller
March 23, 2009
WST 200
Abstract

Gender Reflected in the Mirror: Barbie, The American Icon?

Through exploring these media sources, particularly ads that are displayed through the accessible magazine and billboard, cultural norms in the everyday American society, it can be seen that if one ultimately chooses to accept the world that the media presents one with, then that world is a world of defined gender, which is used as a tool to convey power in the current culture. Historically, woman have struggled to become “equal” with men, different ethnicities and cultures have struggled to become “equal” with the average white man, yet these ads show that not too much has changed to what is appealing to the general audience, and what gender has the power. Yet ironically, it is the people that give the media power by feeding into such an influential source, and by giving the media power, we as a people of society give the media power to support the power that is masculinity, the weak that is feminine, with little cultural diversity and acceptance.
One aspect of this source of media that I want to explore further is the toy market in America, and how the production, selling, advertising, and the consuming of these products feeds into the dominance of masculinity and the weakness of femininity, and intersects with gender, power, race, and brings issues of what values this instills in the growing societies of tomorrow.
According to the blogg “Ignite the Mind”, the type of dolls that are sold at stores such as Walmart, K-Mart, Toys ‘R Us, etc. sends messages of “a little girl plays with a doll, she enjoys making her look beautiful, perhaps even playing dress-up, standing in a mirror, and pretending to be a princess. The obviousness is that young girls are seeing that Barbie is the way a female should be; perfect physically, emotionally, socially, and otherwise. As for action figures, young boys are seeing they need to be aggressive to have control over their environment, that power is something to be used for one’s personal “mission,” and that a tough, non-emotional exterior is a true sign of maleness” (Ignitethemind.today.com). This statement is for the most part very true in current society today, especially with how the companies package and advertise the dolls. Barbie is in a perfectly fitted cardboard box, depicting her as the ideal, independent woman, complete with pink everything, blonde hair, and white skin. This can also lead to the question why is Barbie packaged and advertised in the way she is? Cross-culturally speaking, what other values does Barbie portray? Why only one obvious race portrayed? More importantly, where are these dolls manufactured and shipped? Surely not on American soil, yet these toys are ironically setting up the future generation of tomorrow for what is acceptably “gendered” and what aspects are acceptable for these gendered stereotypes, and how much power the media has in essentially defining these rolls.
When it comes to what different cultural values and ethnicities Barbie portrays as the ultimate ‘All-American’ girl symbol, “ ‘Barbie represents a tragic thread in American culture—that assimilation is important if you want to be accepted as American.’ said Mary Rogers, a sociologist at the University of West Florida and author of ‘Barbie Culture.’ ‘That [Mattel] can manipulate racial and class imagery is what makes Barbie such a powerful commentator on who we are and the cultural contradictions we have.’ Mattel officials said Barbie reflects the existing culture. They pointed out that the company introduced the first black Barbie in 1965, and have since produced 50 different nationalities with 26 different skin tones” (Glanton). This shows how far, yet how ignorant the melting pot of America has come to be. The fact that society and the media had to make it a point to create a doll of a different ethnicity other then Caucasian, rather then it being second nature, shows a great deal of what American culture sees and views as acceptable.
Another interesting point that is made in the book Gender and Early Childhood, by Nicole Yelland, states that “Childhood itself has come to be seen as a gendered social phenomenon. Qvortrup (1994) argues that contemporary childhood is the life-space that our culture limits it to be, in its definitions throughout the courts, the school, the family and the economy” This is another supporting statement of how incredibly influential children of today have become, and how far we have come in history from using children as industrial laborers in the 1700’s, to valued as future leaders of society, yet the way society and the media use tools such as dolls and “gendering” demonstrate and influence how these children “should act” in society.
This final project has moved from a space concerning the power of media through magazine and build board ads, to the physical mechanisms of dolls and toys, and how these dolls, Barbie in particular, enters a more specific space of crossing what is gender, how we gender as a culture, cross-culturally representing where America stands, and also where and how these dolls are produced in masses, and make millions for CEO’s of the companies that work for such toy companies. I plan to further my study in the production of Barbie, different companies, the history and roll of children in American society, and how much influence the idea and concept of Barbie has had on what America sees and views as “the norm”, and “the accepted”.

Mid Term Project. The World Media Creates: Are You Apart of It?

Part I:

http://www.kissmestace.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/dng-rauncy-ad.jpg

Despite my previous knowledge of this image, I believe it deserves recognition as a true and tangible reality of how gender and power are interpreted and accepted in society. This ad sparked major controversy when released in Europe, and was pulled before released in the U.S. It suggested a form of not taking action when sexual assault was taking place. The background of men, built, toned, and white, the accepted norm for an appealing males in the general fashion world, observing a woman that has a “blank stare” in her eyes, as a man, with no shirt, wearing sunglasses, holds her down by her wrists. The intersection of gender and power come into play by having the men, strong, standing, all above, staring at the weak woman, who has no intent in her eyes at all. A “gendered” female is seen as frail, thin, expressionless, weak, and feeble in the world of fashion, and “gendered” men have the obvious power and control by being seen as physically strong- which can therefore be translated as mentally strong. Therefore, if one lives in the world of fashion, believes in the world of fashion, that is what is accepted and “fed” into- a male as the powerful one of the two sexes, female gender as weak and an object. Violence also plays an obvious role in this demonstration and intersection of gender and power.



http://quelquesfilles.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/calvin_klein_ad.jpg

This next Calvin Kline ad was released in the mid-90’s, and even though this is another ad focusing on what is trendy in pop-culture, this particular fashion ad speaks to so much of what America sees as appealing, or rather what media wants to be globally is appealing. What does this ad say about what is masculine? What is feminine? How does it strip the idea of what is powerful- what makes a man masculine, a woman feminine, and visa versa? The stance of the woman is suggestive of that of a man using a urinal, but the fact that it is a woman suggests that she is as “powerful” as a man. Therefore, in actuality, the power is still given to that of a man, and therefore choosing the reality of the media, the gender of male still has more power over that of the female gender.


http://blog.lib.umn.edu/raim0007/gwss1001/untitled.bmp

The particular ad for alcohol is one that speaks to more of the cultural norm for an acceptably attractive and feminine female. To the left is a picture of a “dopy” eyed girl, with the color in a faded black and white- suggesting a negative connotation, and to the right, the older version of the same girl, now in a much more colorful picture, and the girl is much more developed, appealing to a male audience. The “catch-phrase” that this ad uses is the most powerful and degrading to woman: “the longer you wait…the better it gets”. What is the target-market of this ad? It can be interpreted that a male audience would be the target market in that the woman is being used to demonstrate the saying “the longer you wait…the better it gets”, suggesting that the gender of male has the power, because the ad is through men’s eyes, and it is also portraying woman that do not expose their body to the public, woman that are not blonde, are not “better” woman, so therefore men have the power and control again over this image that the media preaches to the public.

http://contexts.org/socimages/files/2008/06/shredded-wheat1.jpg

This last ad for cereal can be seen as something of not too much complexity, yet it supports greatly the idea of how much power the gender of male still has in the media- and how gender represents power in the media. The woman, laying in a “seductive” pose in the kitchen, wearing red, yet has a man’s button down shirt over her outfit. In the background, the man is in the corner, looking concerned, with only wearing an undershirt and jeans, therefore suggesting that the woman is now wearing his shirt. The question as well, emphasis the idea of how this woman is exerting power by being that “hungry woman”. But is this really giving a sense of power to the gender of female- or “stripping” that man of his masculinity and in a sense giving it to the woman, and therefore re-iterating that in the media culture masculinity equals power, in and out of the kitchen. The woman’s suggestive pose on the countertop also conveys her as having the power, even though the man is standing in the corner, she is still physically higher then him. Yet, by her wearing a man’s shirt and being a “hungry woman” make the gendered female more powerful?


Part II:

Through exploring these media sources, particularly ads that are displayed through the accessible magazine and billboard, cultural norms in the everyday American society, it can be seen that if one ultimately chooses to accept the world that the media presents one with, then that world is a world of defined gender, which is used as a tool to convey power in the current culture. Historically, woman have struggled to become “equal” with men, different ethnicities and cultures have struggled to become “equal” with the average white man, yet these ads show that not too much has changed to what is appealing to the general audience, and what gender has the power. Yet ironically, it is the people that give the media power by feeding into such an influential source, and by giving the media power, we as a people of society give the media power to support the power that is masculinity, the weak that is feminine, with little cultural diversity and acceptance.

Gender and Power images: reality? fantasy? Both? (click on the image to see full picture)

Faciltation: “Chapter 15: Militarism; Structural and Interpersonal Violence,” Humanity Books: Prometheus Books, 2004, 343-367.

Key Words: militarism, structural violence, interpersonal violence, domestic violence, homophobic violence, unemployment, civilian, minority groups, weapons, defense spending, security, business community, social spending, economically privileged, federal government, local government, war, homelessness, U.S military, Department of Homeland Security, sexual assaults, hierarchy, paramilitary activists, egalitarian, Counterintelligence Program, Department of Justice, intimidation, deportation, political manipulation

Key Phrases: monies expended on the military, nonprofit public sector, after-school programs, withholding food and shelter from those who can not afford it, fighting terrorism, anti-Communist fundamentalists forces, Department of Homeland Security, force is the way to achieve goals, probable homophobic, assertively heterosexual, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, sexual misconduct, severe aggression, atmosphere of intimidation

Key Names: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Martin Luther King Jr., The Taliban, John J. Pavlick, Bill Clinton, Barry Winchell, Jeff Cooper, Jose E. Serrano, Katie Sierra

Key Ideas: There were many ideas of anti-militarism in Chasin’s article, and she made it clear on her stand point of what the military and the militarism culture has done to American society. Militarism has contributed to a lack in funding in health care, funding for schools, funding for after-school programs, and has heavily taken away from what is called social spending. Militarism has also contributed to an increase in homophobic tendencies, and domestic violence. These acts are fueled by the violent culture that is instilled in the training to become apart of the millenarian culture. A “real man” is one that is powerful through violence, internal and external, and one that has dominance over the weaker species that is women. This leads to the military in the U.S contributing to rape and sexual assaults against women, whether that is in the home, or with fellow peers in one’s academy. Yet, most of these assaults, even when it comes to rape, go unreported, out of a fear of social rejection from such a tight-knit society that is so honored and praised within American culture. The military, and massive funding for it, comes from the ideas of being a true “patriot” for the land of the free and the brave, which is what our society is so proudly unique and built upon, yet the violent culture that militarism creates ironically silences many. This silencing includes those that are of homosexual orientation in the military, which has lead to not just sever beatings and harassment, but death as well. So Chasin asks her audience the ultimate question, is the military truly contributing to protecting our country and benefiting our freedom as a whole?

This article contributes in a variety of ways to gender studies in many ways, and one that I personally found most interesting was how much the article centered on the formation of what masculinity truly is in American society, and how ironically small that description has become. Chasin mentions how sergeants in the military, when training future soldiers to become “real men”, they call them “sissy’s, pussys, and girls”. As an insulting maneuver, many drill sergeants call the men that are in training “ladies”. Why is this? What is so degrading and weak about women? Why is it so insulting? The majority of this article argues how the military has crippled society financially and morally, and has increased a censored culture that praises the “war on terror” over truly protecting our culture and increasing our freedom as a nation.

When it comes to internal violence…
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half-billion bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than eight thousand people…Is there no other way the world can live?” (Eisenhower 345).

What are other ways to defend our homeland against attacks? Do you think we would have less need for violent weapons if we as a nation spent more money on feeding and sheltering those in need? Why is war so recognized and honored in American culture? What does that say about what we value? What do we value in men and women as separate genders in the millenarian culture?


“After-school programs for about five hundred thousand students will end; the cost of these was $400 million. This amount is about the cost of two F/A fighter jets. The Air Force is requesting twenty-two of these at a total cost of 5.2 billion. The United States already has the strongest air force in the world, with five thousand planes and at least eight thousand helicopters. How many are needed to protect us from countries with far less air power? Since the peak hours for youth crime and drug use in between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. the cuts to after-school programs mean there will probably be more juvenile crime” (347).

What does this say about what American culture values? Does the instilment of violence contribute to the crime that happens after school, or is it the fact that children have no funding for a constructive outlet?

WST 200 PRESENTATION FOR WEDS

Appoint 1 plus observer

Challenges in defining gender and power:

Our group had an incredibly hard time trying to think “outside the box” and not going on a linear pathway, when it came to defining actual gender and power, and how each related to each other. What we did realize was that the societies and cultures we as individuals grew up in heavily influenced what we thought gender was, and actually if gender was an adjective or a verb in society. Our ideas on the difference between sex and gender, and how society influences what one’s sex means we realized is heavily bias, only because it depends on what culture, government, society, etc. one has been raised within. The connection between gender and power was another challenging definition. Our group struggled with the concept of power in general, and what that meant in society, how people in general saw power, and what made power. That was the big question that seemed to lead the conversation. The other difficulty was trying to connect gender and power without thinking in a “linear” way. Achieving a global perspective with all of our experiences as individuals was challenging in that so many of us have had the same experiences and grown up in similar social settings.

Resistance among members of group:

There was not much tension at all during our group discussion. Yet, we did have some varying opinions and inputs from each individual. The best way to sum up the aspects of different views on gender and power in the group would be that each person would bring up a new point about what gender is, and much of the group would support that belief. When it came to what power was we had some different views. Some believed it had to do more with judgment as whole, and what the concept of judgment does to society. Others saw power relating more to feminism and masculinity, and masculinity being the concept with the most power. Some of the group members also were disagreeing on how in depth the analysis should be when it came to examining gender and power.

Agreement in making the group:

When it came to power, the idea of feminism and masculinity was brought up, and how in American culture, masculinity has the most power. As a group we realized that we needed to question this more, and saw that as society we give masculinity the power, but then that led again to the question of what is power? And what role does that play in society, and how does it connect to gender? We agreed that gender is not something, but rather a verb. We came to the conclusion that people in society are “gendered”, according to the rules that society sets for each sex, biologically speaking. These rules come from the power in society, and then the group seemed to lean towards the question of “what creates this power in society?” It was suggested and agreed on by most that judgment by others is silently creating power, because those that do not follow the rules of society are seen as outsiders, and this led to a connection we all enthusiastically agreed upon: when it comes to being “gendered”, one can either follow the rules or rebel in expressing themselves. Then who has the power to judge? The idea of those that are charismatic leaders in society, and those that are not scared to have their voice be heard will ultimately set the rules that society will sub-consciously follow.

"IVUS" chapter 11

With America in an Economic Crisis, will Interpersonal Violence Increase?

With the economic crisis at the foot of American society, we have found that it has taken a serious toll on the way people live and function in current society today. Reading about domestic abuse in the American society also brought to mind the movie “Tough Guise”, where Katz analyzed the world of masculinity and what makes a man masculine in American culture. When it comes to poverty in America, there is an obvious connection between living below the poverty line and having an abusive home. The question though is why? The first thought that came to my mind was the value of control in American culture. We live in a society where independence is extremely valued, which is a great gift to many, but at the same time independence can bring on a mind set of needing to be in control of one’s life, one’s own identity and place in society. When one looses that independence, especially when it comes to supporting one’s own family financially, one must depend on others to support their own independence, which means a loss of control of what their life is worth financially. How does one gain control back? As a result of having a violent culture, in terms of proving masculinity and independence, one can regain control if they control someone else’s life, whether that would be physically or mentally. Becoming dependent on others in America is something of humiliation and shame in many families, but why such a negative stigma? The American family is valued for being extremely close and being able to lean on each other in times of struggle, but as Chasin mentions in chapter 11, usually one partner does have the “control” in the household, when it becomes unhealthy. So as the economy sinks in America, where the idea of power and masculinity is fed and bought into everyday, and those that feel that their masculinity is tied into their income and they lose what is their title of “brining home the bacon”, that can mean losing control over one’s life, which ultimately can lead to controlling someone else’s life through violence, because that is the only way one can find control and stability in their life. How can we as a society improve this cultural attitude of independence and control being ever connected, and expressed much of the time as a masculine act, which goes back to Katz’s idea of the “box” so many men are trapped in as a result of American societal values.

Video Responses

video responses

Watching these videos truly changed my perspective on why woman are portrayed the way they are in pop culture, society, and everyday on our WSU campus. The question that kept running through my mind while watching both of these videos is “what is aesthetically pleasing to the American culture?”

“Tough Guise”:

Katz opened my eyes to a whole new way of looking at why and how the American culture value what a “real man” is in a functioning and successful society, and what a “real woman” should be to a man. In my group discussions, as the facilitator of the questions, I asked what everyone thought about the “box” Katz continually referred to in much of the video. Much of the group agreed in that it truly does exist in American culture, and is reinforced and seen everyday in multiple ways. I saw the “box” as the root of many of the problems Katz brought up about how America values and sees men. By limiting young boys to the ideas that they can not cry in public, can not be vulnerable, can not express them selves with talking, and must be the strong silent type truly blocks men from communicating with the world around them in a healthy way. The “box” creates a way of communicating only through violence truly. Not just physical violence but mental abuse too. This idea that men are “hard to read” and not “emotionally sensitive enough” that countless women complain about may be a doing of our own society. I realized that many of these ideas of what makes a real man a man I have completely fed into. On my answer sheet I talked about being in the Greek community at WSU, and that in itself has been an enormous challenge for myself to accept a lot of the values that are portrayed in the system. Many men in fraternities are portrayed as only being accepted if they can drink a certain amount, or act a certain way around women. This system has many benefits to it, but does contribute to the idea of what “ a real man” should be in American society. These ideas are constantly shown to young American culture over and over and over again, and therefore it is accepted without question. So then where does it start and stop? This idea and “box” we as a society have put men in.

Facilitation

Facilitation: “Chapter 10: Interpersonal Violence Street Crime—‘Getting Paid,’” Inequality and Violence in the United States, Barbara H. Chasin, Prometheus Books: Humanity Books, 2004, 223-244.

Key-words: economic opportunity, crime, ethnographic studies, illegal behavior, youths, violence, narcotics business, tough persona, self-protection, attitude, tenacity, inner-city, aggression, ghetto, alienation, swaggering, fear, mistrust, respect, unemployment, African American, Latino, urban, liberating, drug users, drug trafficking, crack markets, banks, prison, recidivism, exclusion

Key-phrases: ‘getting paid’, honoring criminal skills, absence of hope for the future, female-headed house holds, pro-longed high unemployment, accepted norms, fear of crime, ‘underground economy’, physical risks, hierarchy within criminal organizations, ‘drug-war’, Big Brother, social policy, defeated equality

Key-names: Mercer Sullivan, Elijah Anderson, Sen. John Kerry, Oscar Blandon, Contra Leader, Rick Ross, Malcolm X, Edward M. Guillen, Todd R. Clear…

Key-ideas: stigma of race, the fallout from rampant drug use and drug trafficking, resulting in alienation and absence of hope for the future, young men becoming tough and violent to fear- which ultimately means respect on the street, less pressure on the streets and drug trade to conform to the ‘norm’, youths involved in crime have same values as over all population but have lack of materials to reach socially approved goals, the business of drug dealing is ran as any other job in America- yet different setting and different ways of obtaining support and respect from employees and customers, customers being the victim rather then the criminal, government support of drugs in order to stop the trade from being so violent…

How does this article contribute to gender studies? What is it arguing for? against?

When it comes to this chapter contributing to gender studies, it was difficult at first to find a connection. Yet the idea of ‘woman-headed house holds’ was repeated often and reiterated in several situations. Also, racial statistics came into play more often then the idea of ‘gendering’ those that make a living off of the drug trade. Yet underneath all of the evidence, it is clear that society sees it more acceptable for men to be in gangs, for men to commit the violent crimes on the streets and be convicted and sent to prison, where the violence and interaction between other violent men increases. Yet, it is connected heavily to the fact that many of these young boys, especially those of African American descent, that come from a female headed house hold, are more likely to find a place in the world of illegal activity. This is then connected to the supported idea that the life of crime and drug trafficking is the only place for them (them as in young boys of an inner city area, in a place with little job and education funding) is in the world of drug trafficking, trading, and ultimately a world of violence. There is also the fact that the majority of stories and scandalous drug affairs are connected my men. One of the main argument of this extensive chapter seems to be the never ending cycle of the drug trade in America and crime; children grow up in communities in single parent homes, with little financial and community support, leading them to the turning of the consistency of the life in a gang, which leads to violence as a way of conducting business, which can lead to violation of the law, which means prison, where lack of funding for rehabilitation programs and education leads to more violence as a way of proving one still has a ‘voice’ in a society which they are excluded from, which ultimately is the same idea that landed them in prison in the first place. The piece also argues for the realization that prisons in America are in fact digging American society into an already bigger hole of crime, racism, and violence. According to the chapter, Europe in particular sees narcotic usage as a form of mental illness, not that of a crime, which means more funding for programs to improve the life of the criminal so one can see and feel a need for a place in functional society. The article also argues that the crime of drug trade is truly not so different from the everyday accepted ‘office jobs’, proving the point that people that do commit these horrid crimes of violence are much more similar to that of any blue-collar job.


“Philippe Bourgois found that in East Harlem ‘regular displays of violence are necessary for success in the underground economy—especially the street-level drug-dealing world. Violence is essential for maintaining credibility and preventing rip-offs by colleagues, customers, and intruders. Thus behavior that appears irrationally violent and self-destructive to the middle- or working-class outsider can be interpreted, according to the logic of the underground economy, as judicious public relations’ ” (229).

Question: Why is violence so accepted in the world of crime? In connection with the movie ‘Tough Guise’, did Katz prove a valid point that men in American society feel a consistent need to express and conduct them selves physically and emotionally violent, as a result of the small ‘box’ media has put men into…does this translate to the drug world?

Malcolm X claimed that “When a person is a drug addict, he’s not the criminal; he’s a victim of the criminal. The criminal is the man downtown who brings this drug into the country. Negroes can’t bring drugs into this country. You don’t have any boats. You don’t have any airplanes. You don’t have any diplomatic immunity. It is not you which is responsible for bringing in drugs. You’re just a little tool that is used by the man downtown...And you and I will never strike at the root of it until we strike at the man downtown”(233).

Question: So who is ultimately to blame? Society that facilitates exclusion with poverty and not the ‘norm’ family? Or the drug dealers? Or those in the excluded parts of society? Why are men the most recognized?

February 13, 2009: Ch2 SAE and WW 19;20 Reading Response

Trade: A Statement of Power and Control

The themes of all of these chapters for me was simply power, and how economically and socially countries simply state their place and power in the world by trade in goods, humans, and sex. These terms also interconnect in many ways, more ways then I would have thought if I just looked at these words out of context. Chapter 2 of SAE spoke of how the US has become greedy in their trade, which is in fact one of the most effective ways, in the eyes of the US, to show and prove that “they” are the most powerful country and ultimately have the control economically and metaphorically when compared to other societies. Yet it is obvious that China and Japan will eventually take the US by storm because we as a nation have become so dependent on them to supply cheap goods, and slowly they are gaining the upper hand. The US has always prided itself on being a democratic, capitalist country, yet we are digging our self our own hole because of our greedy ways. Manufactured goods are not the only things that are traded for money in order to have control; the sex trade industry is booming with money and power as well. Sex can be a very powerful and manipulative tool, just as the international trading of goods can be. Men feel as though because of these feminist movements, they are taking a backseat to a woman’s success, and just want the “old-fashioned wife” figure back. The sex trade being so big in foreign countries also represents their power as well. Many wealthy CEO’s in China and Japan purchase wives, and to many in their culture that shows not only power and money, but it also represents respect in the work force and society. Rape is also a show of power and control. The US estimates “up to 700,000 rapes [each year]”. Many of these rapes occur in prisons, and it is well known that the US has one of the largest inmate-counts in the world. This just reiterates the desire for control and power in our society. Rape is not about the sex the majority of the time, it is about establishing power, and when one does not have the ultimate say in what their life is (in prison) control can be established through rape. This nation’s obsession with power and control has taken a serious toll on the people that make up the US.

Power in America: Big Brother Will Never Leave Feb. 6 Reading Response

(WW) 7 “Domestic Violence”; 8 “Murder”, 9 “Motherhood”, “Maternal Mortality”
(IVUS) Chapters 3-5: “Inequality in the United States,”, “Social Class and Organizational Power”, “Political Inequality: Corporations and Government”

After reading the statistics of domestic abuse, murder, and social status according to the “white man society” it occurred to me that the power system in America versus what America is supposedly “built on” is extremely ironic. One of the quotes from Chasin’s Inequality and Violence in the United States, that lead me to this conclusion was “Today, the villain most in need of curbing is the respectable, exemplary, trusted personage who strategically placed… is able from his office-chair to pick a thousand pockets, poison a thousand sick [sic], pollute a thousand minds, or imperil a thousand lives” (Edward Ross). This quote is an obvious reality in current society, one that all citizens experience everyday. I know that, you know that, we all know how “the system” works. Yet, what came to my mind that never occurred before was the irony behind it. America prides itself on being the “land of the free, home of the brave”, a democratic society. More then just a democratic society; a leader of the free world, a pro-active society for all countries that do not follow “our” same rules. Yet, it is obvious that so much of what our system is based on, according to our free country, is carried out through powerful CEO’s, where the rich become richer and the poor become poorer. This power system is failing much of what needs improvement in America. Yes it is the land of the free, yet it is obvious that much of our freedom is structured around those that control the money, which ultimately has the power. This is also true when is comes to domestic violence. I have heard of the “rape culture” in America numerous times. Not just the fact that rape literally occurs in America, but that we live in a “rape culture” where it is more acceptable for men to take control of the women, which at times is very accepted and not questioned. By not questioning in this Big Brother mentality culture, I believe heavily contributes to the silence that happens when it comes to domestic abuse. Yet what other way is there to run such an enormous nation with so many different cultural perspectives? Is this Big Brother mentality the only answer?

February 2 Reading Response:

After reading the surprising statistics between the relationship between poverty and violence, it occurred to me that the relationship goes much deeper then just stealing from a super market. It seems as though poverty in American in particular leads to a chain reaction that eventually leads to violence and this new concept of “structured violence”, or as I interpreted it: invisible violence within society. When it comes to violence in America it seems to already be accepted as a part of human nature. It also seems to be the fact that woman and children are usually the victims to not just direct violence, but indirect as well. The phrase “ignorance is bliss” should be the bumper sticker of all middle class America when it comes to violence not just here, but around the world. The attitude of violence not directly affecting “my family, my life, or anything around my small community” is the kind of attitude that keeps violence as such a strong aspect of everyday society. As a citizen of the American culture, I know I have done my part in contributing to the idea of “ignorance is bliss”. An example of structured violence is when one is below the poverty line and the education system usually fails one, leading to a very hostile environment. This already “structured”, hostile environment will usually lead to a child not cognitively developing successfully with such little support at a poor school district. This particular enviroment can bring on the ideas that no one else is looking out for them but them selves, creating a hostile citizen of the community. Becoming hostile towards one’s environment can lead to a resistant- behavior to fellow peers and society. Resistance can lead to small acts of verbal violence, and eventually lead to direct violence. Being able to communicate and express the need to find other ways to help communities and other countries around the world with structured violence leading to direct violence is only the first step. We, as privileged citizens, must act on our words, and intervene within this structured violence.

THE COLOR PINK

Lorber, Judith. “The Social Construction of Gender (1991)”. WL.

If any color were to ever to describe me it would be pink. Almost every item I own in my life is pink, in materialistic terms. My ipod, bed sheets, computer cover, clothing, shoes, my room, even my grandma had my car painted pink for my sixteenth birthday. I was on the dance team in high school, cheerleading, and despite my previous ideas about college, joined a sorority last spring. I even have pink in my blonde hair. So then who am I in society? Or rather the question that Lorber brought to my mind: what has American culture placed me to be in society? It is quit clear that I have bought into the process, the stratification, and the structure of that that is to be “gendered”. Does this make me shallow? Does this make me a lower class citizen of society? Does this mean that I have subconsciously “bought” into the idea that I am of lower class, that I will never be equal to a man, that I will inevitably have to be a house wife, that my identity will always be of a lesser person in society? Lorber makes extreme points of not the idea of gender, but actually claiming that there is no such thing as gender, but only the act of “being gendered”, as in an action that citizens all over the world par take in as a reflection of their culture. This made me rethink the entire structure of what it means to be physically called a man and to physically be called a woman. There are obvious anatomy differences when every human is born (expect those that are hermaphrodites, which are the corrected to be “gendered”). Yet the question I have for Lorber is why do women, or rather those that produce the chemical estrogen bare children, and humans that produce testosterone do not? What does that reflect about the literal construction of humans, and how has the mind, rather then society, adjusted to that? I believe the only way that humans can cope with the idea and physical purpose to reproduce is to process that notion in a way that the brain can separate the two. This may be a naive concept, but this idea came to mind when I tried to grasp the overwhelming concept that gender is not a noun, but an adjective in order to describe society. So is pink a reflection of being an American girl? Or is that I being the individual I want to be?

“WHEN EUROPEANS WERE SLAVES: RESEARCH SUGGESTS WHITE SLAVERY WAS MUCH MORE COMMON THAN PREVIOUSLY BELIEVED” Robert Davis, Research Ohio State. Jan 14

This piece was extremely eye opening in the fact that it talked all about how much European Culture has ignored the idea of white enslavement. This notion was brought up rarely in the education that I have had on slavery. Yet, why have another article on slavery, and more importantly why on slavery of those that were from America and/or Europe? What does this topic have to do with the concept of gender and power? One of the conclusions that can be drawn from this is that not everything is, as it seems in the eyes of American studies of the history of discrimination against a certain race, a certain culture, and a certain gender. Opening up one’s mind to the way world is truly, not the way society and one’s own culture teaches one to see it is a true challenge for the average, educated American. This piece, if anything, has taught me that one must be open to challenged stereotypes and may have to realize the way the world is through one’s eyes may be much different from how the world truly works and all of it’s history. When reading of how enslaved Europeans were treated just as inhumanly as those that were enslaved from Africa, the image of slavery did not change in my mind, and I still saw the African slave trade as so much worse. Yet why I do not see these slave trades as equal is because images and countless information just focusing on African slavery has been engraved into my head for years and years, just as the image of what a man is in American society versus a woman in American society. It goes to show that the complexities of repeated information and repeated stereotypes could be a hard thing to see differently, but is necessary if one wants to know the world better.

Jan 14th Reading Response: What Does the Word “Race” Truly Mean?

“Chapter 1: Racism, history, and politics,” Racism: Beginner’s Guide, Alana Lenten, Oxford: Oneworld, 2008, 1-31.

Growing up in a small town on the Western side of Washington, when the word race came to mind, the blunt idea of black people being segregated from white, upper class always came to mind. Of course I never considered myself racist, I have been instilled to treat every human being with the respect I would want to be treated with, but when it comes to the actual term of race I can honestly say I have never looked beyond the physical aspects of the meanings attached to it. The idea of racism emerging in a scientific setting has never even crossed my mind, and how Voegelin came about the idea that “-race as composed of a set of false notions with no actual basis in provable scientific fact” (8). So race as simply a definition of ethnicity, unaffected by culture or mannerism associated with a certain race, is where the idea of racism began it seems. Which is extremely ironic in the fact that some saw it as so simple and ineffective in society, yet racism was and is and what it has become and how it continues to suppress and grow in parts of the world is so complex and deep. Yet the question of “how racism became so complex in the first place?” is what keeps emerging through out the readings. The connection between Darwin’s theory of natural selection and what racism is defined as today was a huge stepping stone is elevating what racism is seen as and viewed as today. What makes a race superior? What is superiority in society? Finding what it means to be a superior race is a cultural issue so many societies have as a result of Darwinism and the support and spread of European culture.