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.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
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.
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?
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?
Friday, February 13, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, February 6, 2009
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?
(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?
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
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.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
