Untitled

All three of the articles "Language and Silence: Making Systems of Privilege Visable" by Wildman and Davis, "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" by McIntosh and "The male Privilege Checklist" by Deutsch discuss privilege and what it is. There are many different types of privilege that exist within our society. The problem with privilege is that the people who are privileged tend to never know or acknowledge that they are privileged. And even if they do they wont bring it to light because they reap the benefits of that privilege. In our society whites have privileges that other minorities don't but being a male also has its privileges that women do not get. and then on top of it to be a white male you have the highest privilege of all.

In Feinberg's article "Transgender Liberation" is a pamphlet about Transgender and how it has become and how it has evolved historically particularly through European History. One of the things she mentions that many people know about is Joan of Arc who used to dress up as a man and refused to dress and act like a woman. Ultimately she was killed because of it. I enjoyed Feinberg's pamphlet because it complied the history of transgenderism together which is rarely ever spoke about let alone documented in history. 

The reason that Beauvoir gives makes so much sense to me. What she says is that women have no history or lineage or a time in which they remember being equal to men. Women being "othered" has just always been there. So how does a person change something that seems to be so absolute? It is only now that things have began to change but even still equality is still very far off.

Although this may seem like its not too big of a deal it actually is. We as a society are becoming more and more aware of gender stereotyping and inequality yet on almost every single sitcom the issues are hidden right in plain sight and everyone laughs like it’s no big deal. It really is important to realize that this is going on and to recognize it now before it ends up influencing the audience watching it in a negative way. Another reading that this article can compare to is Richardson's article "Gender Stereotyping in the English Language". This is because like language, T.V. is a very strong influential part in our society whether we like it or not. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyjnS1cuA90 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZhPcNzzrMA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPKMn28gvxw

In Levy's article "Female Chauvinistic Pigs" it is explained how women can step out of being inferior to men and start to think like a man in order to fit in and break the glass ceiling. A female Chauvinistic pig is not a girly-girl, but rather act like one of the guys and are not stuck in the past. They are able to accept that there are women who make it to the top by any means necessary including using their body if they have it. One of the things that I found to be very interesting is how Levy explains that its no longer acceptable to think that being a certain race makes you a certain way, yet so many people are still quick to accept that men and women are one way or another. What I also found interesting is when Levy was speaking about the three girls in New York and how one of them never hung out with girls a lot until she finally met the other two who share her common thinking, I can relate to this girl because I could never really find too many girls that I got along with. Lambert's article very closely relates to Levy's because it is basically giving the set of rules that a woman would follow if they were to be a "Female Chauvinistic Pig". It informs women how to be accepted into the boys club. To become not necessarily a guy but to be accepted as an equal to them and be able to hang and relate. Besides rules, Lambert also gives insight and advice to people wondering these questions such as " what if I love being the only girl in the boys club?". Within the article, my favorite rule was "What if she actually sucks?". Like in Levy's article I can relate to it because I rarely hung out with girls but was always the one girl in a group of guys. No matter what I tried to do I always ended up having issues with other girls because they constantly made very thing a competition. Which is actually breaking one of the rules on Lambert's list.

In Bechdel's novel Fun Home many themes such as gender identity, death, and sexual orientation are touched upon. Bechdel tells the story abut her family mostly focusing on the relationship she had with her father. It is not positive if her father is gay or bisexual but we learn that her father Bruce had many affairs with men throughout his life even though he was married with children. Bechdel also walks us through her childhood and teenage years and her discovery that she is actually a lesbian. Unlike her father though, Bechdel comes out to her parents and is openly gay after figuring it out at age nineteen. I found the novel to be very interesting especially the comparison of her and her father and how they are opposites from each other yet both have homosexual tendencies. Also about how their gender identities were switched because Bechdel mentions her father always tried to make her more feminine while she saw her father as a " big sissy". What must have been really hard to cope with for Bechdel is her father dying. It was never actually proven but Bechdel believes her father committed suicide when he was hit by a truck. Throughout the novel she suggests that she feels her being openly lesbian might have added to her father killing himself.

In this article Chauncey described The Bowery in Manhattan during the turn of the century and its connections to the homosexual community and men at the time. Many different things went on in the Bowery during the time such as the Bowery being a red light district. It also consisted of "degenerate resorts" where people of higher class would come "slumming" to watch shows consisting of basically cross dressing males, gays, prostitutes etc. Chauncey also mentions "fairy back room saloons" where both gay and straight men of different social classes would socialize with one another. Chauncey was able to paint a picture of what the old Bowery used to look like and how men of all social statuses and sexual preferences could gather without being judged. Everyone and everything in and around the Bowery were so accustomed to that way of life that people could go and be themselves and not worry about being judged.

In the article by Han "They Don't Want to Cruise Your Type: Gay Men of Color and the Racial Politics of Exclusion" whiteness and gay men are discussed. Han explains that over time the image of gay males in America have formed to be white middle to upper class men. Men of color are not thought to be gay. They are not the image of a gay man. For instance, Han points out that black males re seen as just a penis for white males to be dominated by and Asian males are to be dominated by the white male. Han explains that it is not about being gay or being of color but together they create an entire different experience. This reminded me a lot of intersectionality because it combines being more than one minority. Han makes it clear that racism is very prevailent within the gay community. One of the things that I found interesting from reading was the part when Han speaks about the Village People. It never occurred to me until Han pointed it out that the Indian is the only one in the group that is an identity and not a profession or job. In Katz article "Homosexual and Heterosexual: Questioning the Terms " is talking about the definitions of homosexual and heterosexual and how they came about. Katz points out that these words are actually social constructions and based off of the way we understand them, we draw conclusions about human behaviors and what we should do.

I completely get where Hooks makes her main arguments but I can’t help but being torn because personally I really enjoyed the movie. Hooks had said that when she watched the movie that the white audience were laughing at parts that she found sad and demeaning and that the laughing was not innocent. It made me begin to wonder what these parts were too because I do remember laughing during the movie but I’m not positive at what or during what scene. This then became an issue in my mind because I am a white female and I definitely don’t consider myself racist and I would definitely say that my laughing during the movie was innocent and not demeaning. I did find many of the stories that were told in the movie sad but as an overall feeling the movie was insightful and I found myself smiling a lot. I’m not sure if that makes me a certain type of way but overall I don’t think Livingston created the movie to do all the things that Hooks pointed out to be a negative connotation.

Within Wilkins article the idea of abstinence is examined based off of the University Unity's use and application of it. In the article Wilkins explains that abstinence can be tied to multiple things that we have previously discussed such as masculinity, gender roles, feminism, and race. For example, by participating in abstinence college students are further enforcing gender roles such as the importance of family for women and how women should be considered "pure". One of the things I found really interesting in the article was the explanation about temptation and masculinity. Since males practicing abstinence are not practicing basic male masculinity I.e. sex they assert their masculinity in other ways. This other way is discussing temptation and the exact thing they shouldn't be doing. By making it known that not having sex with a girl is a constant struggle it then asserts their masculinity. Another thing that Wilkins points out is that although both men and women participate in abstinence the definition for what it means to them is different due to gender when it comes to the students in the University Unity.

In the article Gavanas discusses the FRM which stands for the father responsibility movement which came up in the U.S in the 1990's. Gavanas argued that although the FRM wanted to address issues about fathers being criticized and what their role should be in parenting, what they actually did was reaffirm the gender stereotypes and beliefs that are prevalent when thinking about men and women's role in parenting. The main issue that Gavanas came across was how can you domesticate masculinity and yet make domesticity masculine at the same time? It seems to be a complete contradiction. The three parts that Gavanas focused on regarding the FRM was heterosexuality, sports and religion. What I found very interesting in the article was the quotes from the representatives of the FRM. It seemed that everything they were saying were contradictions to what they stood for. In the section of heterosexuality it was basically stated that men needed to keep their pants on and not become feminine by doing the same thing mothers do but rather do things that are manly. I personally feel like why does one sex have to do one job while the other sex has to do another job regarding parenting. Why can't both genders share the same responsibilities without being too feminine or too masculine? We obviously see it can work as shown in Coltrane's study from last class reading.

One of the things that I found most interesting in the study was how some of the mothers believed that women are born having what I would call the mother gene. That women nurture the babies because they are women but the fathers have to learn how to nurture children; it is not innate within them. Yet on the other hand women who had almost complete equality with the shared work of taking care of the children felt the complete opposite and thought that men could nurture their children just as well as they could. Another thing I found interesting within the study that Coltrane mentioned was when one of the mother’s in laws could accept that her husband was more of an active father rather than accepting that their daughter in law was the breadwinner in the family because she made more money than her spouse. The in-laws didn’t want to accept that their son was not making the most money so they twisted the situation to make it look more advantageous for their son and I would say their egos too.

Within Bird’s article ” Welcome to the Men’s Club…” the idea of hegemonic masculinity was once again explored. Bird explained how throughout life men are taught and shown how to be real men and how they should act. That this idea of hegemonic masculinity is known across the board for all men and that it has become the norm for men to act this way. Hegemonic masculinity, like the patriarchal system, is hard to get away from because it is so entwined in our society. In Pascoe's article "Dude You're a Fag" it is shown how the word "fag" is not homophobic by itself but is actually gendered homophobia because it only pertains to men. The word "gay" can be used to not only describe men acting feminine but it can also be used on inanimate objects and is basically used as slang. This is not the case for the word "fag" which Pascoe shows to be used to describe a guy acting feminine and girly rather than man-like or how a man should act. It wasn't necessarily telling a guy that he was gay and liked men just acting out of the social norms and therefore had to be corrected by being called "fag".

In Espiritu’s article “All Men are Not Created Equal: Asian Men in U.S. History” it is illustrated that our patriarchy system does not apply to all men across the board equally. According to Espiritu, Asian men in fact were considered a lower race than white men and instead of having jobs that were considered masculine and that would enforce the patriarchy system they in fact had jobs that were feminine. It was explained that most Asian men lost control of their family and wives therefore losing their sense of masculinity and Asian women had better job opportunities than men. Although now America has a stereotype that all Asian men are college educated with really great white collar jobs, that is not always the case. Espiritu points out that there is a large percentage that hardly make any money at all because they do not have an education and have a language barrier. Espiritu wanted to show that just because a patriarchal system in place doesn’t mean that all men benefit from it or are on top but it actually depends on a man's race and class and not just gender in order to to be on top.

In Moraga and Anzaldua’s preface and introduction from their anthology, it is explained why they are writing their book. It is about feminism from a “Third World” woman’s perspective. In the preface Moraga is writing about her experiences of dealing with being a feminist and a lesbian in a world where it is a struggle to be both. She points out that feminism for white women and feminism for women of color are two different things and by writing this book she and Anzaldua can help bring the perspective to life to help others understand what they face as women of color everyday. That its not only being a woman but race and class also tie into feminism for women of color. This is known as intersectionality because these women face more than one type of discrimination at one time. Since more than one type of discrimination effects them their experience is unique to any other person that is effected by only one.

In Martin's article "The Egg and the Sperm" another view about how our scientific knowledge is influenced by cultural beliefs is represented. In the particular article we see that fertilization of eggs is taken over by males, just like almost every other aspect of our society. Even men's sperm is viewed as autonomous when a woman's egg lies in wait for fertilization. Martin points out that over the years more studies ave been conducted which prove that egg ands perm both work together in fertilization but even after proof, the explanation of how it occurs still lacks in giving the eggs credit for more than just accepting the sperm. Then on the off chance that the egg is described as having a major role in fertilization it is represented as being "too aggressive". It seems women and her eggs can never win. One of the things that I found very interesting in the article was when Martin explained how women are seen as wasteful because they are born with so many eggs and the eggs die so quickly yet men, who constantly reproduce millions of sperm a day, are still seen as productive even though billions of their sperm are wasted Ina lifetime.