Gender and Sexuality: Ideas and Thoughts...

Nikki Fenmore

2008-04-29T15:52:00.000-07:00

This is a video I created about the beautiful and legendary Miss Nikki Fenmore. I interviewed her on April 24, 2008. Photography by Kaitlin Dale.

some thoughts from recent Disch readings:

2008-04-22T21:55:00.000-07:00

Where Race and Gender Meet

By: Helen Zia

“That is all other communities of color have a similar prosecution rate for hate crimes against the women in their communities – namely zero.” (Pg. 497)

“…women are mere shadows in the existing civil rights framework.” (Pg. 498)

“There is a serious difficulty with pushing for use of federal and state hate remedies.” (Pg. 498)

“By taking women of color out of the legal shadows, out of invisibility, all women make gains toward full human dignity and human rights.” (Pg. 499)

This article was really intriguing to me because honestly, I have never really thought of the difference in hate crimes, be it male or female induced, and whether the subject is male or female. I have always just assumed that it affected people as a grand whole, but I think it is definitely important to rethink hate crimes in the sense of gender rights and how they are affected. I mean, when I innately think of a hate crime, I think of someone hating on me because of my sexual orientation. I have never thought of a hate crime being committed because of my sexual gender, but isn’t this a huge problem for women? Is not a man beating his wife a form of a hate crime? His blatant ignorance of human rights is directly affecting her due to her gender, hence why he is committing a hate crime. Then why isn’t this considered a hate crime…but rather a form of domestic abuse? Would he still be hitting her if she were a man, or would he think twice about pummeling down another male? It is because women are forced into a subservient social role that men justify their superiority, and even then that superiority complex indeed is a form of hated as well. By feeling superior, or placing yourself among that tier, is a person not exuding a type of hatred for someone of a lower status? Maybe not hatred in the sense of wanting to kill someone, but most definitely hatred in a way that classifies people into ranks and therefore allows those people to justify gender responsibilities. I would even go as far to say that men are even taught to hate women to a certain extent, in order to perpetuate their ego’s in a patriarchal driven society.

Homophobia in Straight Men

By: Terry A. Kupers

“When this man arrived at the prison at 19 he was beat up and raped a number of times, and on several other occasions prison toughs fought with each other for the opportunity to use him sexually…he learned it was safer to become a woman.” (Pg. 500)

“In prison, ‘butt-fucking’ is the symbol of dominance.” (Pg. 500)

“…Men are always building something that they believe will keep them off the bottom of the heap, out of range of those who would ‘shaft’ them.” (Pg. 500)

Hmmm, becoming what we are not in order to survive this thing we called life. How poignant. Like, in this example, the young male “became” a woman in order to survive, and that only reminds me of this issue of masculinity, and how as a gay man I constantly have to consider how I portray myself. It would be so much easier for me to just conform with the “normal” ideals of a man and dress like everyone else and display this idea of hyper masculinity, just so I am not “found out,” but honestly I feel like a phony doing that. But I would also be lying if I said that I have never done that before; pretended to be straight when I clearly knew that I was more drawn to Johnny in Chemistry class rather than Kara in Math.

I like how “butt-fucking” in prison is considered a form of dominance. Honestly, as a gay man I find it to be about the same sort of thing. I am constantly faced with the question, “Are you a top or a bottom?” Do I have to choose? But I know exactly what responsibilities come along with either role and what is expected of me as either the giver or taker. But what happens if I don’t fall into either category; what if I want to be both, then what? I mean, in general though, being a “giver” usually coincides with being the more masculine actor within the relationship, and thus by being the more masculine figure, he/she is expected by society to be dominating toward whomever assumes the feminine role. So in essence, “butt-fucking” is just one tactic used to reinforce gender norms, if not by gay men, then most definitely by the general population. This is why it is used in the prison really…to establish who are the women and who are the men, and depending whether you are fucking, or being fucked, you are thereby being forced into both a sexual and mental caste system.

How Safe is America?

By: Desiree Taylor

“As a mixed race, half Black, half white woman born into poverty, I have never felt safe here.” (Pg. 511)

“Everyday in this country people fie from exploitation that originates right here at home. Some who toil and slave in service to a system of wealth and prestige, who don’t even earn a living for their trouble, slit their wrists out of desperation and pain.” (Pg. 512)

“But it’s impossible for me to suddenly forget that the United States empire was built upon and is still maintained by abuses against the poor and minorities.” (Pg. 512)

“I learned that employers would keep employees just under 40 hours a week, so that officially they were not full-time and therefore not entitled by law to benefits.” (Pg. 513)

“[Terrorist attacks] are attacks on freedom and justice itself. But how is the possible when here at home justice, freedom, and the American Dream are denied to so many?” (Pg. 513)

Am I safe in America? We discussed this a lot in class actually, where I really thought about this idea of safety and whom America’s government really protects. I mean, as a gay man who is open to the world about who I am and how I identify myself, am I safe, at or least protected by, my home country? I would have to be on the fence with this one. I mean, on one hand I am fortunate enough to be a legal citizen of America, and I come from a loving home where I have two wonderful parents who are paying an obsene amount of money for me to be receiving the education I am thankfully getting. However, on the other hand, althought I am “free” under the American Constitution, I still have to consider a lot of things when I am out in public. Things such as what I am wearing, how I am portraying myself, am I with my boyfriend, can I kiss my boyfriend, god forbid I hold my boyfriend’s hand, etc. Heterosexual couples don’t have to consider these things because they are among the norm; their interaction is most commonly seen within the public eye and therefore the general populus has accepted it as the status quo. In essence, if I have to constantly weigh how I have to live my life in order to be “acceptable” among everyone else, am I indeed free? If I am chained to these fears of being “caught” for not living up to the norm, am I free?

Indeed this article went on to discuss how the poor of also not free. Let’s be honest, it is the poor that this country exploits the most, mainly because one, they can, and two, the poor have nowhere to turn. If someone is an illegal citizen of the states, what job opportunities do they have? Slim to none really. Therefore, anything that will pay them enough to survive is there only hope, and thus major retail giants take advantage of these situations and barely pay these poor people to work under horrid conditions. But what choice do they have? Even if these people do become citizens, do they have any better of a chance to rise in the ranks of life? No. Not without an undergraduate college degree they don’t. And even now, a master’s degree is becoming so important that soon even I, an American born man with an undergraduate degree from a private and respected university institution, will not be able to get a job without one.

Basically, without that citizenship or a college degree, this country can be economically cruel to people. And what does someone need in order to get an education? Money. Lots and lots of money. So riddle me this: if someone flees to America in search of finding a better life for themselves and their family, without a working visa how can they find a job? Oh yes, find a company that will hire them illegally and will pay them next to nothing. But this job will never allow them to save any money in order to get an education and therefore they will forever be stuck in the social class entitled, “poor.” And thus, with nowhere to go, and no way of rising up in the social and economic system of America, these poor immigrants are left with barely a hope in “the land of the free.” Thoughts?

Wielding Masculinity Inside Abu Ghraib

By: Cynthia Enloe

“Why did one American woman military guard in particular captured the attention of so many media editors and ordinary viewers and readers…” (Pg. 515)

“Women by conventional contrast, were expected to appear in wartime as mothers and wives of soldiers…” (Pg. 515)

“The bad apple explanation.” (Pg. 516) à nothing needs to be reassessed or reformed

“Was it significant that so many of the abuses perpetrated on the Iraqi prisoners were deliberately sexualized?” (Pg. 518)

“Organizational climate?” (Pg. 518)

This whole article just made me think about how people always freak out whenever a woman assumes masculine roles within life. In fact most of the controversy about the scandal concerning the American soldiers who sexually and physically abused the male prisoners was the fact that a woman partook in the event. The idea that a woman could potentially hold enough power over a man to sexually abuse him is appalling to America, and what I find most sickening about this article is that the media focused more on the idea of a woman committing the act, rather than the inexcusable act itself. And what I find hilarious is this idea of the “organizational climate” to which people have justified her actions as temporary insanity due to her constant contact among male soldiers. That this climate of war and being around a primarily masculine territory had in some way changed her womanly morals and replaced them with violent masculine traits. Basically, according to America, a woman cannot innately be violent, and thus this woman had to have learned to do such an act from the people she was around.

I also really like this question of whether or not it was important that many of the abuses were sexualized. I think that it is very important, mainly because I think sexuality is such a touchy subject for human beings alike, so when sexual boundaries are crossed the offense is taken that much heavier. These soldiers knew exactly what buttons they would be pushing by forcing these prisoners, who come from a background of homophobic politics, to mimic homosexual acts. They threw these men around as if they were nothing, objectifying them just like the men within the prisoner’s culture have objectified women for centuries. Whether or not these acts were intended to a particular commentary on how the prisoner’s cultural beliefs, I believe these soldiers did these specific acts on purpose. What do you think?

yes!

2008-04-06T14:08:00.001-07:00

Desiring China part 2

2008-04-03T17:04:00.000-07:00

This is the first half of my notes on Desiring China...again, this will be boring. These are just some points I liked from the book, but I have yet to go into any detail about how I felt about them. So here are some glorious notes...please don't fall asleep.

Desiring China (first half)

Yearnings

-first melodrama to captivate Chinese audiences

-1991

-non-political

-realist portrayal of life

-taught the viewers to embody desires

-gender class and positions

-it taught longing (?) (pg. 37)

-repressed people allowed and deserve desire (?)

China

-“popular culture in China, as elsewhere, functions as a contradictory cultural site, where domination, opposition, and cultural creation coexist.” (pg. 40)

-“This relationship of culture to power is often mediated through such public culture phenomena as television.” (pg. 40)

-impossible to escape its (Yearnings) tenor in the lives of everyone

-show somehow became a social forece in people’s interpretations of it’s significance for their lives (pg. 41)

-personification of patriotism & nationness in Huifang’s character

-giving up everything for the her family

-aka a country giving things up for their nation

-war justifies in this context (?)

-Huifang represents China

-intellectual hero: Luo Gang

-embodies hope

-China needs its intellectuals (pg. 60)

-represents masculinity

-Modleski says that American heroes are feminized and have an appreciated of domesticity

-Luo Gang in not effeminate.

-“Yearnings demonstrates the capacity of allegory to generate a range of distinct meanings simultaneiously.” (pg. 61)

-the gay people in China are predominantly 30 or younger

-older generations do not come out?

-being gay is about sex, not part of culture? (pg. 87)

-socialism a big factor

-cultural citizenship à ESSENSE OF BELONGING (pg. 94)

-homosexuality is not illegal, but considered immoral

-police use “public morality” to close bars and to arrest people. (pg. 96)

-gay kindship and the need to carry on the patrilineal line

-Dennis Altman (pg. 90)

-global gay identity (?)

-what constitutes a universal gay identity?

-“contests sexual rather than gender norms; replaces the idea of the male…” (???)

WARING: most boring blog of all time...

2008-04-01T23:34:00.000-07:00

so...just as an FYI, this blog is just some notes from Rofel's Desiring China. This is just the second half of them...the first half still needs to be typed up. This post is literally just notes without any kind of analytical work on my part...just what I found captivating as I read.

Desiring China (second half of book):

Dennis Altman:

-global gay identity

-what constitutes a universal gay identity?

-it “contests sexual rather than gender norms; replaces the idea of male homosexuals as would-be women with new self-concepts; leads to primary homosexual relationships rather than to marriage within homosex on the side; expressed sexual identity openly; develops a public gay political consciousness; and creates a ense of community based on sexuality.” (pg. 90)

-Gay Kinship

-Should you tell your parents that you are gay? Should you take care of your parents by getting married and having a child? The focus mainly on parents (pg. 97)

-the idea of coming out as selfish and only causing grief to parents

-Wang Tao talking about how gay men shouldn’t follow “western” ways of being gay; that China should create their only social construction of the term. (pg. 98)

-“If the passion to pursue the meaningfulness of sexual desire lies at the heart of creating cultural citizenship, the same passion propels some Chinese gay men in transnational networks.” (pg. 106)

-the ideas of culture citizenship and cultural belonging

Legislating Desire

Homosexuality, Intellectual Property Rights, and Consumer Fraud

-the case between Fang Gang and Mr. Xu (pg. 135)

-the writer mentioned a salon where gay men met up at for Valentines Day. He didn’t mention the name of the bar, but rather the name of the bar manager, who once the publication came out, lost his job, his fiancé, and his friends from being outed by such a book.

-this idea that homosexuality is ok under wraps, but once exposed to the public, action must take place to put it back under the covers.

-another case about two women living together (emotional and sexually), and one fo th father’s reporting “hooliganism”.

-he reported their actions as reprehensible that was damaging to public morals since their relationship was carried out in view of other townspeople.

-these cases are known by most Chinese people mainly because gay legal cases are rarely picked up, so these garnered more attention because of the topic of homosexuality associated with them.

Property Rights

-Xuan Bo asked to work on adapting Tale of a Demoted Official for the Shenyang Opera House (pg. 141)

-it aired on television, but did not mention his name at all

-he changed singing stylization

-argued that stylization is not covered under intellectual property rights law

-China’s Copywrite Protection Authentication Committee concluded that certain scenes were entirely different and they supported Bo’s case.

-Bo’s lawyer argues that “It’s like a painting. After I have finished the painting, I sell the painting to you. As the buyer, you enjoy full rights of ownership, but the rights of creation are still in my hands as the painter.” (pg. 141)

-Bo won the case.

-possessive individualism

Desiring China

China’s Entry into the WTO

-“China’s relationship to transnational capitalism clearly delineates the contours for the longings needs, and interests people seek to embody in China.” (pg. 159)

-consumer fundamentalism

-the world as consumers and China as one of the largest exporters of trade

-this innate idea that “the deep answers to life’s dilemmas lie in consumption.” (pg. 164)

-China’s joined to World Trade Organization (WTO)

-lays out pure forms of neoliberal capitalism

-China and their problems with “dumping” or exporting products for more money than they are worth, which inevitable hurts other country’s economies.

Coda

-“Those who have embraced a gay identity debated how to be properly gay by combining their engagement with transnational gay networks and a desire for cultural citizenship within Chineseness.” (pg. 198)

-China attempting to become a cosmopolitan society, but who is it marginalizing along the way and who is being affected for the worse? (pg. 204)

Family obligations and who is a man?

2008-03-31T20:52:00.000-07:00

I really feel that this thought of a nuclear family has been running the lives of the American population for way too long. The idea of having 2.5 children, a picket fence, and the perfect housewife preparing her man’s dinner is not, and never will be, a reality for most people in this world, and that is WONDERFUL! Why does anyone want to be the same as everyone else…as Mark Twain once said, “conform and be dull.”

It has been this idea of the American Dream and the nuclear family that has taught men, and plagued them simultaneously with the notion of being the head of the household. In Transformation of Family Life by Lillian B. Rubin she quotes men who feel like they are expected to be the “bread winners” among their families. In regards to his wife working, one man responds that “she doesn’t have to do it. It’s not her job to have to be working; it’s mine. I’ve got to be responsible for that, not her. And that makes one damn big difference.” (Disch, pg. 304)

This is just it! Who is responsible and how does this sense of responsibility shape familial patterns in the home and in the workplace. Rubin explains how in the past there was a “clear understanding about the obligations and entitlements each partner took when married.” (Pg. 305) I mean, this would translate into how the woman was expected to cook and clean, while the man takes on a 9-5 job. However, today more and more women are working outside of the home, but yet domestic work is still considered their responsibility as well. I mean it comes down to human rights really, where if two people agree to share their lives with one another, isn’t it justifiable that they are legally bound to share both economic and domestic responsibilities with one another as well? And if a woman shares that economic part, why shouldn’t a man share the domesticity of household living? It seems only fare, doesn’t it?

What I thought was so funny about many of the readings pertaining to this aspect of the obligations within the home and how they are organized, is that most men argue that “their responsibility s breadwinner burdens them in ways that are alien to their wives.” (Pg. 306) Therefore they do not have the energy to help around the house. You know, part of me wants to agree that the societal affects on people’s minds, be it through media, and most especially through verbal interactions with friends and family, do indeed shape what we think and how we lead our lives. If that is the case, then yes, I agree that it is hard to take the path less taken and defy what everyone and everything around you tells you what is right. This stress put upon men to be the man is extremely psychologically influential, which is most likely why men who are economically less successful tend to turn to verbal and physical violence of their partners. This idea that they are not living up to their responsibilities as a man could be hugely detrimental to anyone really. It means that you are almost considered subhuman, because the idea is that everyone can be successful, and if you aren’t people consider you a failure to humanity. Or at least I would figure that that is what these people feel of themselves anyhow.

On the other hand, after such women’s right’s movements and of how common it is to see a powerful woman in today’s modern world, why do men still feel personally obligated when women have begun to lead independent lives? I would argue generational affects. My generation is less concerned with being “men” than the one before me, and I would even argue that being a man to my father is different than to his father. The farther back in time you travel, before woman starting rallying for their independence from a patriarchal monarchy in the home (and elsewhere), the closer you get to the origin of “being a man.” Audre Lorde addresses this idea in her article Man Child where she askes, “what does ‘acting like a man’ mean?” (pg. 332)

I mean, what does that mean truly? What is a “man?” I guess it all depends on what geographic you grow up in, as to what constitutes the masculine role within the nuclear family. And what if there is no father is a family, who then has to take on the “man” role? Better yet, who feels responsible to do so, and who pressures them, whether it is induced by familial or society factors???

Can it be argued that I will never be a “man” because I will never have a wife? I guess that is one of the biggest claims of homophobic people, who discriminate against gay people under the false pretense that we are not necessarily living up to the societal standards, so therefore we are not justifiably the same as them. However, is it not enough for me to be able to pay my taxes just like everyone else and to provide for my loved ones just like a “normal” (for the lack of a better term) family? If I live up to every damn law that is enforced on every other citizen of the United States, why then am I still exempt from being fully, truly, and completely equal?

I guess I am just stuck on this thought…am I a man? I know I am sexually a male, but am I considered a man via the socially constructed US standards? Do I play sports? No, not really. Do I oppress all my emotions? No. Do I have sex with women? No. Do I support my family economically? No. Better yet, how many straight men would answer no to many, if not all, of these questions as well. Are they not considered men either? Hmmm, just something to think about.

The Bible and the Bakla...

2008-03-23T21:12:00.000-07:00

The other night I watched the documentary “For the Bible Tells Me So” which is all about parents who raise their children Catholic in hopes of helping them fulfill a full life. However, once these people learn that their children are gay, the documentary shows their journey to learning to love and accept their children, as well as their faith as an interchanging aspect of life that has to adapt just like anything else.

The film really focused on four families and how they dealt with this issue of homosexuality and how they initially perceived this as an “abomination” just like how the Bible preaches. However the real concept of the film was to stress the Bible as a social construction just like most concepts that I have discussed within this blog. Concepts such as being a “man” or a “woman” and what traits and/or characteristics are necessary in order to keep up this “charade” of being such a thing. I say charade because, let’s be honest, masculinity and femininity is really just what society tells you what you are, more so than yourself. I truly believe that a person is a person, and yes, although you can judge sex by genitalia, defining what constitutes who is a man and a woman is truly up to the general population to judge.

Global Divas, by Martin Manalansan really touches upon this classification of people within his book about Filipino drag queens. He discusses how different the meaning of being gay is between American and Filipino standards. In the Phillipines, they call gay men “bakla” which constitutes men who are effeminate and tend to cross dress. (pg. 25) In fact, as a society they consider homosexuality to be just that, an outward, skin deep, manifestation, rather than a truly emotional aspect of human life. In fact bakla is a hybrid word that stems from the work that means woman (babae) and man (lalaki). Thus, a bakla is a woman-man, and “the main focus of the term is of effeminate mannerism, feminine physical characteristics, and cross-dressing.” (pg. 25) Indeed the people are not considered either a man or a woman, regardless of whatever they gender identify with. Society doesn’t allow them to identify themselves as man or woman, but rather as some hermaphroditic entity.

In contrast to this, America actually allows these women and men to be something more than just a bakla. Being gay in America isn’t just that skin-deep quality that defines who you have sex with and how to dress. In fact, in America “participation in same-sex acts is not the crucial standard for being labeled homosexual or identifying as gay.” (pg. 23) Now I argue that these people are considered more than just “gay,” but is this the truth? Yes, indeed the gay rights movement has been moving in a perpetual forward motion since the Stonewall Riots in 1969, but it has been and still in an uphill struggle to keep the humanizing of gay men and women since. Yes, it is true that as a gay man I still have the innate human right to my own opinions, but the rub lies in whether my opinions are legal to be voiced or not, due to my sexual preference.

Back to the film, there were some really interesting points made by the creator. One described how the Bible calls such homosexual acts “unnatural” while a man and a woman together are considered “natural.” He stressed that it is important to realize that these terms, natural vs. unnatural, could be changed to “customary” vs. “uncustomary.” At the time in which the Bible was written, homosexuality was not accepted among social customs, and thus the views of such an act were deemed “unnatural” because they were considered “uncustomary” and they deviated from the status quo. Therefore, now that homosexuality has become a part of social customs, at least within many parts of the United States (and other parts of the world as well), we much take the Bible’s stance on such a subject more metaphorically rather than literally. Most of all, it is okay to follow the Bible’s teachings, because it does introduce basic stances on morality and its importance to lead an honorable and fulfilled life, but not everything preached among its pages needs to be followed. If we did so, anyone who has ever eaten shrimp would have to be killed.

So the question lies in why the shrimp rule has been omitted, but the gay rule, which is among the same pages of the book of Leviticus, is not?

im back.

2008-03-19T19:16:00.000-07:00

updates will be posted this weekend with two blogs that i have been putting off.

i have been facing a lot of trials lately and i haven't been able to write as much as id like, and honestly the crap i would have written would not have been worthwhile to read. i have been battling some hurdles that are taking a lot out of me, and hereby rendering me a bit paralyzed.

just know that i am writing more as we speak and ill be back on track soon.

-DJ

Alec Baldwin...

2008-03-05T17:29:00.000-08:00

I cam across this quote that Alec Baldwin said in response to his brother's hateful remarks about gay marriage:

"Well, in the modern political world, people like that — whether or not I'm related to them — only help us raise money. They want to ban gay marriage because those people are incapable of having a biological family — that's their only argument. You can ban gay marriage, but if you're going to make it fair, then you have to ban marriage for everybody else who won't produce children. But they just single out groups of people that they hate."

touche.

sex, money, and big boobs?

2008-02-23T12:45:00.000-08:00

An interesting thought occurred to me the other while I was responding to some emails. The movies we have viewed lately all deal with the horrible treatment of this “condition” that the American people have deemed intersex. Indeed this is considered something has to be fixed in order for the individual to have a “normal” life, as if there was any such thing. The children often endure sometimes more than a dozen operations to “fix” this “problem.”

Who’s decision is really though for these people, these human beings, to endure such mental stress and physical abuse just so they can be introduced as a girl or boy? Pro-life critics rally on street corners all the time, shoving pictures of mutilated fetuses in innocent bystanders’ faces rallying their ideas that these children are human beings being murdered. Well, then if a fetus is a human being, then so is a newborn child. And doesn’t this child have its own legal rights instituted by the United States of America on what they can do, or not do, to their bodies? Therefore, the human being that it is affecting should make this decision of sexual gender. It is a no brainer decision, is it not? Then why are these major decisions most usually made the doctor, whom will never have to deal with the repercussions in the long run of the child’s life? It seems thoroughly unjust.

A big question is whether or not these surgeries that children undergo are successful. And how do we define successful. Here I introduce John Money again. This time, Kessler includes a quote that says:

“Although surgical intervention (to create a female) requires extensive resection of tissue, including reducing a grossly enlarged clitoris, erotic sensitivity, although perhaps lessoned, is not lost and orgasm is typically possible later in life.” (Pg. 56, Kessler)

WRONG WRONG WRONG! Kessler mentions that there is ample evidence that intersex adults are most usually left with little or no sensation leaving them quite sexually impaired. Honestly, where did Money get his information from?! Indeed a successful surgery is described by doctors as being whether or not the physical appearance of the genitals look “normal” and, in female cases, if the vagina is the right size. Never mind being able to urinate without pain or, God forbid, have pleasurable sexual intercourse!

Not only are interesex people left without certain capabilities that every human is entitled to, but they also endure many forms of abuse. Reassigned girls have to be dilated, which means sticking in hard plastic instruments to stretch out the vaginal cavity. This is done by the parents or the doctors, which no doubt would cause a lasting psychological imprint on a young child’s mind, never mind the fact that it is mostly likely unbelievably painful.

This need to look perfect is not just among the intersex community. Current media and advertising teaches women of today’s society what ideals they should strive for. The main problem lies in the fact that if they actually achieve this ideal, then everything has to be changed so that the economic market that is created by the ideal can remain. Indeed if too many woman achieve the “panicle” of beauty, then no more consumption needs to take place in order to be acceptable in the social world. This seeps in the medicalization of the world with the current fad of plastic surgery. Elayne A. Satlzburg and Joan C. Chrisler mention in their essay Beauty is the Beast that current advertising teaches women that “small breasts are a ‘disease.’” (Pg 165) By thinking of small breast as something that needs to be fixed, then this only perpetuates the ideas of physically perfection as an essential ingredient for a fulfilled life, as if large breasts are “perfect.” I mean, how many women have to get their breasts reduced in size?

Overall, the general idea of having the money to perfect your body is something that people strive for. Sickening, isn’t it? In a way, showing off your new nose or your enlarged breasts are a testimonial of how much extra cash you have lying around. Spending the money on an intersex child to make sure that he/she has a “normal” life could, in some way, be a parent’s way of proving to the world that money is no object when it comes to their “pride and joy.” Does money prove their love, or does it just maim the “apple of their eye” into a mentally and physically abused adult, many times devoid of sexual intimacies?

Pueblo beauty

2008-02-23T11:27:00.000-08:00

michael responded to my last post saying:

"I am a heterosexual male that comes from a VERY heteronormative community and i am even aware that it is statistically impossible that among 8 billion people, there are only two sexes, and VERY few exceptions..."

i couldn't agree more! how naive can this world be to think that there will never be variations from the norm in regards to gender. this just reminds of what Lola said at the end of that documentary about Robert Eads. It was something along the lines of how nature embraces deviations from the norm and celebrates them, why can't people do the same?

in Leslie Silko's essay about her Pueblo heritage, (page 173, Disch) she talks all about this same kind of this accepting of natural differences. In fact, this idea of aesthetic beauty really never comes into play in their community. she even talks all about how, as a people, they feel that "the act of comparing one living being with another was silly." as far as beauty is concerned, the whole person has to be beautiful, not just their exterior. "Thus an unhappy person o spiteful person would not be considered beautiful."

what Silko also mentions is how women tend to assume what American's would consider men's roles within the community. the Pueblo people admire strong, sturdy women, and therefore the women would be the ones to do most of the heavy jobs. although i mentioned gender roles, the Pueblo people really don't believe in such a social construction. in fact, whatever jobs need to get done are done by those most fit to do them. if a woman is stronger than a man, she will be mending the roof while the man weaves baskets, and neither job is seen as a marker as to how they should be socially and sexually identified. Silko goes on to talk about how in a nearby village there was a man who dressed in women's clothing, and yet no one challenged his appearance. she mentions that Pueblo people are incredibly accepting to all kinds of eccentricities because the "survival of the group means everyone has to cooperate."

now wouldn't the world be better if everyone took a lesson from the Pueblo people.

is it a boy or girl?!

2008-02-18T16:11:00.000-08:00

According to Suzanne Kessler’s book, Lessons from the Intersexed, the current attitudes of the intersex condition has been influenced by three factors. The first of these is about how easy it is to perform minimal surgeries to make infant genitals to look “normal.” If it is the case that a baby is born with somewhat androgynous genitalia, it is a quick procedure to “fix” the condition so that mommy and daddy can rest assured that their baby looks “normal.” Let’s not forget that the first question that people most usually ask after a baby is born is, “is it a boy or girl?”

The second factor is how socially in the United States the valuation of women can sometimes be based primarily to their reproductive functions. It is true that in the past, women were seen as housewives, meant for making babies and dinner along the way, and not much more. If a woman can’t reproduce, does this make her not a woman any longer? But if the categories are decided solely reproductively, and since women who can’t have children are still socially accepted as “women,” why can’t a man who can’t technically reproduce or “have babies” himself not be able to be considered a sterile woman, if that is the role in which he chooses? Am I making sense?

The third factor discusses the difference between gender identity and gender role. She defines the two as follows:

Gender identity: one’s sense of oneself as belonging to the female or male category.

Gender role: cultural expectations of one’s behavior as “appropriate” for a female or male.

According to John Money and J. L. Hampson, this thought of gender identity can be changeable up to 18 months of age. Basically they claim that you can bring up a child as either sex, and as long as it is within that grace period they should be able to adjust accordingly and “develop a gender identity regardless of the chromosomal gender.” Furthermore, they claim that the child will not question her or his assignment and request reassignment at a later age.

However, we have been watching many movies in class that have to deal with this same topic. For example, recently we watched a documentary about Robert Eads, who was brought up as a girl since birth. However, even though he was taught to be a girl, and his parents ushered him into such an identity, he could not live up to the gender roles being asked of him because he knew something was wrong. Therefore, Money and Hampson’s theories were wrong because Eads’s parents followed such criteria mentions by the duo, and yet their child still called for sexual reassignment.

Kessler mentions in her section entitled Genital Intolerance that “although variant genitals rarely pose a threat to the child’s life, the post delivery situation is referred to as a ‘neonatal psychosexual emergency,’ seeming to require life-saving intervention." In fact, the medical records about such surgeries exclaim that the parents have no choice and that this is a necessary procedure. Kessler lists a couple examples:

“The size of the enlarged clitoris demanding clitorectomy cannot be stated in exact measurements.”

And…

“The child with hypertrophy of the clitoris will require corrective surgery to achieve a acceptable functional and cosmetic result.”

By making the surgeries seem inevitable, doctors can get away making more money “fixing” problems that would most likely “fix” themselves with time. In fact, Kessler wrote a paper once titled, “Creating Good Looking Genitals in the Service of Gender” that was highly scrutinized by one reader who claimed, “they don’t create, they destroy.”

In conclusion, I just realized that my computer keeps underlining the word “intersex” whenever I write it. Upon further investigation I realized that it doesn’t even recognize “intersex” as a word. No wonder why these “intersex” people can’t seem to find a niche in this world! Not even modern technology includes them as being in existence. Thoughts?

sorry for this being so late...

2008-02-18T09:13:00.000-08:00

Here is the poem that I wrote back towards the beginning of the semester. It is in some way a personal reflection of who I am and I attempting to make it more of a stream of thought exercise, rather than a polished product.

I like the color green,

but don't always associate me with that color.

I love coffee,

but don't assume that I like it with creme.

I am a great friend.

and not.

I am intelligent.

and not

I am beautiful.

and not.

I am gay,

but don't assume that I'll sleep with you just because you're a guy.

I love to sing,

but don't ask me to give you an inpromtu concert.

I like to dance.

sometimes.

I call my parents.

not enough.

I am in love with the thought of being in love.

I have a boyfriend,

named Mint Chip ice cream.

I have dreams.

and lots of doubts.

I have big lips.

The better to kiss you with.

I have long legs.

The better to run away with.

I try.

To live.

And be.

That's why.

I'm me.

hedwig and sophia...

2008-02-13T12:09:00.000-08:00

this week we have been discussing a lot about intersex children and transexuals. we spent a lot of time talking about how surgury is a big part of this, and how American society relies on this thought that medicine can "fix" everything. I will delve more into this topic later on in the week, but i thought that this would be a perfect opportunity to plug one of my favorite movies, "Hedwig and the Angry Inch."

the movie focuses on Hedwig, a transexual from Germany who had a botched sex-reassignment surgury that left him with a "one inch mound of flesh." it is a rock musical with brilliant music and a truly touching storyline. you should all rent it!

also, just for fun, i am posting a link to Sophia Lamar's website. she is a famous transsexual living in NYC, most notable for her controversial court cases regarding her being fired due to her sexual reassignment. she currently works as a model and as a commenter on many radio shows. check her out by clicking HERE!

bestiality, gender profiling, and American "beauty" oh my!

2008-02-11T22:00:00.000-08:00

The article Growing Up Hidden by Linnea Due had some really great points about how she felt growing up in a prejudiced society. She talked all about how she had to live in “hiding” because she was not allowed to be who she really was, which was a woman in love with women. In order to find out what she was, she ventured into her father’s medical journals and found a book by the infamous Freud, which posed some, well, interesting theories of homosexuality. Anyway, she felt somewhat relieved that here were people out there just like her. However, Freud grouped these people with those who “fucked chickens or corpses.”

Why is homosexuality often considered bestiality in the eyes of those opposed to it? Even recently Mike Huckabee, yes the one in the presidential race, equated homosexuality with bestiality in a recent interview with Beliefnet.com, a religious website. His exact response to a question about whether or not he would preach the Bible’s ways in his reign as president, he said:

“Well I don’t think it is a radical view to say we are going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, and a man an animal…”

Not only does he talk about a man and an animal, but he ALSO brings up pedophilia, which is also something often slung at gay men even though there are just as many straight male pedophiles as there are gay ones. Not to say that pedophilia is an okay practice, which of course it is not, but to point towards the gay community for such a practice that involves men, women, gay and straight, is completely unjust and ignorant.

Also, notice how Huckabee doesn’t mention female pedophiles, or women and animals. He directly associates both of these practices with men, and specifically homosexual men at that.

I don’t know about any of you, but I would rather vote for Bush again than place my hands in such a bigot as Huckabee. Actually, I take that back. I’d move to Canada instead.

In Judith Lorber’s Social Construction of Gender, she talks all about how socially profiling people. She gives the example of babies and their respective colors. She sees a baby wearing pink and automatically she thinks, “girl!” People do this without even noticing. Every person you see as you pass through your daily lives you want/need to gender profile. Each person that walks by is classified simultaneously as a boy or girl, and if you can’t tell, that if when the staring begins. People study each other, especially in these cases of gender ambiguousness. For some weird reason, gender specificity is just one of those things that people need closure on. What do you all think?

(Gender as a Process, Stratification, and Structure)

I just wanted to write down Lorber’s literal definition of each:

-Gender is a process of creating, distinguishable, social statuses for the assignment of rights and responsibilities.

-As a part of a stratification system, gender ranks men above women of the same race and class.

-As a structure gender divides work in the home and in economic production, legitimates those in authority, and organizes sexuality and emotional life.

Well I could write an entire book on those three categories, but no worries, I’m lazy. I think the process is pretty much straight forward. We all know about social statuses between men and women and the division of social rights accordingly. I would say that his process is what is used to inevitably create the stratification system on which the society is built. Indeed then the structure can be created, which decides what is expected from each contributing person in a society. This structure deems what is to be expected from a man and a woman, and therefore how these parties should act accordingly. In essence, the process creates the level playing field where the stratification can then rank authority. Then once this authority is established, the structure segregates responsibilities due to gender.

Wow, that confused me when I re-read it…but it totally made sense in my head while I was writing it. Any thoughts?

Lastly, here are some other quotes from this week that I found particularly interesting:

-“Simply put, a woman endured, but a man fought back.” And “But it was the need to prove myself an American man – tough, resilient, independent, able to take it – that pulled me through the war with the virus.” These are from Taking It by Leonard Kriegel

-“…[Black women] will never possess the fundamental ingredient for female beauty in America, and it is whiteness.” From Who’s the Fairest of Them All? By Jill Nelson.

I suppose what I enjoyed most about the Leonard Kriegal essay is how he has used gender almost as a guiding light. I think that this is the first example expressed in our readings that uses gender as a good thing, rather than a negative. Not that our readings say that gender itself is a negative. They really just pinpoint the stereotypes that are paired with gender and how that negatively affects certain people who wish to obtain a lifestyle that strays from this norm. Anyway, what I am trying to say is that Kriegal used the social expectations of him to be tough, and triumphed over his disease because of it.

Jill Neslon’s essay comments on how there is never a truly black woman on television. How even in modern day American, the black women on the tube are a hybrid between black and white, and they all posses white attributes such as small noses and feathered hair. If a traditional black woman is portrayed on television, she is shown in a situation such as being a mother with a son who is in trouble with the law. In fact, it was mentioned in class that there were more black people on television in decades past than there are now (considering such television shows as the Jefferson’s etc). Look at the most successful black female actors such as Halley Berry and even Tyra Banks. They both could practically be white with their tan complexions and constantly “relaxed” hair. I put relaxed in quotations because Nelson talks about how the this term makes it seem like the problem is their hair, and that it is “uptight and all we need to do is to get it to cool out.” Haha.

I don’t know. What do you think? Has television become more racist, or at least more segregated, over the years?

in response to Will:

2008-02-10T20:30:00.000-08:00

Will commented on my last post by saying:

"I think in many ways Ruth had it easy. She was never questioned by her family and was lucky enough to have people around her that supported her. She never had to hide herself from anyone and was able to just live."

You know, I completely agree. I don't think she had life easy in the sense that she was able to freely proclaim that she was a lesbian at the top of her lungs. Nor do I think the fact that she had to host the "gay" parties just so that there would be some sort of safe haven for gay youth was easy. But I do think that she had a remarkably open family that let her live in a "no questions" asked atmosphere.

I mentioned in class that I felt a pulled the stories that Tommy Avicolli wrote about verbal and physical torment that he experienced growing up as a gay man. I felt pulled to them, because like Ruth, I have never personally had anything like that happen to me. I have been extremely lucky to have grown up geographically in a liberal and accepting section of America where such rarities as gay marriage are legally practiced. I have never had to hide my sexual orientation, nor have I had to defend myself because of it.

I have been very lucky.

Just an overall fyi: I only update this once a week, so I am sorry if people comment or ask questions and then it seems like I ma ignoring you...I'm not, I promise! I will be officially updating tomorrow on a bunch of new stuff that I read, so check back :)

compliments of professor H...

2008-02-04T19:01:00.000-08:00

here is a link to the Ruth Ellis center website.

CLICK HERE

Ruth Ellis is fucking amazing.

2008-02-03T21:30:00.001-08:00

So the other day in class we watched a documentary about Ruth Ellis, who was literally one of the pioneers and grandmothers of the gay and lesbian community. She died at age 101, but lived a full life until then, serving her LGBT community by providing a save haven from bigotry and prejudice wherever she could. She enjoyed life and never asked for much. She even allowed her partner of 35 years, Babe, to cheat on her and take her love for granted. This, however, never swayed Ruth from doing anything and everything she wanted while she was alive. She achieved a lot in her lifetime, more than most people who are ever lucky to reach that age.

I was so touched while watching the film because, honestly, I have never seen someone so happy to be alive. Especially someone who faced what she deemed to be "triple oppression." Ruth not only had to deal with civil rights, seeing as she how she was black, but she also dealt with the women's rights movement and even gay and lesbian rights when the stonewall riots occurred in the late 60's. Ruth saw it all and endured.

What I felt was also a nice touch to the documentary, was how that fact that Ruth was a lesbian was not the main focus. Yes, it was part of the key concept of how she was an open lesbian at her age and has been for pretty much a century, but it was just one small facet of her life that made up who she was. There was so much more to Ruth than her being a lesbian.

In Riki Wilchin’s, Queer Theory, Gender Theory, she discusses how today it is possible to claim to be gay, but it is still almost socially unacceptable to act gay. For women, the modern world will accept them to assume “men’s” jobs, but to look like a man is still a whole other concept that troubles people, regardless of how many gay people they claim to be best friends with, haha.

Honestly, being a gay man, I even get a bit uncomfortable around drag queens and/or transsexuals. I have no reason to be uncomfortable and I truly don’t understand why I experience anxiety when I am faced in such situations with these people. Could it be that the society I have grown up in taught me to react like this? Was it my country, and maybe even the world, that taught me to abide by the sex “God gave me?” I would be lying if I said that whenever I saw someone dressed in drag, that I didn’t stare. It is hard not to stare. I mean, it is so rare that when an occasion comes up where someone is brave enough to gender express themselves at the identity they associate with, which in this case is not he sex they were born with, I feel like I almost have to look. One part of me is thinking how embarrassed I am for staring as if this person was a novelty act, and another part of me is thinking, “You go girl (or boy)!”

Sorry, I got off on a tangent. Back to the topic at hand: acting gay. I suppose that even today, after such huge events as Stonewall, it is much more socially accepted to act gay, but we must also consider the “straight acting” craze. There is this huge obsession now with “acting straight” and making sure to look like you aren’t gay. Guys put out ads all over the place seeking, “straight acting” companions, as if that were something as easy as saying that your hair is brown.

I guess what I am trying to get at is, when did we have to step back in that closet? It seems like more and more people are open about their homosexuality nowadays, but this whole straight acting nonsense sounds as though we are taking a step backwards. And what does straight acting entail anyway? Can we really socially construct such a term to have concrete and universal meanings, or is it in the eye of the beholder? And honestly, I have met many straight men that act gayer than I do, and regardless of that they live fulfilled heterosexual lives.

Because of this “acting straight” shit, it is almost hard to identify what gender roles are to given to each member in a relationship (not saying that you had to assign such roles). Wilchin’s addresses this when she writes: “straight couples can locate all the feminine symbolic content of their relationship in the woman and the masculine symbolic content in the man. But gay couples do not have this option.” This made me think of how couples that consist of two men are often asked who is the woman and who is the man, right?! I mean, I fall fault to asking these questions to some of my gay friends. Truly, there is no woman at all, just two guys. What is really meant by that question? Does it primarily relate to sexual relations, as in who receives the anal intercourse, or does it also pertain to the social qualities of the relationship and who primarily assumes the feminine or masculine roles? Both of these options probably come into play, but having been in gay relationships, the roles tend to switch a lot. In fact, I would say that those gender roles probably switch a lot in heterosexual couples too. No one is always masculine or feminine regardless of sexual orientation. However, in heterosexual relationships the gender roles have already been decided by society, so it is easy to know what your responsibilities are, because, you know, all relationships should abide by what the status quo says. Note sarcasm.

Wow, I know I know, I am writing a lot. I just kind of want to purge everything that’s on my mind, so I’m sorry if some of this doesn’t make sense. There was one more thing that I found interesting in the Wilchin’s readings. I found it interesting how she wrote about how many lesbians broke off from the big activist groups and decided to try to help on a smaller scale. This reminded me a lot of how Ruth Ellis’s story and how she and Babe used to take in many gay youth that needed some help. Their home acting almost as a boarding house for gay teens who had no where else to go. This was illegal at the time too, because in the 50’s more than two gay people were not allowed to congregate legally under certain state’s laws! Basically Ruth really was taking a chance and standing up for what she believed in. She could have been arrested for allowing all of those gay people in her home, but she never paid mind to it and just attempted to live her life.

In short, what I think I got most out of this week’s readings was how no one is just a man or woman. Sexually, maybe, but emotionally we all have our moments of being masculine and feminine. Society wants to direct people to one side, but that is not always possible. And this “acting” like crap makes no sense to me. Just because someone says that they are “straight” acting doesn’t mean they are straight, so why do so many people place such a high pedestal on such a concept?

Comments?

the first of many :)

2008-01-31T08:58:00.000-08:00

Hello hell hello! My name is DJ and I am beginning this blog in order to roughly plant some thoughts and ideas that I have while I do my readings for a sociology class, Sex and Gender, dun dun dun, hahaha. A little bit about myself? Well, I am a senior college student, graduating with a degree in Theater and a minor in Music History and Cultures, which I have turned into a music and art history hybrid. I identify myself as a gay male, and a lover of coffee and the occasional cocktail. This blog is meant to be an informal platform where I can just journal my heart out, but I welcome anyone to comment and ask questions and argue with me. I would really love to spark conversations, so don’t be shy. Also, keep in mind that there will most likely be spelling errors galore because I type fast and rarely catch stupid mistakes.

“No one is simply a man or woman.”

This weeks readings really stressed the main idea that gender is a social construct. I mean, you can't argue with that. What is gender? A man or a woman? WRONG. Gender is really just what the general population agrees is masculine or feminine. Sex is what distinguishes male or female, but you could technically be a man, but you could identify yourself as a woman.

As an example, maybe the most socially accepted drag queens out there could be the Hijras in India. Maybe it is wrong of me to write “drag queens” because they do actually undergo sex-change surgery, but they were at one point technically men who lived as women. They are actually quite accepted in India as well. They are thought to have magical powers of healing and good fortune, so they are many times invited to events such as marriages and births.

The editers of the Utne Reader even said that, “gender is performance.” I love that! In short, you are how you act you are. If you live as a woman, act as a woman, live your sex-life as a woman, and therefore declare yourself that you are a woman, you indeed a woman. Regardless of what sex you might have been born as this performance proves your real gender.

Two readings that I did this week really struck a chord in me. The first was Martin Espada’s “The Puerto Rican Dummy and the merciful son.” The story centralizes aroundt he fact that Martin faced a lot of prejudice growing up as a Puerto Rican boy and in turn grew violent. He gave up this violence when he audibly heard the “thunk” on some guys skull when he was beating him up, and it mortified him of his actions. Now he was reflecting on his son and how he should teach him to grow up. He writes:

“Will I urge my son to be a pacifist, thereby gutting one of the foundations of traditional manhood, the pleasure taken in violence and the power derived from in?”

Ok, my question is, does a man need to be violent in some part of his life in order to be considered a man??? It is sick how in this country to be considered a traditional man you have to shoot animals and throw punches and attend football games. You know, those things make me feel less of man in fact. When I attend a football game, I am faced with my utter disgust at men bashing themselves into each other. Don’t get me wrong; I have nothing against sports. My father is in the semi-pro football hall of fame and my brother played for his college team. I just am reminded how much I dislike sports when I attend the games, and therefore I am also reminded of what I would rather be doing, which would most likely be characterized as womanly and or homosexual stereotypically. So in essence, that “manly” thing that should make me feel “manly” makes me feel less akin to my innate “manliness.”

I think Martin feels this way to a certain degree. He wants to be able to allow his son to find his own place in the world, but at the same time he wants to protect him from all the bigotry that he faced. He almost feels that he is the person he is today because of the violence he partook in, and by denying his son that experience, that maybe his son will feel incomplete at he gets older.

The other article that we read was Helen Zia’s “From Nothing, A Consciousness.” Helen describes how she had to disobey her father and pursue a college career against his will. Her father, a traditional Chinese man, argued that the “proper place for an unmarried daughter, is at home with her parents.” Regardless of the hazing she encountered she did attend Princeton University, where she was 1 of 16 Asians in the entire university.

Helen mentioned “The Three Obediences” in the Chinese culture, which were sickening. They are, “The daughter obeys the father, the wife obeys the husband, and the widow obeys the son.” What is all this “obey” shit. I mean, come on honestly, like that husband could survive without his wife. What makes me the most upset is the “widow obeys the son.” That son wouldn’t have life if it weren’t for his mother, so why should she somehow act as if she owes him something? The rules in patriarchal society make no sense sometimes.

Further on in the article Helen talks about how she was singled out a lot at school because of how she looked. At the time, the Vietnam War was being fought and because she was among the rare few Asians that the white students saw, she felt as the she became, “the local personification of a war nearly ten thousand miles away.”

This next line is brilliant:

“Since I looked like the enemy, I must be the enemy.”

Now ain’t that the truth. How many of us do this now with Muslim men wearing turbans. They are walking around, doing their own business, and we automatically think that they are on some tirade to bomb us. We are constantly living out of fear, so much that we need to blame people in order to make ourselves feel better.

Marilyn Manson gave an interview once where he talked about Americans and their fears. He claimed that it stems from the media and how they are always telling us things like storms are coming or terrorist attacks or muggings, anything that can plant fear in our bones. Once that fear is there though, we begin to consume. The more we are afraid, the more we consume in order to feel like we can possess some sort of salvation from this inevitable whatever that may be coming our way.

Helen summed up her article by making the statement that it was hard for her to feel like an American when she wasn’t treated like one. However, it was hard for her to feel Asian too, considering that she couldn’t speak Chinese, nor did she even know anyone in China. Native students from China would even say that she was, “Chinese on the outside, but empty on the inside.” Basically, it is easy to see that you can even face hazing and prejudice from within ethnic groups just as much from outsiders.

Those are just some thought on the readings from last week.

Any thoughts would be fantastic.

Sorry that this is so long…I’m just as talkative in real life too.