So the other night I was playing racquetball with some of my friends- it's usually me, one other girl, and 4-6 guys. We were taking a break after an intense round of playing, and trying to figure out new teams before we started another match. (Can you tell I'm new at the game? I don't know if they're matches, rounds or games...)
Anyways, one of the guys asked who wanted to be with the chicks. I somewhat jokingly said, we're not chicks, we're girls. (Chick has always been my least favorite word for a girl.... well, one of them.) He laughed and said it was just a word, and I said, ok then you're a rooster. He replied, touche (or however that's spelled) and we divided into teams.
Later he said something like, you know I was just kidding right? And I replied yes, obviously.
But the point is still there... where do we get names for boys and girls, and why are some acceptable and others not? I was just teasing when I raised a fuss about it, but where is the line between just letting it go because it wasn't said with malicious intent and standing up for something that bugs you?
Friday, May 2, 2008
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Another thought about Carrillo's poem
So I've had a second thought for Jo Carrillo's poem, "And When You Leave, Take Your Pictures With You", floating around my head. I asked a question in class, and Celia gave an answer, but it's still been in my head.
My question had to do with the fact that Carrillo points out that the "white sisters" only see a part of reality when they look at the pictures. I asked if perhaps the reverse could also be true, that when they look into the white world, they only see parts of it. Celia said that this is unlikely, because their survival is dependent on their understanding of the other half. And I can understand that in some contexts. For example, in the Old South, with slavery. I've read stories of household help knowing all the secrets of their mistresses, and so I can see Celia's point.
But I guess I was thinking more along modern day, and on the international level. Do workers in Honduras, who make clothing for the more well to do in the United States, have to have an understanding of how the white people live? From my own experience, I've had people in Haiti and the Dominican make comments about how being white means being rich and not having to work. And from their perspectives, perhaps this is true. However, many Americans work for their money, doing real work- teaching, farm work, trash collecting. This is valid work, to earn a valid wage. I wonder if sometimes, the US is portrayed as too rosy.
My question had to do with the fact that Carrillo points out that the "white sisters" only see a part of reality when they look at the pictures. I asked if perhaps the reverse could also be true, that when they look into the white world, they only see parts of it. Celia said that this is unlikely, because their survival is dependent on their understanding of the other half. And I can understand that in some contexts. For example, in the Old South, with slavery. I've read stories of household help knowing all the secrets of their mistresses, and so I can see Celia's point.
But I guess I was thinking more along modern day, and on the international level. Do workers in Honduras, who make clothing for the more well to do in the United States, have to have an understanding of how the white people live? From my own experience, I've had people in Haiti and the Dominican make comments about how being white means being rich and not having to work. And from their perspectives, perhaps this is true. However, many Americans work for their money, doing real work- teaching, farm work, trash collecting. This is valid work, to earn a valid wage. I wonder if sometimes, the US is portrayed as too rosy.
When I Was Growing Up by Nellie Wong
I love poetry, and the poems we read a few weeks ago really grabbed me. This one talked about how when the author was growing up, she so longed to be white. To me, this speaks of the greatest form of repression. And we talked about this some in class. How once it's been internalized, the dominant group really doesn't have to work too hard. The oppressed group oppresses themselves, because they have internalized all these ideas- that they're not good enough, that the others are better, that this is the "right" way to be....
And I guess I just wonder if it has stopped for Nellie Wong. The poem is in past tense, talking about when she was a kid growing up. Does she see things differently now? And if so, how did she make that transition? If she can see that who she is is truly beautiful, has that been as thoroughly internalized as the things she internalized as a kid? It would be interesting to know about her life, past and present, personally, after having read this poem.
And I guess I just wonder if it has stopped for Nellie Wong. The poem is in past tense, talking about when she was a kid growing up. Does she see things differently now? And if so, how did she make that transition? If she can see that who she is is truly beautiful, has that been as thoroughly internalized as the things she internalized as a kid? It would be interesting to know about her life, past and present, personally, after having read this poem.
Monday, April 14, 2008
And When You Leave, Take Your Pictures With You
I really liked this poem. To me it was very powerful, to read the words of a woman addressing the issue of development and how it's viewed by US white women. It also reminded me a lot of the various accounts I've read in my politics classes.
The poem talks about how we see the parts of the world that we want to see, the pretty parts, the easy parts. But they also aren't the real parts. In one of my other textbooks, it was criticizing an ad that was for fair trade cotton. In the ad, there was a young hispanic looking woman "Maria" with even white teeth and a nice smile, her hair combed neatly and dressed in pretty clothes. But in reality, the women who pick cotton aren't smiling about it, they aren't beautiful as far as our public standards would call beauty. Their lives are hard and their bodies are abused.
Another criticism of US trade policy had to do with some piece of legislation that sought to end child labor in sweatshops. It said that the US could not import cloth (I think) that had been made by children. Unfortunately, all this legislation did was remove the legal restrictions on sweatshops. Children still worked there but now without any legal rights, because they were illegal.
When we try to impose our standards on other people from essentially different worlds, we tend to push them further away, further down. What's more, is that when we do choose to look at them, we only look at the parts that make us feel better about ourselves.
The poem talks about how we see the parts of the world that we want to see, the pretty parts, the easy parts. But they also aren't the real parts. In one of my other textbooks, it was criticizing an ad that was for fair trade cotton. In the ad, there was a young hispanic looking woman "Maria" with even white teeth and a nice smile, her hair combed neatly and dressed in pretty clothes. But in reality, the women who pick cotton aren't smiling about it, they aren't beautiful as far as our public standards would call beauty. Their lives are hard and their bodies are abused.
Another criticism of US trade policy had to do with some piece of legislation that sought to end child labor in sweatshops. It said that the US could not import cloth (I think) that had been made by children. Unfortunately, all this legislation did was remove the legal restrictions on sweatshops. Children still worked there but now without any legal rights, because they were illegal.
When we try to impose our standards on other people from essentially different worlds, we tend to push them further away, further down. What's more, is that when we do choose to look at them, we only look at the parts that make us feel better about ourselves.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Money issues
A couple weeks ago, we watched a video on economic development and the role that gender plays in how different organizations go about trying to increase development in an area. It's been pretty well documented that women spend money on developmental target areas, like education, small business, and health care. Whereas men don't, to the same degree that women do. I guess I still wonder why. Some argue that it's because women are more maternal, that they care more about the family. Still goes back to is that natural or is that taught. I haven't decided, although I now feel I can decently argue both sides of this issue. There's also the question of what do women see as development's purpose- profit or sustenance? I think by and large, women see it as a means to keep the family healthy and secure, not necessarily as just a means to make money. Money is necessary for those two goals, but it's not the end all be all that it can sometimes seem.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Mulan
As we're getting down to the details of our presentation, I was looking at Disney movies and the songs in them. Mulan is one of my favorites, and is pretty good for young girls, in my opinion. The hero is a young woman who is very independent and brave. Not like the dainty princesses of most Disney films. But when I was looking for gender stereotypes, it hit me that even in this film, which seems to support the adventurous spirits of young girls, there are some serious drawbacks to being a girl.
She has to hide her gender, her sexuality. As a kid watching the movie, it never really bothered me. But now looking back, it seems to teach girls that there are some things you can't be simultaneously. You can't be a girl and be brave; you can't be a girl and fight for what you believe in; you can't be a girl and break social rules.
There's also the songs in the movie. Some of the ones that jump out at me are "I'll Make a Man Out of You" and "A Girl Worth Fighting For". There's also the whole scene at the match maker's... there's a song there too but I don't remember what it's called. Look over the lyrics and see the immense amount of proof of what girls can and can't be, what they can and can't do, and even how boys/men are supposed to be. It's crazy.
She has to hide her gender, her sexuality. As a kid watching the movie, it never really bothered me. But now looking back, it seems to teach girls that there are some things you can't be simultaneously. You can't be a girl and be brave; you can't be a girl and fight for what you believe in; you can't be a girl and break social rules.
There's also the songs in the movie. Some of the ones that jump out at me are "I'll Make a Man Out of You" and "A Girl Worth Fighting For". There's also the whole scene at the match maker's... there's a song there too but I don't remember what it's called. Look over the lyrics and see the immense amount of proof of what girls can and can't be, what they can and can't do, and even how boys/men are supposed to be. It's crazy.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Truth
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).
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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
