Related to Our Hijab Conversation

Just read about this and it made me think of our conversation earlier in the year.  Additionally, there's some fun gender stuff here. :)

Hope finals are going well for everyone!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/us/hamtramck-high-holds-all-girl-prom.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

In Response to "A New Perspective"

So instead of making this just a comment to Sarah's post about having a new perspective...I thought I'd do a final big post. Taking this class has definitely raised my awareness about the various messages I receive from all of the existing media outlets we have now. Of course there are the things that are obvious, (sex, drugs, sex, powerful men, sex, the woman who is the sex kitten, and even more sex) but it goes a long way to really pay attention to the subliminal messages we are bombarded with daily. I must say that one of my favorite of the short films was the one Michael and Emily did, and it's because they did what has become one of my new favorites hobbies - analyzing TV. The fact that we got to do an entire analysis of something so mundane as movie trailers was definitely enjoyable. All the things that we found or that were pointed out weren't necessarily surprising but it just goes show how much is really hidden in things so commonplace and of low importance.

So the entire point of this post is to express my satisfaction with our semester in Feminist Philosophy. I have found a new appreciation for feminist and sex/gender issues, and feel more equipped to deal with them. I now have the experience and the terminology to articulate my feelings about these issues and those that are related. Walking into class the first day, I knew that I was going to dread every bit of this semester, but I have to admit that I have been pleasantly surprised. Who knew that out of all of this would emerge "Omolola, the Feminist"?!?!?! While I don't agree with certain issues or have a definite opinion on others, I would consider myself very much so under the broader feminist umbrella and fighting for some aspect of the feminist cause...believe me it's an interesting and eventful place to be. A big shout out to all of my fellow peers in this journey! It's been great!

Stereotypes and art

I wanted to put up one last blog post, before the end of the year, seeing as how my participation hasn't been what it could have.



Maybe some of you have seen this already: the racist cake cut by the Swedish culture minister at the opening of an event for the Swedish Artists Federation. The cake was designed by artist Makode Aj Linde, who uses images of blackface in his work (as he says) to criticize ideas of black identity. The cake, made into the stereotypical, "blackface" image of an African woman, was supposed to be a commentary on gender mutilation in Africa. As the guests (including the culture minister) cut into the cake, Makode, who built himself into the piece as the African woman's "head," would scream.

From the video, it seems obvious that the attempt at commentary, or criticism, failed entirely. One can see the party's attendants in the video, smiling and laughing as the cake is cut. For them, it seems that the event is a riotous good time, and the cake, in the degrading image of the stereotyped African, was a jolly good joke. If this was the purpose of Makode's art, to reveal the complacency and racist attitudes of wealthy Westerners, then he was successful. But inasmuch as the artwork was intended to rise awareness of genital mutilation in Africa, to raise consciousness of its horrors and the suffering caused by the practice, it would seem that the work resoundingly failed.

The work brings up a number of questions pertinent to our course. One such question is who has the right to speak for those who suffer injustice. In the same vein: how can a man claim to speak on behalf of women?  How can a comfortable Westerner claim to speak for those growing up and living in Africa?

"Got Privilege?"

So here's the film that Emma and myself did. The link here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sQuYrHyI0H8 Below are the two videos of spoken word that we borrowed from. Enjoy!!

Ryan Cassatta "Privilege"
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p17GV5P3u2Q

Sonya Renee "What Women Deserve"
        www.youtube.com/watch?v=p17GV5P3u2Q

Horror Films and Sexualized Violence

Here's the video that Emily and I put together!

Queer At Rhodes

Before one arrived on the scene

By Ariel Claborn:

Women and Sports Video

Liz and Matt's video! Hopefully it is fully uploaded!!

Profiling at Rhodes College

Here is Keyana and I's video link!

Justice for Trayvon?

http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2012/apr/23/50/man-beaten-mob-critical-condition-ar-3659891/ just an interesting read given the whole trayvon situation. im surprised this isn't getting as much attention as some other things

Altering Ourselves

http://vimeo.com/37716468

Last Thursday we discussed the idea of altering one's body and if all forms of body alteration were the same. Beauty contests have paradigms for what sort of alteration is acceptable: makeup (in a particular way), hair alteration, particular outfits, diets, cosmetic surgery, etc. Dr. J brought up the idea of bodybuilding and working out and whether these are exponentially different from the alterations of beauty queens. The gut reaction seemed to be that no, working out was different than cosmetic surgery. But when looking at it for what it does simply in that people's bodies change, how different is it?

This video clip demonstrates how two artists have used their bodies as a material to sculpt and manipulate. They are not only trying to highlight the normative views of gender, but also just showing the capabilities of our bodies. This is a very interesting look at typical views of what men and women are. After watching today's video (with the typical answer being 'well... women have a vagina and men have a penis'), we can see in this video the different ideals held in society.

So, are all body alterations really just the same?

No Exit

What's The Difference?

Here is the link to my and Michelle's video.

A New Perspective

So we had a conversation last class and the class before about the way that feminism and discussion of gender and sexuality can change our perspectives on everything from Disney movies to privilege.

I recently saw Cabin in the Woods, which I thought was excellent and highly recommend. It's billed as horror but is really funny as often as it is scary. It is super self-aware; it does a lot to make fun of itself and the horror genre in general. Part of that is looking at sexuality, horror, and the male gaze. There are parts of the movie that play with the audience's expectations about sex and violence. I found myself looking at the ways in which women in the movie interacted with each other, with men, and how they were shown to the audience. It was a really fun movie.

It's also written by Joss Whedon (Buffy, Toy Story, Firefly), who has spoken at length about his views on feminism. While there is debate about whether or not his female protagonists actually advance feminist goals, there is no doubt that he writes strong female leads. Buffy is my favorite show ever. Aaaaanyway, the point here is mostly that I can't even enjoy Buffy without being critical anymore.

But what do I do about the things that I see? We also discussed how annoyed people get with our feminist interventions. Calm down, we're at dinner. God made men and women to be a certain way together, why question that? That's just not true; biology makes us different. So, now that our perspective has been altered, what do we do with it? Are y'all having the same struggles?

How has your perspective changed? What, if anything, do you plan to do with what you've learned in this class? How can we carry it into the Rhodes community, home, or into our jobs?

Baby Fever

As a stress reliever I've been watching a lot of that 70s show recently! 20 minutes long and kinda funny is way better than other shows that are on now. Anyway, I've noticed a lot of sexist dialogue that they use. Of course that's only because they are portraying society's thoughts and cognition at that time. Its crazy to think that only 30-40 years ago the norm was for women to be expected to stay at home and take care of babies. One clip that really struck me was the one in the link listed bellow. The episode is called 'Baby fever' and you can watch from the beginning of the video until minute 3:50 (it's only a few minutes long).

The clip shows the perspective of both teenagers for the future they think they will have together. The male in the clip (Eric) shows the typical views of a woman staying home and taking care of the babies because it's her 'job' to do that, then the feminist female (Donna) has the opposite idea where she wants to be the one working and coming back to a loving husband that takes care of the babies at home. There is also some objectification element in the clip as well.

I kind of squirmed when I saw the conversation because it exemplified all the social beliefs that we are trying to alter, but how do you feel about the clip? I felt like I needed to share the clip because we have been working on analyzing certain sexist language and this was one of the most blunt sexist language I've heard in a long time.

http://www.buzly.com/video/S3_Ep07_-_Baby_Fever_-_Part_2/485345/

Marriage and Social Status

While I was doing research for another class, I stumbled upon this article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9193834/Women-are-looking-for-sex-not-status.html The title intrigued me and I decided to read it. I think it’s a very interesting piece of writing because a woman trying to marry into a higher class reaffirms the message that a woman needs a man to elevate her place in society. The two examples the author offers show the traditional way (Kate Middleton marrying into the ranks that Prince William occupies) and the unexpected marriage (a Princess’s daughter marrying a middle-class athlete). What does this shift say about present day circumstances? How do they play into the feminist movement? Although one could argue that the Zara Phillips (the Princess’s daughter) doesn’t need anyone to help her climb the social ranks, it is still interesting because many people maintain the idea that a woman should not marry beneath her. However, it is perfectly normal for a man to marry someone from a social class lower then his own.

"Mulan" and "She's The Man"

The Benefits of Marriage

Tax Benefits

• Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
• Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits

• Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
• Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
• Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
• Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

Government Benefits

• Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
• Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
• Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits

• Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
• Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
• Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
• Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits

• Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
• Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits

• Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
• Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits

• Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
• Applying for joint foster care rights.
• Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
• Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits

• Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
• Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits

• Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
• Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
• Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections

• Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
• Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
• Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
• Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
• Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
• Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

(Source: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html)

We discussed yesterday whether marriage was a just institution. The big question seems to be not whether marriage as an institution is just, but rather if it is implemented justly. With all of these benefits available to people who choose to be recognized as a married couple, those who are not allowed to marry are treated unfairly. As Sarah said in class, there needs to be a radical look into why we allow the people we allow to marry. The institution seems to perpetuate very traditional views of marriage and relationships and if the essays we read had viable data they create asymmetric relationships.

I think the ability to marry in itself is not unjust: we need ways to regulate the legal and economic rights listed above. However, the expectations attached to marriage (women growing up, in the marriage itself) do harm people. What do you think a solution for these sorts of problems are?

Artist as Indivdiual

I hate to keep making posts about art, but it's simply what I am currently absorbed in.  At this point I am very frustrated with the art world for many reasons.  A list of my complaints does not seem necessary, but I will recount a discussion that I had with my painting professor to point out some of the larger problems.
Each week we are required to bring in an artist to discuss with the class.  A lot of my work has been centered around the issues of race and gender and attempting to present them in a way that gives them agency.  Therefore, a lot of the artists I have been looking at deal with similar issues.  A couple of weeks ago I came across an artist that at a quick glance I thought possibly he was working with similar themes.  His name is Cleon Peterson and his work is all very graphic.
The figures are simplified to black and white, sometimes red.  http://cleonpeterson.com/work.html
I could tell right away that the images were violent, yet I did not immediately dismiss them because of this.  Upon closer examination, I realized that the images depicted broad chaotic environments, covered in bodies enacting violence on each other.  I then realized, that at least in his current work, the main perpetrators were black figures and the victims were white figures.  There is actually even one image where black figures are forcing white female figures into sexual acts.  As I continued looking at the images, I concluded that any attempts to be critical had fallen apart.  These images are racist and sexist.  I looked up statements from the artist to find out if he was attempting to deconstruct notions of sex and race in terms of acts of violence.  Every quote I found from the artist said nothing about the racial and sexual issues that were glaringly present in these images.  The artist stated that he was attempting to simplify binaries of good and evil to portray the violent and chaotic state of our society.  He gave anecdotal references to time spent in New York as a drug addict to support the hectic temperament of many of our modern societies that he was trying to depict, but never once acknowledged the sexual and racial indications of the work.  He did not talk about the problems that come along with simplifying binary codes of good and evil to black and white.  An entire history of black and white in image making was completely ignored.  As a socially conscious artist, these are the histories that I strive to deconstruct in my own art and I am very taken aback when other seemingly well respected artists simply ignore it.  These are all points that were brought up to my painting my professor.  For the most part he agreed with me, yet ended the discussion saying that ultimately it was not the artist's responsibility to address issues of race if he did not want to.  This comment was very frustrating to me, and made me realize where a lot of my frustration with the art world comes with.  Artists seem to believe they play no part in the social situations that surround them.  So many are all plagued with notions of self expression and the artist as genius to really respond, deconstruct and better their own environments.  To me, my professor telling me that it is not his responsibility to address the racial issues in his work is like him saying he does not have to take responsibility for anything he does.  These are the sentiments running rampant through the art world that I feel I have to fight against.  I don't think this is particular to artists, but I do believe that the mainstream art world allows if not encourages it.  It seems that historical notions of the artist encompass and reify ideas of the individual, and these individuals are not taught to care for others when making their own art. What do you all think about artists not feeling like they are responsible for their own social environments?

Role models, dependents and motherhood

Since we spent a whole week on Beyonce, when I saw that Beyonce has very recently wrote an open letter to Michelle Obama on feministing, I decided to make a post out of it.

http://feministing.com/2012/04/12/beyonce-writes-open-letter-to-michelle-obama/

In the handwritten letter Beyonce talks about how Michelle is a good role model for young black women, and how Beyonce feels proud that her daughter will grow up in a world where she has Michelle as a role model.  This sparked alot of things for me.  Even though I'm not a fan of Beyonce, I definetly agree that Michelle is one of few role models for young black women that are visible in popular culture.  In pop American culture, we rarely see successful people of color, and often the most black women are relegated to black sit-coms (which are are comedies and have historically always been comedies), black hair commercials, hip-hop videos, and black cinema.  This isn't to say all of these roles are bad, there are plenty of transgressive and transformative black female figures in the media, but to me, they have always been overshadowed by the negative ones which appear to be more popular and more plentiful.

The conversation about role models got me to thinking about our recent discussions about dependency, and about how women are often in charge of taking care of the children.  (Beyonce also calls Michelle a role model for being a good mother).  But in the readings we read for this week, women are either dependent on men, or burdened by dependents (children).  In case I missed it, the readings didn't touch on what it's like for young women who are dependents.  I think what was missing from the anaylses were the unique dynamics of mother-daughter relationships.  How is it that daughters learn what it is to be a mother, what it is to be a wife, about the institution of marriage, from these relationships.  Even the earlier theory we read, which borrowed from the inept psychologist Freud, only seems to talk about young girls in relation to penises.  What about young girls in relation to their mothers?  How does the activity of being a dependent in a mother-daughter relationship reify our current sex/gender system?  Also what if we consider young women watching television for role models as dependents on these pop-culture role models?  Do they become dependent, so to speak, on the reflections they see of themselves (women of their race, class, nationality, religion, sexuality) in the national spotlight?  How does that complicate the themes we discussed in class this week?

Why Can't We Be Friends (Imagine Me Singing These Words)?

Recently, I read an 0p-ed piece in the Times that focused on the relationship between feminism and the creation of the platonic male and female relationship. Of course, we take this type of a relationship for granted. Now, we just refer to platonic relationships as "friendships." However, the idea that sex always gets in the way of these relationships is, in fact, not so quaint.

Oscar Wilde famously said, "Everything in the World is about except sex. Sex is about power." Perhaps the strength of this aphorism is in its catchy quality, but that does not mean that many people do not act or behave, consciously or unconsciously, like this is true.

Early on in high school, I was constantly berated about and questioned on the nature of relationships that I had with women. There were constant questions about "secret liaisons," ect. I would guess that certain corners of Rhodes are quite similar, but I would argue that on the whole most people "of a certain age" have strong sex-less relationships with someone of the opposite sex (or at least don't gawk at one when it crosses their path). This is not to say that friendships are not complicated by sexual attraction. It is just to say that once a level of maturity is reached people become better at managing those attractions. Of course, in the heternormative society that we live in, people are less comfortable considering the potential same-sex sexual attraction that could be looming. For some reason, admitting sexual attraction to someone is threatening, which seems strange. Attraction does not necessitate action. Perhaps, because platonic friendships and sexual relationships have been conflated into the modern marriage mirage we assume that one--friendship--is always leading to the other--some kind of sexual relationship (again, I am short changing all non-heternormative relationship, I apologize). This is just a huge shot in the dark, and I do agree that your partner should be your best friend, but why place so much emphasis on sex, or the "sex-potential." Why should that get in the way of building great relationships. People can have great relationships with people that they are attracted to without ever acting or feeling tempted to act upon those feelings. I should rephrase. "Attracted to" should be replaced with "Someone who finds someone else attractive." The former seems to imply a lack of agency on behalf of the person involved--like they are the positive side of a magnet and their friend is the negative. It just isn't so. I think a refusal to recognize these observations, especially in same-sex friendships, only perpetuate an underlying discomfort with benign sexual variation, as well as all other kinds of sex.

Maybe I am just full of shit. I don't know. It is late in the semester. I am tired. I'd be interested to hear what people think though.

Racial profiling, anyone?

All the recent media highlights pertaining racial injustice stimulates many comparisons between racism and sexism. 

Which we are working on the "thinking in images" project many images dealing with racial profiling emerge.

Dr. J posted an article written by a Rhodes alumnus Jarrett Tate wrote earlier a week and a half ago about racial profiling in the Rhodes community and the Rhodes campus. His article –linked bellow- is a great perspective on how racial profiling can lead to many injustices.

http://knowledgeovereducation.blogspot.com/2012/04/stranger-on-my-own-campus-open-letter.html

In reply to the article an anonymous writer posted justifying the racial profiling on campus, he mentioned, “As a student, whenever they announce that a crime has occurred nearby and they give a description of the suspect it is literally ALWAYS an African-American male. I'm not being racist or talking about stereotypes, but this is the profile of people committing crimes in the area.” And I just don’t know what to think about that!

I do encourage you to read the article, the anonymous post and tell me what you think! I’m just sorta thrown off really!

Taking this article and putting it in the context of Spelman’s essay that we previously read, draws us to analyze how certain layers of ones’ self can override other layers.

There is a lot of light on racial profiling right now because of the Trayvon Martin case and the shaymaa case. Do you feel like this is just a trend or is it a new awakening to the issue and hopefully solving it? Do you have any comments on the article? How do you feel like it relates to the ampersand problem?

I hope everyone had a great Easter break!

Perspective

Last class, we discussed the different ways that a person could know a fact or the different meanings/implications that fact could have. Esha gave the example of a man and a woman knowing that most CEOs are men. Today I read an article about Sheryl Sandberg, the COO for Facebook.

First of all, I think she's just a really cool person. Here are a few articles. A TED Talk by her, the article from Jezebel, and an interview she gave.

http://www.ted.com/talks/sheryl_sandberg_why_we_have_too_few_women_leaders.html

http://jezebel.com/5900252/women-should-preferably-marry-other-women-says-sheryl-sandberg

http://www.makers.com/sheryl-sandberg/moments/sheryls-harvard-thesis

One of the interview videos is titled "Proud to be a Feminist." In a couple of videos, she discusses at length the importance of changing attitudes about women in the workplace and at home. The Jezebel article provides a quote about the amount of work men do versus the amount of work women do in the home and what that means for women, which is essentially that they work at least 2 jobs.

In the TED Talk, she talks about how women consistently underestimate themselves, noting men attribute their success to themselves and women attribute it to external factors. She also notes that success is positive for men and negative for women and gives this fun example. A professor gave his students the resume/work history of a woman named Heidi and then gave the same story and changed the name to Howard. While the students thought they were equally qualified, they thought Heidi was a bit "political" and Howard was a nice guy. I thought this was particularly interesting given our Tuesday discussion.

What does it mean to women to say that most CEOs are men? What does it mean for the women who do become CEOs? Clearly the statistics and studies on underestimation and on characterization of women in the workplace indicate that the fact has a much bigger social reality attached to it. Women, generally, tend to understand even facts about themselves differently than men do. Sheryl Sandberg has worked for major corporations for a long time, but she has had to navigate her career in a different way than her male counterparts and has had to understand and define herself as a woman in the workplace rather than just the supposedly gender-neutral, generic but really not so generic "employee."

Anyway, this might just be rehashing what we did last class, but the articles really made me think of Esha's example and the rest of our conversation. What do y'all think about what Sandberg says? What does it mean for women in the workplace? How do we negotiate our different perspectives on facts?

A Man's Drink

I was watching TV recently and saw a commercial for Dr. Pepper 10. The premise was that this new low-cal drink was for men only.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iuG1OpnHP8

A few things stood out to me. First, it was interesting that Dr. Pepper decided to market this cross between the regular and diet option to men. Women are thought to be more calorie conscious and aware of body image so a new drink like this would probably appeal to those women. Immediately, the company caters this drink to men in hope that men will purchase the drink and not worry about feeling too girly drinking a beverage that is stereotypically for women. The commercial also reminded me of the car commercials we watched earlier in the semester. Just like that one, there was a video response for this commercial too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D805_b_a70&feature=watch_response

I also came across an article: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/story/2011-10-10/dr-pepper-for-men/50717788/1

What do y'all think about this? Is it possible for a drink to be feminine? Was it merely intended to be a funny commercial that is now being overanalyzed? Will this form of marketing work? What do commercials like this being released mean for the feminist movement?

This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Revisiting Feminist Stereotypes

Hey Guys. So I’m not usually one to revisit topics, but I seemed to get a lot of good feedback on my last post about stereotypes of the “feminist.” Well I’ve been digging around since then and trying to find more stereotypes. Unfortunately, I have still not turned up many good responses to what “Feminism” is. The first video I want to post is an experiment that one lady did on the street to find out what men AND women thought “feminism” was. Watch this video first!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pdbnzFUsXI

Ok, now that you watched the first video. What do you think? How do you feel? Many of you had a strong reaction to my last blog post which listed common feminist stereotype, does seeing actual people say these hurtful (and wrong) things make a bigger impact on your reaction??

This next video is one of my favorite videos, however, it makes fun of stereotypes of women.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gspaoaecNAg

Do you think that this video is offensive to women? Do you think that the video reinforces stereotypes? This video was made purely for comedic reasons, but do you think that the video hits on a deeper level and potentially questions gender roles? ALSO, if any of you know how to connect youtube to the blog let me know I hate that you guys have to go through the link! I just am not the most technologically advanced...

The Concrete Uterus

Given that it’s election season, there’s a lot of talk about justice and doing what’s right for ourselves and each other. One key issue this election season is women’s healthcare. There is constant discussion over the new healthcare plan, birth control, abortion, etc Watching these videos, I was reminded of our discussion of Benhabib.

http://jezebel.com/5898191/obama-says-he-fully-supports-planned-parenthood-wins-ladies-hearts

http://jezebel.com/5896299/gloria-steinem-urges-us-to-get-off-our-asses-and-vote-for-obama

Benhabib notes that we need the concrete other to create the generalized other. She writes, “Without assuming the standpoint of the concrete other, no coherent, universalizable test can be carried out” (488). She also discusses at length the division between public and private spheres as gendered places and our difficulties navigating between them in our discourses, specifically those on justice. She writes, “…The concrete other is a critical concept that designates the ideological limits of universalistic discourse. It signifies the unthought, the unseen, and the unheard in such theories” (489). Ultimately, Benhabib argues that the generalized other must be informed by the conception of the concrete other and that separating the two is flawed from both sides.

The issue of women’s reproductive health is particularly interesting given Benhabib’s argument. It’s a weird mixture of the public and the private spheres. A short way into his video about Planned Parenthood, President Obama says:

Let's be clear here: Women are not an interest group. They're mothers and daughters and sisters and wives — they're half of this country. And they're perfectly capable of making their own choices about their health.

It’s clear just from these clips that women’s reproductive healthcare requires a different sort of conversation. The generalized other is greatly complicated in this situation because the other, from the start, has an identity. It’s a woman. It’s an issue of the private sphere, the realm of the concrete other and women, thrown into the public sphere, where the generalized other, as Benhabib notes, “…reflects aspects of male experiences; the ‘relevant other’ in this theory is never the sister but always the brother” (481). When we were discussing the general other, we noted that it’s supposed to be a figure that can be the everyperson (although as Benhabib notes, that’s an impossibility). The conversation surrounding laws about women’s bodies demands from the start a recognition of difference and personal experience that challenges blind justice. That’s why the all-male panel on contraception seemed so ridiculous.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/16/contraception-hearing-house-democrats-walk-out_n_1281730.html

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/jon-stewart-on-congresss-all-male-contraception-panel-20120221

Issues of abortion, hormonal birth control access, pap smears, mammograms are issues that are very particular to women. “My body, my choice.” Recently women have been spamming certain politicians’ Facebook walls with updates about their uteruses, questions about personal reproductive problems, and concerns about family planning. These are all male politicians who have voted in favor of any number of policies that would deny women control over their body in some form or fashion. It’s a direct challenge to a male politician’s qualification to make a choice about a woman’s body, to the notion that we can privilege the generalized other when the generalized other clearly fails to meet the needs of the concrete. The mixing of the public and private spheres has produced and continues to produce some very interesting results and challenges to the way that we make and apply the law.

I guess my question is, how do we deal with an issue like women’s reproductive healthcare in light of our discussion about the generalized and the concrete? What happens when we make gender-specific laws? How do we negotiate the need for concrete testimony with the benefits of the generalized other?

Care and Justice: Mutually Exclusive?

Reading justice ethics compared to care ethics, I immediately seemed to associate with the justice side of viewing things. As Gilligan discussed, when people were trying to test how children viewed ethics and morality, the researchers would disregard a lot of the information taken from little girls that was inconsistent with a justice and rule based system. Gilligan believes that these 'inconsistencies' show a whole knew way of viewing how to act. When Gilligan conducted her own research, she found that 100% of men answered questions of how one should act with rule based ideas: questioning the law, questioning the validity of the rules, and acting accordingly. However, women were divided into multiple categories: some would answer using justice ethics, and others would answer based on relationship and perceptions with others.
Care ethics still seems like a bit of a confusing term: how is it different from justice ethics? Does one only act on one ethic system or the other? We discussed on Thursday the idea of private sector versus the private sector. I would argue that this is where care ethics and justice ethics differ. Looking at the Trayvon Martin case, even some of the more interpretable part of the case can be seen in a universal justice light. If someone has a history of racist tendencies, it is the law's right to judge their actions as a hate crime. If someone has tangible evidence saying a racial slur before they shoot someone, it is not only viewed through the relationship with the person, but rather the evidence and perception of the perpetrator. Care ethics can not be used in a court of law, seeing as how it would have to rely less on things that can be proven.
These two sectors do not have to be exclusive though. With all interactions, people have to make judgments based on the knowledge they have. However, justice ethics also applies to most things as well and could contain human interactions.

So you think that care ethics could ever be used in court cases, or that everything would have to be based in a justice mindset? Based on Gilligan's research, does she really intend to say that men do not have care ethics at all? Could we really say that they do not view their interactions in a similar way (based on relationships, how they want to be viewed etc.). I find it strange to think that men only view things in a justice rule based thought process?

Revisiting the hijab

I had a fairly unclear understanding of the purpose of the “Hijabi for a Day” event prior to Tuesday’s class. I understand now that its purpose was to allow students of all backgrounds to perhaps get a glance of the perspective of Muslim women who choose to wear the hijab. I understand that women across the world are often subject to discrimination. This issue was raised again in class on Thursday when somebody mentioned the news of an Iraqi woman recently murdered in Lakeside, California (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46874835#.T3YKZDEgfnk). I found this to be especially troubling because I grew up in Lakeside. It has been my home for much of my life, and while I have always been aware of the racial tensions in the area, I suppose that in my absence I hoped it would have changed by now. It scares me to think that my little sister might be subject to some of the same discrimination and racial slurs that I was when I lived there.

If anything, all of this made me regret my decision to not participate in the hijabi event. When I heard about the event, I chose not to do so as I couldn’t look past the novelty of it. My initial thoughts were not of the symbolic purpose of the event, but rather the idea that it might be something cool. I find myself being cautious in participating in events surrounding social justice or social awareness because I don’t want my participation in such things to be part of a trend. I want it to mean something.

In the end, I think these types of events are important. They do serve a purpose in at least getting people to acknowledge that others are often subject to certain judgments based on characteristics such as race, class, gender, or religious beliefs. In class, the discussion of the hijab led us to a discussion on morals and whether or not certain symbols that reflect one’s beliefs should be protected over others. I’m not sure that we as a class came to a conclusion about this, but I’ve tried to determine my own stance on the subject. I realized that as much as it pains me to say it, symbols like a cross, a hijab, or even a peace sign should not be protected anymore than the confederate flag, a swastika, or a “God hates fags” sign, though this isn’t always upheld in our society.

This makes me question who is truly protected by our society and/or laws. If my opinion deviates from a collective societal voice, should my expressions of my opinion not be protected? If not, can we really expect our society or our laws to be fair and non-discriminatory?  

Is there a compromise between the generalized and concrete other?

In Benhabib's "The Generalized and Concrete Other," the idea of the generalized other and the concrete other are introduced and set in opposition to each other. The generalized other is an idea that states that everyone, as a general being in relation to all others, is entitled to certain rights and privileges as a human being.
The generalized other does have its uses, such as in law or any other situation where a universal doctrine is needed, where the general has to be appealed to, but in any other situation, the generalized other has major shortcomings. First and foremost, it fails to acknowledge humans as true individuals but rather as the same individual in a multitude of instances.
The concrete other, on the other hand, is the idea that in each situation one should see the other person as an individual with a "concrete history identity, and affective-emotional constitution." This is more advantageous in particular situations and in personal relationships, where a deeper level of caring and emotion is involved than in any universal situation.
The problem that arises is the conflict of interest between the two, and whether or not it is possible to have a compromise between the generalized and concrete in order to create a fair, yet universally applicable approach to others as rational beings. Is it possible for these two ideas to coexist? If this was even possible, would it be practical to approach things for this mixed standpoint? Furthermore, it seems like it would not be possible to mix these two ideas perfectly in practice, so how would you go about privileging one mode of seeing the other over another?
It seems like it would be impossible to reach a mean between these two others, or how to implement one. What do you think would be the right way to implement a mixture of the two that would not privilege one or the other?

For obvious reasons, I haven't really been able to think of much other than the Trayvon Martin slaying.  I would encourage everyone to go to the wikipedia page,   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
and just listen to Zimmerman's initial 911 call where Trayvon is called suspicious and possibly on drugs.  I'm not going to go into an angry tirade calling for Zimmerman's arrest-- Al Sharpton, and many others have already done yet (and rightfully so).  It's needless for me to argue that this was indeed a hate crime, and that Zimmerman found Trayvon suspicious  because of his race and he was killed because of his race.  To me, this is perfectly clear--in Zimmerman's and in the minds of many Americans--black men are dangerous and threatening.  What I will point out is what the handling of this case tells us about the American imagination--and when I use that phrase I'm talking about everyone in America--everyone including people of color.  Even though it is now clear, through surveillance footage:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bFpZnJAkiQ    that Zimmerman's story is botched, the Sanford police department is sticking by Zimmerman's claim of self-defense.  This tells me and the rest of the country that they all agree with Zimmerman--that black people (particularly black men) are threatening and dangerous, that Trayvon probably was going to rob someone, and that Zimmerman had every right to kill him.  If that's not what you read into this, tell me.  When there's so much evidence that this was racially-motivated and that it was needless, this is the only thing I can gather from the blatant injustice. 

I also want to argue something that you already know but probably haven't thought about.  I want to assert that Zimmerman's racism really isn't that unusual.  Maybe it was unusual in that he killed someone simply for being black, which isn't new (lynching) or even that infrequent as we'd all like to think:
 http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/08/06/mississippi.hate.crime/index.html

I think we're all doing ourselves a big injustice by rallying together in support of Racists like Zimmerman without acknowledging the racism within all of us.  I think the reason this scares so many people is because so many people think what Zimmerman thinks, he's just one of the smaller number that was brave enough to act on his hate.  Another one of my friends was almost robbed this week by some men downtown.  In her description, she said first that they were black, second: that the car had big rims, and third: that they looked high. 

This brings me back to our discussions of justice recently, and our discussions of the justice system.  What kind of power and authority does the justice system have when they ignore acts of racial violence or sexual violence?  Who is really safe in our country, considering the recent murder of Shaima Alawadi and the constant harassment of Muslims and people of Middle-Eastern descent in America since 9/11? 

Polite or Passive?

Towards the end of class, we discussed the differences when making judgments in public or private sectors. This was an interesting talk for me because although it seems that our moral compass doesn’t change much from one day to the next, the majority of us have a tendency to behave differently depending on which setting we are in.

Interestingly enough, it sounded like the general consensus was that we are quick to write off someone we don’t know based off a comment they said or call them out on it. However, it is difficult for most to oppose a friend or family member. Many of us have older relatives who grew up believing certain things that although we recognize are not true, we mostly let them slide and take comfort in the fact that that’s just what they grew up believing or they are too old to change now. I’m guilty of this myself but in class I started wondering if by taking this passive approach is a mistake.

Do we have a duty to let them know our reaction? The idea of respect comes into play and that complicates matters. But is it possible to stand up to them in an appropriate and accepted way? After all, people always say that you can’t pick you’re family and you’re just stuck with them so shouldn’t that imply that no matter what happens or what is said you can count on them not walking out forever? One of the main reasons for not saying something is that we don’t want to offend them but doesn’t this dilemma occur as a result of them offending us? Where do we draw the line between knowing what we could rightly say versus politely setting our feelings aside?

Adrienne Rich Dies, 82

Sexism, What?

About a week ago, I bore earwitness to a very strange statement from a fellow student who claimed that women in the United States won all of their rights (I am assuming he meant, generally, social equality with men) when they refused to go back into the kitchen after playing an integral role in the Second World War. To put this into context, we were discussing the way in which Muslim women often emerge from the harem (only in the most conservative homes is this still used, from my understanding) during pivotal revolutionary conflicts only to assume their gender roles after the conflict is over. An important historical example of this movement occurred in the Algerian Revolution. In addition to this conflict, more contemporary examples are the conflicts in Syria, Libya, and Egypt.

I was shocked at my classmates comment about this supposed equality of women in contemporary society, but I was more shocked when our professor began to elucidate just how difficult it is to be a woman in many parts of the middle east. For women, even those who are not Muslim, it is seen as indecent to be seen looking into the eyes of a man, even in public. It is indecent to be seen out without another female overseer to corroborate that nothing indecent happened. The list goes on and on.

All of these details are quite shocking; however, things become much more grotesque when it comes to rape. Apparently, if a female member of the family (wife, or daughter) is raped, this brings shame upon the entire group. The only way to efface this shame is to kill the woman in question.

During revolutionary periods, the anti-revolutionary leader often sends the military through towns and villages that are home to revolutionaries. The soldiers are told to rape the women and leave them alive. Once word gets to the head of the house who is at the front, he will immediately drop everything he is doing for the war effort and "take care of his home." This happened in Libya, and Iraq, and is now happening in Syria. It was enough for the military to pass through a town to put doubt on to the legitimacy of female family members.

I wanted to post this not necessarily to pose a question to the class, or to make a philosophical assessment of this situation. I simply wanted to reiterate a series of anecdotes that were passed onto me. Even writing this now, I cannot, cannot, digest this series of events. My eyes are wide.

Oh, and the cherry on top: An Iraqi women was beaten to death in her California home last week for being Muhajiba, or someone who wears the hijab. Her murderers were nice enough to clear up the motive for us: she was a terrorist, of course.

Religious Knowledge Systems

I am currently taking a Jewish studies course at MCA.  We have been learning about the ancient religious texts called the Mishnah, which is loosely defined as a written interpretation or debate of scriptures from the Torah and oral religious law.  Some of the theories I have been reading about the writing of the Mishnah, point out characteristics of interpretation on the part of the rabbis or sages doing the writing.  Alexandria was the largest cosmopolitan in Egypt and had a large population of Jews that were escaping the Roman empire. It was here that many Jews became aquainted with contemporary philosophies such as Platonic seperation and privileging of mind over body.  The rabbis were not immune to the influence of these philosophers.  Therefore, when the Mishnah texts were being written, this contemporary philosophy was inhereted.  Before the Mishnah there was no mention of mind versus body in Judaism.  Now it plays a strong role in Judaism and the religions to follow.  With religion supporting this concept, oppression towards women because of their assumed connection to the negative material body continues without much debate in many spheres of thought.  This is interesting in terms of the questions regarding epistomology because of the source of the thought, and how it has been passed down to us.  It was imagined by a privileged male, reinterpreted and inserted into Judaism by privileged male rabbis and is continually sold to us by religious white privileged men.  I think this gets at some of the issues that were discussed around the field of epistomology.  How can the individuals that are perpetuating these epistomology assume that their point of view on truth and knowledge apply to those who are not able to pursue it themselves?  For those who have been told that their materiality outwieghs there mind by religious texts that were written and influenced by privileged men since circa 400 B.C.  The question then becomes how do we disrupt these epistomologies and redefine the field as Alcoff claims that we can?

The New Marriage? The New Monogamy?

                So as to be expected, Yahoo! usually has some story that relates well with our discussion of feminism in modern culture. The video posted below is not entirely about the subject of marriage, but it encouraged me to raise some questions about the nature of relationships between men and women.

              I know that someone else has posted commentary on the subject of marriage, and if I am correct, the focus was whether or not marriage is needed to validate a relationship. My focus is more about the nature of the relationship established within a marriage. When a couple gets married, who primarily wants the marriage? I recognize that in order for the marriage to be successful that both parties involved have to come to a mutual agreement about what is expected. However, I feel that the aspiration of marriage is primarily an aspiration of women. Do men really want to get married? Do most imagine a successful and full life including the marriage aspect?

             The purpose in bringing this to light is that it seems that in traditional heterosexual relationships the relationship is primarily for the woman to have an environment of stability—physical, emotional, spiritual and financial. The man is usually in the position where he can pick and choose. Even in a marriage, the relationship is not safeguarded from breaches caused by infidelity. (Granted this is true as much for women as men.)

             So the question now is what is the “new marriage”?  Is the new marriage standard one of polygamous, open relationships? In a plethora of places I have noticed that while many people have a desire to be married, the nature of that marriage is not a traditional one. For that matter, more people are living in civil union as opposed to getting married. Women will marry a man fully aware that their relationship in the past has been subject to infidelity and that the future of the relationship is just as susceptible and vice versa. This will result in a relationship that is closed on her part, but open on his, for example. Is the modern standard of marriage now closed on one end and open on the other? Or does it still hold true that modern marriage is the same as the conventional standard of marriage—monogamous? I realize that the roles that women take on in relationships and everyday life have shifted dramatically within the last twenty-five to fifty years, and I, therefore, find it natural to start to question the nature of relationships as a result of these dramatic changes. Women of modernity are breaking down barriers in every aspect of life and I don’t think the aspect of relationships is excluded. So what are your opinions on this? Is there a new standard of marriage? Have there been major changes to what both men and women expect out of a relationship? Are women still playing the traditional relationship roles despite they aren’t playing conventional roles in society?

The Hysterical paranoid women

I’ve been listing to NPR on the radio a lot recently while I’m driving (shocking I know). One story I heard a few days ago that I found really interesting was one about paranoia. The story was exploring the results of an experiment that dealt with women and paranoia. So they took three groups of women: a control group that was made up of women who had a low work and stress load, another group with low work and stress load, and a final group with high stress and work load. The radio host was saying that the study concluded that the more stressed and worked women are the more paranoid they are and the more they are likely to develop paranoia as a disorder. Some of the symptoms of their paranoia is her thinking that her husband or boyfriend is cheating on her, or her drink was spiked, or that a female coworker is out to get her and her job.

This got me thinking of this whole idea of women being paranoid or even hysterical. After all, the term hysterical roots back to women as I’ve learned in my psychology disorders class from last semester. When merely looking up hysteria on Wikipedia you get that exact information, “In the Western world, until the seventeenth century, hysteria referred to a medical condition thought to be particular to women and caused by disturbances of the uterus (from the Greek ὑστέρα "hystera" = uterus), such as when a neonate emerges from the female birth canal.” Oh and my favorite information on that page is, “By the mid to late 19th century, hysteria (or sometimes female hysteria) came to refer to what is today generally considered to be sexual dysfunction. Typical treatment was massage of the patient's genitalia by the physician and, later, by vibrators or water sprays to cause orgasm.” 

Moreover, older physicians used “forensic or even social and communal truths” to connect disorders like this to the uterus. And their solution was? Fill that uterus up with babies! Or ‘massage’ the genitalia to fix the hysteria… yah I don’t know if they were lying to women or just lying to themselves…

Why are those disorders mainly related to woman? Men also, go through those problems, yet it isn’t socially highlighted, are there such things as women psychological disorders (that are only because of the uterus)?