Theorizing Activism

          In taking a Women’s Studies class online, I was skeptical at first.  I though, how do I express what I truly feel in words, how do I get to know my classmates?  Although I feel I had a firm grasp on the subject of feminism, I feel that this class has widened my knowledge on the subject greatly.  Through lectures that provided historical and concrete information, classmate’s blogs, and the discussion boards, I have learned the facts, but also a to a great degree, the opinions of my generation.  I have learned that the difference in these opinions depend greatly on the intersectionality of our lives.  We are all from different places, we have grown up in different ways, our lives are unique.  At the end of this class, whether or not we all assign to feminism or not, we are taking away an in-depth perspective on gender, class, race, identity, etc.  The topics that we have grasped in such a short time are problems present in everyday life—welfare, politics, discrimination, abuse/violence, and much more.  
           Lisa Maria Hogeland states in her article “Fear of Feminism: Why Young Women Get the Willies,” “Feminism requires an expansion of the self—an expansion of empathy, interest, intelligence, and responsibility across differences, histories, cultures, ethnicities, sexual identities, otherness.  The differences between women […] are our most precious resources in thinking and acting toward change” (http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/learn/resources/fear-feminism-why-young-women-get-willies).  This is exactly why I think that our virtual classroom is so beneficial.  All of us are different and coming together to educate one another.  I know personally that many writings from my classmates have made an impact on my life.  It is important to embrace our differences; this is what I take away from the class.  

Policy Issue: Reproductive Rights

                The thing that I want to focus on primarily is a woman’s right to her own body.  How far does this go?  When a woman is pregnant and has decided to keep the baby, does the baby not have equal rights?  Claire Andre and Manuel Velasquez explore this in their article, “Forcing Pregnant Women to do as They’re Told: Maternal vs. Fetal Rights.”  In this article, they provide the example of a woman named Janet who refuses to stop drinking during her pregnancy.  The article states,

Those who support forced treatment of pregnant women agree that every person has a right to freedom of choice.  But when a woman decides to carry her pregnancy to term, we can expect a child will be born, and this future child has a right to be protected from avoidable harm.  Certain behaviors during pregnancy are known to cause harm to offspring.  […]  Heavy alcohol use can cause mental retardation and physical malformations.  Altering one’s diet or refraining from alcohol or drugs presents no serious risk to a pregnant woman’s life or health.  When a pregnant woman who has decided to give birth to a child engages in activities that she could reasonably avoid and that will damage that child, society has a duty to protect the future child, even if this means forcing the pregnant woman to change her behavior.  (http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v1n2/pregnant.html)

                So does a woman who actively chooses to carry out her pregnancy, have the right to do as she pleases regardless of any damage her behavior may do to the unborn child?  No, I do not think she does.  When a woman harms another human being, she will be punished.  When a woman harms a helpless child due to selfish wants, she should be punished.  Alcohol and drug use have negative effects on a person’s body; they can also kill or seriously injure an unborn child.  In my eyes, that is not justifiable.  A child entails responsibility; that responsibility begins in the womb when the mother makes the choice to keep the child.  If a woman is not responsible enough to take care of a child, she should not have one.  I am not by any means suggesting that a woman should sacrifice her own life to save an unborn child, but if a woman is behaving recklessly and wants to keep the child, I feel that forced treatment is acceptable.

Policy Issue: Gendered Violence

In our lecture, we learned that gendered violence “usually occurs when masculine entitlements produce power that manifests itself in harm and injury (physical, sexual, emotional/psychological) towards women.”  This means that our society gives men so much power that men feel the need to exert it upon women in destructive ways.  Although men and women can perpetuate this violence, it is much more likely for a man to be violent against a woman.  A highly prevalent myth present within our society holds that men are biologically prone to be abusive towards women; it is in their blood.  The UNFPA article “Ending Widespread Violence Against Women” states, “Cross-cultural studies of wife abuse have found that nearly a fifth of peasant and small-scale societies are essentially free of family violence.  The existence of such cultures proves that male violence against women is not the inevitable result of male biology or sexuality, but more a matter of how society views masculinity […] The way men view themselves as men, and the way they view women, will determine whether they use violence or coercion against women.” (http://www.unfpa.org/gender/violence.htm).  In other words, identity is socially constructed, if a society accentuates male virility, men of that society are more likely to respect themselves and behave  violently towards women.  This ideology is definitely present within our patriarchal society where marital rape did not become illegal in all 50 states until 1993.  Even with these laws, 10-14 % of married women in the U.S. have been raped by their husbands.  What does this say about our society’s priorities?  3 women die every day due to intimate partner violence.  Obviously violence is gendered in our world.   

Policy Issue: Social Welfare

                In reading Gwendolyn Mink’s chapter, “Aren’t Poor Single Mothers Women?  Feminists, Welfare Reform, and Welfare Justice” from Whose Welfare?, Mink makes some truly valid points about the invasiveness of welfare reforms.  This invasion of women’s rights is the subject that I felt was truly important due to the fact that welfare is meant to better one’s wellbeing, not subtract from it.  Mink states,

            The Personal Responsibility Act makes government responsible for how poor mothers lead their lives.  Under the act, government tells poor single mothers with whom to associate, under what conditions to have and raise children, and what kind of work is appropriate.  These instructions invade poor single mothers’ freedom of association and freedom of vocation.  They curtail their fundamental rights to sexual privacy and to make parenting decisions about their own children.  (173)

Although I am quite weary of accepting or rejecting certain factors of welfare, it is highly evident how welfare reforms may harm women in the process of helping them.  So is welfare a woman’s issue?  In my mind, there is no doubt about it.  If any woman’s rights are at stake, all women’s rights are at stake.  Mink provides examples that are highly persuading. 

            Child support rules require nonmarital mothers to associate with biological fathers, and in doing so to stoke such fathers’ claims to parental rights.  […] But some mothers do not have support orders because the do not want them.  A mother may not want to identify her child’s father because she may fear abuse for herself or her child.  She may not want to seek child support because she has chosen to parent alone—or with someone else.  She may know her child’s father is poor and may fear exposing him to harsh penalties when he cannot pay what a court tells him he owes.  (179)

Regardless of the mother’s reasoning, there is almost always a reason for the mother and father to be separated.  Contrary to common belief, not all women are sluts who get pregnant after one night stands, or do not know who their baby’s father is.  Some women make the rational choice to live apart from the child’s father.  The government should respect women’s choice of disassociation with a child’s father.

Socio-economic Status

            In reading for this week of class, many statistics were given that pinpoint women, especially women of color as the ones who are affected by welfare reforms.  Although some men do utilize welfare benefits, Theresa Funiciello, author of “Poverty Wears a Female Face” states, “As of 1999, single-mother families comprise about 23 percent of all families with children under age 18—yet represent 60 percent of all such households in poverty. […] The poverty rate of single-father families is higher: 16.2 percent.  The poverty rate of single-mother families is 35.7 percent” (Sisterhood is Forever, 225).

            With this information in mind, I began thinking about the woman’s role within the home.  Due to gender norms, women are typically obligated to perform 2/3 of weekly household work.  On average, women perform 27 hours a week in house work as opposed to the 16 hours a week that men perform.  Imagine a single mother on welfare—required to work in order to continue receiving welfare, and performing not only her 27 hours a week but also the absent male’s 16 hours a week.  It almost seems impossible.  Not to mention, the time that the mother spends caring for her children, or relatives who are no longer able to care for themselves.      

            In contemplating these statistics, I began to imagine the quality of life that these women lead.  It is clear that they definitely to not lead comfortable lives.  Why are women the majority of the impoverished society?  Funiciello provides a possibility: “Poor men skip out, poor women screw up” (225).  Although this cannot possibly be the only answer to women’s unfortunate circumstances, it certainly seems pliable.     

Nationality

During lecture for our Women’s Studies class, we were provided with the following quotation from Stephen D. Levitt’s Freakonomics:

            In a sample of 13 African countries between 1999 and 2004, 52% of women surveyed say they think that wife-beating is justified if she neglects the children; around 45% think it's justified if she goes out without telling the husband or argues with him; 36% if she refuses sex, and 30% if she burns the food. And this is what the women think.

 

To be quite honest, in reading these statistics, I immediately thought, “I can’t believe this!  I want to go over there and do something to make them see different.”  This is exactly what we should not do.  We as westerners, have a tendency to go in to countries and change them to meet our standards.  Johanna Brenner in her article “Transnational Feminism and the Struggle for Global Justice” states, “Women Living Under Muslim Law (WLUML) challenges religions/political fundamentalism from within an Islamic framework of discourse, re-defining just as men have done historically, what constitutes an ‘Islamic’ practice” (The WSF: Challenging Empires, 27).  In other words, these women do not feel that a new system is necessary; they simply want to correct the one that they currently live in. 

            This is what I feel transnational feminism is all about.  Western feminists must lend a hand to their neighboring feminists, but we must not take over.  Even if we only provide support, in order for the women to fully succeed, I feel that it is necessary they do the work on their own.   Within transnational feminism, women from all over the world can share information, and ideas on how to correct certain issues.  The key factor is recognizing the differences among cultures, and realizing that what is suitable for our culture may not be applicable to a totally different culture.  Intersectionality Theory proves that there is no cookie cutter design of feminism that can apply to all cultures.  We “women” are all unique.  

Hetero/sexuality

               As I have mentioned in prior posts, I have grown up with homosexuality as a prevalent factor in my family life.  Although my parents are seemingly abnormal in their acceptance of this, it is important to notice the remaining prejudice in the older members of my extended family.  My grandfather for instance…ever since my uncle—the drag queen, was a young boy, everyone said they knew he was going to be gay.  So, my grandfather had 30 or so years to adjust to his son’s homosexuality but the stigmatization of gays is so deeply imbedded in his mind that it ruined their relationship.  In fact, my grandfather refuses to call homosexual’s gays; instead he calls them “fuddy duddys.”  Similarly, my older aunts will not even acknowledge his existence.

                What I want to discover if these prejudices have a sort of colander effect, that is it takes many years for these beliefs to be separated from typical societal beliefs.  I wonder this because it is clear that some of these prejudices have been passed down to younger generations…can they ever just die out?  The study Hatred in the Hallways, by the Human Right’s Watch observed harassment in schools among LGB students.  Some students reported hearing the word “gay” 10-20 times a day in the hallways.  Is this what is left of the prejudices from our older generations.   First gays are brutalized and ostracized, although this is still present, now their sexuality is demeaned through the use of the word “gay” as a common negative connotation that fits in almost every situation (according to our generation).  My little brother who is 14 calls everything “gay.”  It is really upsetting to see this prejudice being passed down.    

Dis/ability

                Prior to learning about disability, I had no clue what the word entailed.  When I thought of the word disability, I imagined a sweet old man in a hover round wheel chair, or a person with a broken foot who is on crutches.  This proves how narrow-minded our society has pushed us to be; biological problems are disabilities.  Over the course of this week’s readings, I learned that our societal expectations play a huge role in disabling people of our society. 

                April Herndon’s article “Disparate But Disabled: Fat Embodiment and Disability Studies” (2002 NWSA Journal, Vol. 14 No.3 Fall) states, “Although it is difficult to find scientific studies that suggest fatness is in an of itself the catalyst behind diseases such as atherosclerosis or high blood pressure, it seems that many medical practitioners feel quite comfortable telling patients that regardless of any other aspect of their lifestyle or health, they are ill” (126).  This means that the doctors who are supposed to assess problems based on scientific fact are now falling prey more and more to the stereotypes of health put forth in our media. 

                On a different note... If you ever have a chance, Google the change in sizes of clothing over the past (30) years.  Simply by looking at the differences in our “ideal” sizes and how it has changed over time, one can plainly see how much our society’s ideal of beauty has changed.  The sizes on our clothing seem to be the eyes of society looking at us and taunting us.  I cringe every time that I am forced to go up a size.  As I grew up with the latest fashion in high school, I learned where to shop, and where not to, based on sizes.  For example, I could shop at PacSun and by their “stretch jeans” and fit into a size 5 (good).  Whereas American Eagle was off limits because their clothing was much MUCH tighter!  Size 5 in PacSun means Size 9-11 in American Eagle (not Good).  It really makes you wonder whether they make the clothing to fit you, or you adjust yourself to fit the clothing available.  

          Is it really hard to imagine biased doctors, when it seems as if the rest of society has already succumbed to the pressure?   

White Privilege

          To break from the typical blog prompts for a trial period, I really wanted to explore the global racial hierarchy in this post.  We learned in our lecture that Whites, are the only race who have never suffered from systemic racism.  We also learned that Whites are the only race to ever reach globally.  That means, Whites can go to China, India, Mexico, or Tajikistan and still never face the racism that a foreigner would face within the United States.
          Thus, in this global racial hierarchy, whites are always on the top.  To fill in the rest of the pyramid, intersectionality must do its job.  That is to say, white women are below white men, because in a  patriarchal society, women are valued less than men.  Below these white women are men of color (black, tan, yellow, etc. basically any race other than white).  These men are lower on the pyramid than women because they are not white at all.  In fact, as we have learned in previous readings, blacks, jews, and other men of color are stigmatized as feminine in nature.  Even further below these men are in fact the women of color.  What really makes the pyramid trickier is the the people of our societies who are really "other" (i.e. black lesbians). 
           What does this pyramid do?  It makes it easier for white men and women to get jobs as opposed to blacks.  It provides whites with a "privileged position" (www.whiteprivilege.com/definition/) in our society above everyone else.  Our society is unfair, especially to those of African descent who are seeminingly always closest to the bottom of the pyramid.  I am white, and I realize that this is not right.  Society needs to wake up!

Theorizing Privilege

                Although prejudices are highly prevalent in our society, I honestly feel that I am in a better position than most when it comes to being judged.  I am a 5’4, Caucasian, blonde, college student from a middle class family.  Although, I may receive many blonde jokes insulting my intelligence, I always come back with the fact that I am a regular Deans List-er.  I am a bit short, but there are shorter, I am a bit too pale, but I am not colored.  I honestly do not feel justified to complain about much in my life because I know and am friends with much more oppressed peoples.  Our society holds some people more valuable than others and that is clear when certain institutions reinforce “otherness.”  For instance, JMU is a predominantly Caucasian, female university.  Although I do not feel that admissions have anything to do with these race and gender dynamics, I feel that the existing population of our school may make others less willing to attend for fear of “otherness.”

                I must say that although I am exempt from many of these feelings, I have experienced gender inequality due to my being a female.  Although no one person has blatantly stated that it was due to my gender, it is clear that when a man receives much better treatment/attention (for ex: Wal-Mart, Toyota) than I do, for no apparent reason…it has something to do with me being a female.  The primary reason for this tends to be men not taking me serious.  I pride myself on being independent and able-bodied but there are some things that men just do not believe I am capable of doing (i.e. changing a tire, lifting heavy things, changing the oil, etc.).  The consensus seems to be that women know nothing of cars, sports, electronics, etc.  Apparently they broke the mold when they made me because I bust all of those stereotypes.

Romance and Relationships

              I come from a middle class (+1), Caucasian (+1), suburban family (+1).  My married (+1) heterosexual (+1) parents, raised four children (+1), two boys, two girls, two of us blonde haired and blue eyed with fair skin, and two of us with brown hair and brown eyes with perfect skin.  We have two dogs, two cats, and we grew up in a gated subdivision, with a mini-van.  From anyone’s standards, it is easy to see that I am from a “normative U.S. family.”  Although my father never attended college (dock one point), he works as an engineer and insulates the missiles that we send off to war—needless to say he is the breadwinner (+1 for male breadwinner).  My mother on the other hand worked as a restaurant manager at the same place for 15 years until she was laid off (-1), only to regain another low-paying manager positing.  In regards to their pay, my mother makes much less than my father even lower than the present gender-pay gap of 20%.  All of her superiors are males, and they make much more money.  With my father making more money, he tends to have a bit more leverage in decisions; that is how society wants it to be.  Regardless of the pay differences, it is clear that my family is in the positive values…who’s to say that my father does not have his job just because he is white?  After all, the only black person that he works with is a janitor who frequently borrows money from everyone there.  What does this say about social constructs?  A lot!

                Our society controls dating and romance even more.  Think about the corporate holiday that Valentine’s Day has become.  On any given day, a dozen roses can go for $12-20.  On Valentine’s Day, they can range upwards of $50-100 or more!  The sick thing is…people buy them!  Commercials show women with happy faces receiving flowers and diamonds and men run out to buy them as if it is an original idea.  The fact is, there are expectations that must be met, in order for most relationships to persevere.  Vice-versa, women have to eat every chocolate out of the box, they have to give the man some cheesy card and teddy bear.  Gender norms build relationships.  Laner and Ventrone in their May 2000 article “Dating Scripts Revisited” state, “Dating etiquette is strongly gender stereotyped, showing the traditional dominant/subordinate relationship between the sexes” (490). 

                The sad truth is, gender norms are prevalent everywhere in our society; especially within our relationships and homes.  For instance, my dad washes the cars, cleans the gutter, cuts the grass, and my mom does the dishes, laundry, cleaning in general (well…sometimes).  My mother is notorious for flouting those traditions.  J  These chores are designated as either male/female activities.  The public and private spheres are still highly gendered…they have simply adopted the yard portion of the home as public now.  Similarly, if my mother is upset about something, she is much less likely to speak up about it than my father.  Superiority/Inferiority and aggressiveness/passiveness are ingrained within our daily lives.  To be quite honest, it is clear the toll that these characteristics play on their marriage.

Inscribing Gender on the Body

                In our society, beauty is everything.  Women and men are taught to think that thin, fit, healthy, is what makes someone a good person.  In viewing pictures of obese, or ugly people,  many people think “What a loser!”  This is how our society controls us.  The media (magazines, commercials, even some doctors)  tell us what to look like and if we do not abide by this, we are ostracized.  The Media Awareness Network’s article “Media and Girls” states, “Commercials aimed at kids spending 55 percent of their time showing boys building, fixing toys, or fighting.  They show girls, on the other hand, spending 77 percent of their time laughing, talking, or observing others” (www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/stereotyping/women_and _girls/).  Is it any wonder why so many young girls get in trouble for being too talkative in school?  Beauty norms tell females that they need to be attractive, thin, wear the nicest clothes, and in general appeal to men.  Transversely, these norms tell men that they need to be strong and assertive.  Regardless, both are expected to have a perfect tan (I am pushing albino status).

                I personally, have been affected by these beauty norms throughout my life.  As a child, I went to the doctor and he told me that I needed to start working out at 13 because I was 10 pounds over the average weight.  I bet doctors now are having heart attacks at the obesity in today’s children.  It feels horrible to be a young girl and learn that in the eyes of society, you are fat.  I look back at pictures of myself and I was so thin!  It disgusts me that the doctors would knowingly subject me to such self-esteem issues at such a young age, when I was in no danger of becoming obese.

                I must admit, I am not a thin girl now.  My sister (19) who is two years younger than men is 275 pounds, my mother is 220lbs.  While I am nowhere near this weight, in society’s standards, I am overweight.  I work out on a regular basis, and this summer I even began the Insanity workout…it is INSANE!  They were not joking when they said consult a physician.  Last week I worked out so hard that my chest cramped up, my ears started ringing, and I threw up.  I only started the workout because I wanted to lose a couple sizes in clothing and to become more “healthy.”  Honestly, I do not know why I am still doing the workout…possibly so that I never end up in the position of my sister and mother.  It is embarrassing to say that I am afraid to end up like my mom.  In our society, obesity simply is not acceptable.

                Honestly, I feel that the only way to resist these standards is to learn to accept people for what they are.  We need to change the message our media sends to young children.  Our society teaches us young that beauty=success.  Even men must conform to certain standards.  My boyfriend has stretch marks on his shoulders from lifting more than his body weight in a body building competition.  It is important to note that society judges us all, regardless of gender.    

Second Wave Feminsim

In our lecture this week, we were informed that consciousness raising is a form of structured discussion in which women connected their ideas to larger ideas of gender.  Before I learned this, I thought of consciousness raising as a bit extreme, but I honestly feel that it is a good idea to connect personal thoughts with “the big picture.”  It is easy to weaken one’s claim of rape, but when presenting the case that rape is highly prevalent within our society, it is much harder to ignore.

             I feel the same way about consciousness raising, as I do about the women who participated in the Seneca Falls convention; the more people you educate, the stronger your cause will be.  I feel that consciousness raising was and could be effective in our present situation with social inequality.  Not many people realize that women are underrepresented in the government.  There are a lot of things that fly under society’s radar (mainly due to the fact that a lot of people have forsaken the news—even the news is biased sometimes so we miss more.), and if people knew more about the issues, I feel they would try to make more of a difference.  For instance, Nancy Pelosi is the highest-ranking female politician in the history of the United States.  I am sad to say that I did not even know who she was until I saw her on the television.  If more people knew how much she has achieved, maybe other women would be motivated to aim for such greatness.

            If I were to write a manifesto, I think it would probably have to do with the gender wage gap.  Ever since I came across this issue in my Sociology class, I have been reading about the many different industries in which women are oppressed.  It is a fact that if a man takes a job in a stereotypical “woman’s position” or care work, such as an elementary school teacher, school nurse, etc., he is paid more money than his female counterparts, he receives more raises, and he is often promoted to the highest position within that field in record time (i.e. Principal).  My point is, that if women take a “masculine” job, they are paid less.  Similarly, if they work where society deems as an appropriate “feminine” job, they are still paid less.  The women of our society are stuck in a Catch-22.

            In the case of the radical Second Wavers, I feel that they lost their momentum because they did not focus enough on intersectionality.  Not all women in the 50’s were heterosexual, Caucasian, middle-class homemakers.  Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique makes many great points, but she neglects to highlight the suffering of the working class, or African-American women.  People just did not write much about women of color, alternate sexualities, or lower-class women; when they did, there was no way they could fully grasp the position of the women they were writing about, unless they belonged to one of those minorities.       

                

First Wave Feminism

            During the First Wave of Feminism, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott, called the first woman’s rights convention in Seneca Falls, NY.  The approach that these women followed to achieve equality, which truly stands out to me, is the notion that they travelled for 40 years after this convention as a method of consciousness raising.  They lectured to men and women about the facts, and over the course of their travels gained many supporters, and provoked many other conventions on the subject of women’s rights.  I feel that this method would be successful in any time period, especially for feminist activists present in today’s society.

             We live in a society of mass media, and widespread technology where it is easy to let others know what you think.  Although I feel that our predecessor’s method would be slightly modified in some ways to reach more people, I feel that their basic goal to spread their ideas on woman’s rights was very effective.  I would be willing to bet, that if I started a facebook group with a feminist agenda, and scheduled a meeting for everyone to come together, it would be highly effective.  Our society’s ways of communicating have changed (not necessarily for the best) and we can reach people from all areas of the world with a click of a button.  Although our society has changed and we have many new obstacles, there is no way to diminish their commitment to the cause of woman’s rights.

            I acknowledge the fact that racism and classism are still issues that divide feminists today, but I also believe that issues of sexuality, politics, etc., divide them further.  Until our society has grown past the remnant “otherness” that our history has impressed upon peoples of color, gender outlaws (coined by Kate Bornstein a prominent gender theorist, to describe bi-, gay, lesbian, trans-, etc.), or people of lower economic status, these issues will remain prevalent.

            Although I am saddened by the way suffragists handled the issue of Black suffrage, I can somewhat understand where they were coming from.  Angela Davis, in her article “Racism in the Woman Suffrage Movement” states,  “She [Elizabeth Cady Stanton] was determined, it seems, to prevent further progress for Black people—for “Sambo” no less—if it meant that white women might not enjoy the immediate benefits of that progress” (71).  As we learned from our lectures, not all black men felt the same way that Frederick Douglass did about women’s suffrage; some felt the idea ridiculous.  When seeing both sides of the coin, it is easy to understand why Stanton and other women would not want even MORE men denying them suffrage.  I feel that Blacks and women should not have resulted to insults and pettiness.  They were fighting for the same thing and they should have remained together in their process of gaining suffrage; it may have gone a bit faster.

            The greatest characteristics of First Wave Feminists were determination and their ability to remain outspoken in all areas of society, regardless of persecution.  These characteristics are much less common in our contemporary society because many young people feel that equality is present.  I personally know many people that feel politics do not apply to them, or that other people will do it for them.  These beliefs are both false; our state governs everyone even if it is not visible, and our representatives do not always fight for what we want.  I hate to say it, but I feel that a lot of our generation does not care because we have not suffered like the First Wavers.  It is like the old saying, “You don’t realize how good you have it, until it is gone.”          

Theorizing Public Policy: Why Does it Matter for Women?

                Within this Women’s Studies course, we have learned to define “the state” as “an abstract concept that refers to all forms of social organization representing official power in society: the government, law and social policy, the courts and the criminal justice system, the military, and the police.”  With this definition in mind, imagine the huge roles that these areas of our society, play within our lives on a daily basis.  Does “the state” maintain social inequality?  I firmly believe that it does.  In viewing the amount of women present in these sectors of society, it is obvious that men hold much more power due to their overwhelming representation within the government, justice system, etc.  As I stated previously in my “What is Women’s Studies” blog post, the United States is ranked 69^th in the world for women’s representation in government.  Until more women gain more positions of higher power, inequality will continue to reign in our society. 

            Another way that our society maintains society is through the military structure.  Men are placed on the front lines to die for their country, while women are placed far from harm’s way—in most cases.  This shows two things, either that society views women as incapable of doing the same job that their male counterparts do in battle, or conversely, that society holds more worth in women’s lives and their reproductive abilities.  Whatever the reason may be, they both provoke inequalities in society.

            I have never experienced discrimination by the state, but I know women who have.  I have spoken to police officers (family, friends, and random acquaintances) who have blatantly told me that they are MUCH more likely, and willing, to pull over a female than a male.  This is because, in their experience women talk on the phone, text, and in general are more distracted than men while driving (Not supported by any statistics, just word of mouth from them).  I found this offensive because I am a good driver; I pay attention 110% of the time, and I try to never answer my phone.  This just shows how stereotypes can even penetrate our law enforcement.

            Although I see great inequality within our current society, I believe that it is possible to achieve full equality within our present system of democracy.  I feel that in order to do this, more people must be educated on the programs that the women already present in power positions participate in, or in general, be educated on what is going on in our society as a whole (sadly, much of my generation lacks this).  I feel that more women need to gain the confidence to run for higher offices.  It is illegal for our society to discriminate against gender, color, sexuality, in considering someone for a job.  I feel that voting/politics should be the same way.  I think full equality will be achieved; hopefully, it doesn’t take 70+ years like the right for suffrage.    

Feminist Theory

            Until reading Bunch’s “Not By Degrees: Feminist Theory and Education,” I was very much unaware of the multitude of differences present among feminists.  Although I recognized many different beliefs present within feminism, I was under the impression that feminism was somewhat of an umbrella term.  The many different beliefs represented by Marxist, multicultural, liberal, socialist, and radical feminists are, in my opinion, equally persuasive.  Although I find faults, or exaggerations, within these vast arrays of beliefs, I also feel that they all make truly valid points. 

            Multicultural feminists believe that women of color face oppression unique to their race.  I find this highly viable; it is especially visible within the ethnic female Bildungsroman such as Toni Morrison’s Sula and Sandra Cisneros’s The House on Mango Street. Within these books, the protagonists—young women of color, face issues such as racism, poverty, abuse which prove to be obvious products of their position as outsiders due to their race.  Liberal feminists believe that women’s oppression is rooted in their exclusion from education, and therefore various options in life are closed to them.  This is evident in the fact that women writers are largely absent in literature, for the better part of our history.  The remaining feminists (Marxist, socialist, and radical) are all arguing about similar issues: Patriarchy, capitalism, and classism.  It is my opinion that all of these factors are tightly knit; they can be seen in all societies.

            In viewing these diverse types of feminism, it is clear to see that stereotypes of feminists are wrong.  Feminists are seemingly one of the most diverse peoples within our society.  By classifying these feminists within these concrete categories, it emphasizes their differences both in beliefs and in aims for achieving equality.  Men’s and women’s research styles are completely different in form.  According to Sandra Harding, historically men have asked “only those questions about nature and social life which (white, Western, bourgeois) men want answered” (6).  Women are different in that they ask questions that can benefit women.  Harding states, “The goal of [women’s] inquiry is to provide for women explanations of social phenomena that they want and need, rather than providing for welfare departments, manufacturers, advertisers, psychiatrists, the medical establishment, or the judicial system answers to questions that they have” (8).  In other words, women’s research was meant to benefit women, men’s research was meant to benefit men.  I do not believe that there is such a thing as a feminist method; women have participated in the same set of gathering information/data, but females are attentive to different information than males.  Harding states, “While studying women is not new, studying them from the perspective of their own experiences so that women can understand themselves and the world can claim virtually no history at all” (8).  Women take different approaches in studying the same subject; consequently, they yield very different information.          

What is a Woman? (Theorizing Gender)

         
            First, let me begin with a disclaimer.  Ever since I was a young child, my parents have taught me to accept hetero-, homo-, and trans- people, as well as all people of different race, class, or ethnicity than my own.  When I was five, I learned that my uncle was a transvestite (drag queen) and there was no consideration in my mind that he was weird, or even different from normal people.  Honestly, I thought he was the coolest person in the world because he would dress my sister and I up in his wigs and make-up.  I also grew up very much involved in the lives of a lesbian aunt and her partner.  My mother and father are very loving people and in combination with their support for my queer family members, and their constant struggle to weed out racist comments from within our extended family (my mother has a black godson), I can honestly say that I am accepting of all peoples.  With this said, I have a very liberal sense of what being a woman entails.

            The World Health Organization states that “‘Male’ and ‘female’ are sex categories, while ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ are gender categories.”  I agree that a male is a person whose sex chromosomes are composed of X and Y (XY), conversely a female is a person whose sex chromosomes are composed of two X’s (XX).  I also agree that masculinity and femininity are gender categories.  In the story of Baby X, it is clear that researchers are combating gender socialization—a process in which our culture teaches us how to be boy or girl, according to patriarchal norms, consequently creating ideals of masculinity and femininity.  The parents of the story have a manual that states, “Never make Baby X feel embarrassed or ashamed about what it wants to play with.  And if X gets dirty climbing rocks, never say ‘Nice little Xes don’t get dirty climbing rocks’ [Stereotype of females].  Likewise, it said: ‘If X falls down and cries, never say, ‘Brave little Xes don’t cry.’”  This story shows that if society cannot label the baby with an extra X or Y, it disables society’s power of imposing these gender categories.  Society therefore, cannot craft males into strong, handsome, aggressive creatures, transversely, society has no role in the molding of females into beautiful, intelligent, passive creatures (aka patriarchal norms).  The story of Baby X represents this scenario and shows a result of intertwined and complementary aspects of masculinity and femininity within the child. 
  
            My definition of men and women, although typically synonymous with male and female, is quite different.  I feel that a woman is any person whom mentally identifies themselves as a woman, or in other words, a person who feels like a woman.  Therefore, my definition allows transgendered peoples whom are born men but identify with women, to be women.  I would also consider my uncle the drag queen, to be a woman and a man (like mushroom coral with can switch back and forth).  When he is not dressed up, he is a gay man.  When he is in full drag, he sees himself as a beautiful woman; he feels like a beautiful woman.  By ‘doing gender,’ and dressing/acting as a stereotypical female, my uncle becomes a woman.  At the end of the night, he returns to ‘doing gender’ in a homosexual male style.  I truly believe this to be possible, regardless of what society deems correct, appropriate, etc.  Who cares?  Let people be who they want to be!                   

What is Women's Studies?

          First, let me begin by stating that I am a feminist.  Although I do not actively fight for women's rights, I define feminism as a belief in the equality between men and women, with no limitations on race and class.  In this sense, I am a total feminist.  However, with that said, I do not fit any of the negative stereotypes that society imposes upon feminists.  I am not a man-hater, I am not a lesbian, I do not want to overpower men; I want equality.  I want to be able to have the chance to do anything I set my mind to, regardless if society deems me physically able to do so.
          In the last two years, I had an ex-boyfriend who worked in the local Sysco Distribution Center and they paid great money so I wanted to apply.  He said, "There is no way they would hire you.  You can't do the job!"  Of course, he was referring to my being a woman, which in his terms is synonymous with weakness.  (Needless to say, the relationship ended shortly after.)  I approached the situation logically, and I said that they could not discriminate against me because of my sex.  He replied rather proudly, "They won't say it is because you are a woman.  They will make something up.  They know how to get around stuff like that in court."  Obviously, they did seeing as how there were only two women working there and they worked in the office; both of them became the basis of the men’s objectification and flirtation "because they are the only women there to look at."  This is just disgusting to me.  In a way, this experience contributed to my being a feminist.  I was so offended by everything my boyfriend and his work friends said and did; I wanted to know how to change this.
          Throughout my Women's Studies courses, I hope to gain a new outlook on why situations like this are possible.  In my opinion, Sysco is a prime example of a male-dominated patriarchal society, in which women are controlled and kept passive.  I hope to learn ways of coping with attitudes like the Sysco men and figure out how to battle inequality in my own milieu.  I am not one of the women in our society that think we have achieved full equality.  Equality by definition means equal quantities on each side involved.  This is not present within our society.  The United States ranks #69 of the world’s countries who have women present in government (http://www.southernct.edu/womenscenter/topics/womenandgovernment/).  It is hard to believe that countries like Afghanistan and Rwanda—countries that many Americans see as oppressive towards women, rank much higher that The United States.  Until people stop laughing when they hear notions of a woman president, and begin placing validity in such an aspiration, our society will be unable to hold males and females as equal.