I found these two excerpts to be very interesting given the backgrounds of the authors, as people of color during a time of slavery. I'd like to compare the two pieces on gender identity.
Douglass- Douglass found/asserted his identity by his ability to stand up to physical oppression and abuse. I found this interesting in light of Truth asserting her identity by words; Douglass used physicality. I wonder if this was because of the options available to him, the prevailing definition of manhood or his personal beliefs about what men are/should be.
Truth- Although short and difficult to read due to the dialect, this was one of the few pieces that made me proud to be a woman. So many of our readings are crazy feminists who are far too radical for my taste. Truth's statements are basic, yet bold. She asserted her identity as a woman by using logical arguments (the origin of Christ being God and a woman--- men had nothing to do with Him) against the men's statements of the inferiority of women (pretty good for someone with a lesser intellect, I should say).
Monday, February 25, 2008
Claim/Assumption Paper
I found the claim/assumption thought paper assignment really interesting and while I don't feel like rewriting the paper, kind of want to explore some of the notes that Celia wrote in the margins.
The claim I tried to uphold was that men are taught to be more focused on their own interests, on their physical selves, while women are taught to focus more on others. I went at the issues from a heterosexual standpoint, with the assumption that there are only two sexes, men and women. Through the paper I worked on identifying the source of this behavior (I decided it was learned, primarily from parents, and other adults that form society) and what boys are taught about gender roles and what girls are taught about gender roles. Both are taught by the mother, generally, that the female takes care of the children, putting children's needs before her own in the form of feeding, education and staying at home to care for the child when and if that is required. Whereas the father works outside the home to provide food and finances, and potentially discplinary actions, which I did not define.
At this point, Celia commented that early socialization is the key- I agree. Yes, I think that what you learn from watching your parents interact with each other, what roles they play in the family, the manner in which they provide for the family, all of these things shape how young boys and girls view their gender role as well as the opposite.
I look at my family and how my brother and I view our future roles and the roles of our future spouses. My mother outranks my father in terms of level of education but he outranks her in terms of financial contribution. When Alex (my brother) and I were little, it was my mother's job (at home... she was a school teacher at the same time) to make sure we had all our basic needs taken care of- breakfast lunch and dinner, brushed our teeth and bathed, clothes appropriately for school, had our homework done. She was also responsible for laundry, cleaning, cooking and shopping for our family needs. As far as discipline went, the ultimate threat was "Do you want your father to know about this?". She would spank us, put us in time out, ground us from certain activities we enjoyed, but that question, if nothing else, put us back in line real quick. My father, from my childhood memories, worked away from the home, usually in another state. He would come home on the weekends and would usually play with us on Saturday and attend church with us on Sunday before he would head back to work in another state. My mom took care of us; my father took care of her and us financially but was not involved in our daily lives.
What does Alex expect from his wife? Well, I'm fairly certain he expects her to clean, cook, do the laundry and take care of the kids, because that's what my mom always did. And he'll work. I don't know if he plans on working in the same town/state in which his family lives.
What do I expect from my husband? What do I expect of myself as a wife/mother? This is something that concerns me. I don't know. My mom was willing to be very domestic and still pursue her career as a school teacher. However, that career was fairly suitable to raising school aged children, especially since we all went to the same school. But my dreams are very different from her's. I want to work abroad, in developing nations. Where I have been are not areas suitable, in my opinion, for raising children. I don't want to raise children in a conflict and/or war zone nor in a place where child mortality is outrageously high. Yet, I can't see myself doing what my father did and seeing my children for 2 days a week (I would see them even less with international not just interstate travel being the issue). Besides that, where would I find a man who would be willing to be the domestic half of the equation. I have been taught that the mother/wife needs to be more of the day to day caregiver and fix her work schedule around her family schedule. Yet I have dreams that completely contradict that. I have yet to find a balance between what I have been taught and what I want. It's an uncomfortable place to be. Most days I decide not to think about it- I still have plenty of time to find the answers, right?
My paper continued, but that was the big question, for me, that remains unanswered and undefined. The second question Celia brought to my attention was the definition of the self. I'll save that discussion for a possible future post.
The claim I tried to uphold was that men are taught to be more focused on their own interests, on their physical selves, while women are taught to focus more on others. I went at the issues from a heterosexual standpoint, with the assumption that there are only two sexes, men and women. Through the paper I worked on identifying the source of this behavior (I decided it was learned, primarily from parents, and other adults that form society) and what boys are taught about gender roles and what girls are taught about gender roles. Both are taught by the mother, generally, that the female takes care of the children, putting children's needs before her own in the form of feeding, education and staying at home to care for the child when and if that is required. Whereas the father works outside the home to provide food and finances, and potentially discplinary actions, which I did not define.
At this point, Celia commented that early socialization is the key- I agree. Yes, I think that what you learn from watching your parents interact with each other, what roles they play in the family, the manner in which they provide for the family, all of these things shape how young boys and girls view their gender role as well as the opposite.
I look at my family and how my brother and I view our future roles and the roles of our future spouses. My mother outranks my father in terms of level of education but he outranks her in terms of financial contribution. When Alex (my brother) and I were little, it was my mother's job (at home... she was a school teacher at the same time) to make sure we had all our basic needs taken care of- breakfast lunch and dinner, brushed our teeth and bathed, clothes appropriately for school, had our homework done. She was also responsible for laundry, cleaning, cooking and shopping for our family needs. As far as discipline went, the ultimate threat was "Do you want your father to know about this?". She would spank us, put us in time out, ground us from certain activities we enjoyed, but that question, if nothing else, put us back in line real quick. My father, from my childhood memories, worked away from the home, usually in another state. He would come home on the weekends and would usually play with us on Saturday and attend church with us on Sunday before he would head back to work in another state. My mom took care of us; my father took care of her and us financially but was not involved in our daily lives.
What does Alex expect from his wife? Well, I'm fairly certain he expects her to clean, cook, do the laundry and take care of the kids, because that's what my mom always did. And he'll work. I don't know if he plans on working in the same town/state in which his family lives.
What do I expect from my husband? What do I expect of myself as a wife/mother? This is something that concerns me. I don't know. My mom was willing to be very domestic and still pursue her career as a school teacher. However, that career was fairly suitable to raising school aged children, especially since we all went to the same school. But my dreams are very different from her's. I want to work abroad, in developing nations. Where I have been are not areas suitable, in my opinion, for raising children. I don't want to raise children in a conflict and/or war zone nor in a place where child mortality is outrageously high. Yet, I can't see myself doing what my father did and seeing my children for 2 days a week (I would see them even less with international not just interstate travel being the issue). Besides that, where would I find a man who would be willing to be the domestic half of the equation. I have been taught that the mother/wife needs to be more of the day to day caregiver and fix her work schedule around her family schedule. Yet I have dreams that completely contradict that. I have yet to find a balance between what I have been taught and what I want. It's an uncomfortable place to be. Most days I decide not to think about it- I still have plenty of time to find the answers, right?
My paper continued, but that was the big question, for me, that remains unanswered and undefined. The second question Celia brought to my attention was the definition of the self. I'll save that discussion for a possible future post.
Men's definitions
So a few readings ago (it was the Marking the Difference reading, by Hatty, if you're curious) I was really intrigued by the apparent differences in men's perceptions and my own (I'll probably just call it a woman's perspective). Things like the what is a man or a woman, how do you know someone is a man or woman; what is masculinity and femininity; are masculine and feminine behaviors learned or innate; and what is the ideal body for a man and a woman; as well as opinions on the body as a weapon, and women in the military. I found the reading to be so very different from what I believe that I decided to ask some male friends (who shall remain anonymous) what they believed. I think they all answered pretty honestly, but you can never be sure I guess. So anyways, here are the questions, and their responses (not word for word, because I'm a little lazy). Read and enjoy.
What is a man? How do you know if someone is a man?
A- By the hair, shoulders/build
B- Someone who's masculine [when asked what that was, he said it was being a man] and by the build of the person
C- Appearance, based on clothing primarily- jeans, hoodie, polo
What is a woman? How do you know if someone is a woman?
A- Anatomy, specifically having a vagina
B- Someone who's feminine [again, no definition beyond being a woman] and by hair as well as build (should be curvy)
C- Appearance based on jewelry, makeup, accessories, shoes, and longer hair usually done up, the build of the person as well as the manner of walking
What is masculinity?
A- little to no emotion shown- stoic; physical strength
B- Physical build
C- Being a man/guy [when asked, said it's based on a range of factors including activities, candor, expression, social abilities]
What is femininity?
A- Exact opposite of masculinity [when asked to elaborate, no further definition]
B- Based on physical build and personality
C- Being a woman [when asked again for more, same response as to previous question, said there is no difference between gender and sex]
Is this a learned behavior, and if so, where is it learned?
A- Learned from society, identified movies/media as a primary source
B- Learned from parents, specifically the father figure
C- No answer [when asked again, responded that he just believes these things, but doesn't know where he got the ideas- doesn't know if it's a social construct or natural]
What is the ideal female and male body?
A- no answers [when asked if he just didn't want to tell me, he said no, he just didn't have an answer]
B- Female body should be curvy; male body should be muscular
C- Very detailed answer- female body should be well toned overall with specific mention of legs, stomach and butt; symmetrical and proportionate in regards to face and breasts. Male body should be very fit, with specific mention to % body fat, abs, legs and arms, should not look like one is trying to be "manly"
Is the body a weapon?
A- possibly- as a sexual tool, or a physical fighting tool
B- can be if it is taught to be
C- not every day, but it can be- based on words, expressions and actions
How do you feel about women in the military?
A- "Nothing against it"; feels there is little difference between a man and a woman; should be based on ability to complete tasks, not sex/gender
B- "It shouldn't be any different than men"
C- "Go for it"; denied any reservations
There you have it- male perspectives on a small variety of issues. I found it interesting.
What is a man? How do you know if someone is a man?
A- By the hair, shoulders/build
B- Someone who's masculine [when asked what that was, he said it was being a man] and by the build of the person
C- Appearance, based on clothing primarily- jeans, hoodie, polo
What is a woman? How do you know if someone is a woman?
A- Anatomy, specifically having a vagina
B- Someone who's feminine [again, no definition beyond being a woman] and by hair as well as build (should be curvy)
C- Appearance based on jewelry, makeup, accessories, shoes, and longer hair usually done up, the build of the person as well as the manner of walking
What is masculinity?
A- little to no emotion shown- stoic; physical strength
B- Physical build
C- Being a man/guy [when asked, said it's based on a range of factors including activities, candor, expression, social abilities]
What is femininity?
A- Exact opposite of masculinity [when asked to elaborate, no further definition]
B- Based on physical build and personality
C- Being a woman [when asked again for more, same response as to previous question, said there is no difference between gender and sex]
Is this a learned behavior, and if so, where is it learned?
A- Learned from society, identified movies/media as a primary source
B- Learned from parents, specifically the father figure
C- No answer [when asked again, responded that he just believes these things, but doesn't know where he got the ideas- doesn't know if it's a social construct or natural]
What is the ideal female and male body?
A- no answers [when asked if he just didn't want to tell me, he said no, he just didn't have an answer]
B- Female body should be curvy; male body should be muscular
C- Very detailed answer- female body should be well toned overall with specific mention of legs, stomach and butt; symmetrical and proportionate in regards to face and breasts. Male body should be very fit, with specific mention to % body fat, abs, legs and arms, should not look like one is trying to be "manly"
Is the body a weapon?
A- possibly- as a sexual tool, or a physical fighting tool
B- can be if it is taught to be
C- not every day, but it can be- based on words, expressions and actions
How do you feel about women in the military?
A- "Nothing against it"; feels there is little difference between a man and a woman; should be based on ability to complete tasks, not sex/gender
B- "It shouldn't be any different than men"
C- "Go for it"; denied any reservations
There you have it- male perspectives on a small variety of issues. I found it interesting.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Feminist Thought
In my opinion, this is why feminism has such a bad reputation. I could barely get through my chapter. Everything was so extreme- I didn't agree with anything. And I got really tired of reading that it was because I was trapped in a patriarchal society and mentality and that if I was really a freethinking woman, I would agree with the writings.
So what did I have problems with.
I really got annoyed with how both the radical libertarian and the radical cultural feminist seemed to think men/males are the devil. They were often referred to as dominating, controlling, intentionally oppressive, etc. Is it possible that this is also a social construct?
I guess the thing I hated the most was that everything seemed to be a blanket policy. All men are this way. All women should want to be something but they can't because the situation is always like this....
For example, the huge section on motherhood. Some women want to raise kids- some of them want to raise their own, and some of them want to raise others. Some women don't want kids at all. Why is that a problem? Isn't that part of what women's liberation is about? The ability to choose what you want to do? Why do we have to say that all real women would want to do one thing or another? I guess I see that as just women limiting or restricting women, which isn't any better than men limiting/restricting women.
So what did I have problems with.
I really got annoyed with how both the radical libertarian and the radical cultural feminist seemed to think men/males are the devil. They were often referred to as dominating, controlling, intentionally oppressive, etc. Is it possible that this is also a social construct?
I guess the thing I hated the most was that everything seemed to be a blanket policy. All men are this way. All women should want to be something but they can't because the situation is always like this....
For example, the huge section on motherhood. Some women want to raise kids- some of them want to raise their own, and some of them want to raise others. Some women don't want kids at all. Why is that a problem? Isn't that part of what women's liberation is about? The ability to choose what you want to do? Why do we have to say that all real women would want to do one thing or another? I guess I see that as just women limiting or restricting women, which isn't any better than men limiting/restricting women.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Gendered conflict definition
A few days ago, we talked in class about what is gendered conflict. For me, I see it as using gender or sexuality as a factor of traditional violence. Examples that came to mind would be rape, against men and women, other forms of sexual exploitation, and targeting based on gender/sexuality. I also think of the targeting of homosexuals by Hitler in WW2.
However, I think I have a problem with my own definition. I see gendered conflict as somehow worse than other forms of conflict. But should it be? Should gender be a factor in defining or evaluating the severity of violence? Things should be right or wrong, bad or good, based on the rightness or wrongness of it, not based on gender.
If violence should be abhorred, it should always be abhorred, and abhorred completely, regardless of who is harmed. It should all be the same.
However, I think I have a problem with my own definition. I see gendered conflict as somehow worse than other forms of conflict. But should it be? Should gender be a factor in defining or evaluating the severity of violence? Things should be right or wrong, bad or good, based on the rightness or wrongness of it, not based on gender.
If violence should be abhorred, it should always be abhorred, and abhorred completely, regardless of who is harmed. It should all be the same.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
February 29th
So I was at the doctor's office yesterday (to get a shot... why do they always stick needles in me when I go there?) and they had all these magazines in the waiting room. I was flipping through and found something interesting, related to Leap Year.
Traditionally in our culture, women were supposed to wait for the man to pop the big question and propose. But so the story goes, on Leap Year Day (?), women were allowed to propose, without the social no-no sentiment. Why? Legend holds that in Ireland in the 5th century, St. Bridget complained to St. Patrick that men take too long (surprise surprise) and that women should be given the opportunity to propose and hurry the whole marriage thing up. Apparently, one day a year, every four years was supposed to take care of this issue.
Apparently, it was even illegal in some countries for women to propose, except on this day. In England, Feb 29th wasn't legally recognized, but was believed to be a day where you could fix past wrongs and injustices... one of them being that women couldn't propose.
In 1288, in Scotland, this tradition became a law. Women were legally allowed to propose on this day. Also, legally, if a man turned down a proposal on this day, he would get fined. The fine was anything from a kiss to a silk dress to a pair of gloves. Who decided the fine, I don't know.
Although women can now propose, without a lot of social restrictions, I think it's really interesting that we used to regulate this. Like, it was in law books! That's crazy. But apparently, they could recognize the unfairness of legislating who could propose and who couldn't, so did make it legal on a certain day. But what's also unfair is that men could be fined for turning a woman down.
Why all the rules? Why can't we just let happy, loving people alone? Don't get me started on Valentine's Day... that's a whole different rant.....
Traditionally in our culture, women were supposed to wait for the man to pop the big question and propose. But so the story goes, on Leap Year Day (?), women were allowed to propose, without the social no-no sentiment. Why? Legend holds that in Ireland in the 5th century, St. Bridget complained to St. Patrick that men take too long (surprise surprise) and that women should be given the opportunity to propose and hurry the whole marriage thing up. Apparently, one day a year, every four years was supposed to take care of this issue.
Apparently, it was even illegal in some countries for women to propose, except on this day. In England, Feb 29th wasn't legally recognized, but was believed to be a day where you could fix past wrongs and injustices... one of them being that women couldn't propose.
In 1288, in Scotland, this tradition became a law. Women were legally allowed to propose on this day. Also, legally, if a man turned down a proposal on this day, he would get fined. The fine was anything from a kiss to a silk dress to a pair of gloves. Who decided the fine, I don't know.
Although women can now propose, without a lot of social restrictions, I think it's really interesting that we used to regulate this. Like, it was in law books! That's crazy. But apparently, they could recognize the unfairness of legislating who could propose and who couldn't, so did make it legal on a certain day. But what's also unfair is that men could be fined for turning a woman down.
Why all the rules? Why can't we just let happy, loving people alone? Don't get me started on Valentine's Day... that's a whole different rant.....
Monday, February 4, 2008
El recado
In my intro to hispanic lit class, we had to read a short story, called El recado (the message). The story is set in a working class neighborhood in Mexico in the 1960's. A young woman goes to the house of the man she's in love with and basically just sits on his doorstep. The whole time you're reading the story, you thinking she's writing it down in a letter to Martin (the man she loves) and she describes what's going on around her, how she feels, how she misses him, just wants to see him, yada yada. You get to the end of the story, and she writes to him, "Te quiero" (I love you) and that there is nothing else written on the page. And then she says that she's not giving him the paper, she'll just ask his neighbor to mention she stopped by. After she had just spent the entire afternoon and evening sitting on his doorstep waiting for him.
So how does this relate to our gender and conflict class? We talked (in Spanish of course) about this woman's actions in the context of her society and time. And really, if this young woman had gone to this guy's house and waited for him all day, she was breaking all sorts of social norms, and people would have seen her as a tramp. But she has this need that she can barely express. She can't say the things she feels... she doesn't have the words, or even the thoughts. There is a strong sense of sexual desire in the story, but it's never directly addressed, even in her thoughts. It would have been so inappropriate in her context; she didn't even know how to think it. So she just says she has to see him, she doesn't know why.
Another thing that we brought up in class is that this was the only choice she had. Women were just supposed to wait- wait for the man to notice them, to make the first move, to make all the moves, to ask for the girl's hand in marriage. She was supposed to wait for him to come around and see her. By going to his house, she was breaking all the rules of her society. But she couldn't do anything more- she couldn't leave the letter, or ask the neighbor to do anything more than mention she had stopped by. (Only imagine what the neighbor was thinking after she had spent the whole day waiting on this guy...)
She was supposed to leave a very passive life, always waiting on the men in her life... and she was very unhappy with her role. At one point she says, "A veces quisiera ser mas vieja..." (Sometimes, I wish I was much older). It's such a sad line for a young woman to say. She wanted to skip all the pain and struggle and confusion that she couldn't do anything about. If she was older, she would be married and all the questions would have their answers. And because she was so limited in what she could do/control, she just wanted to skip it.
OK, so that's that.
So how does this relate to our gender and conflict class? We talked (in Spanish of course) about this woman's actions in the context of her society and time. And really, if this young woman had gone to this guy's house and waited for him all day, she was breaking all sorts of social norms, and people would have seen her as a tramp. But she has this need that she can barely express. She can't say the things she feels... she doesn't have the words, or even the thoughts. There is a strong sense of sexual desire in the story, but it's never directly addressed, even in her thoughts. It would have been so inappropriate in her context; she didn't even know how to think it. So she just says she has to see him, she doesn't know why.
Another thing that we brought up in class is that this was the only choice she had. Women were just supposed to wait- wait for the man to notice them, to make the first move, to make all the moves, to ask for the girl's hand in marriage. She was supposed to wait for him to come around and see her. By going to his house, she was breaking all the rules of her society. But she couldn't do anything more- she couldn't leave the letter, or ask the neighbor to do anything more than mention she had stopped by. (Only imagine what the neighbor was thinking after she had spent the whole day waiting on this guy...)
She was supposed to leave a very passive life, always waiting on the men in her life... and she was very unhappy with her role. At one point she says, "A veces quisiera ser mas vieja..." (Sometimes, I wish I was much older). It's such a sad line for a young woman to say. She wanted to skip all the pain and struggle and confusion that she couldn't do anything about. If she was older, she would be married and all the questions would have their answers. And because she was so limited in what she could do/control, she just wanted to skip it.
OK, so that's that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
