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)?

Fathers and the End of Sexism

While perusing the online, I ran across this article from Time Magazine online.

http://ideas.time.com/contributor/lawrence-j-cohen-and-anthony-t-debenedet-m-d/

It demonstrates why fathers need to take a role in ending the oppression and objectification of girls. They are responding to the activities of fathers in the media, specifically noting Rush Limbaugh in a negative way but also quoting Obama and the father of a murdered pageant girl as wanting to empower young girls. The authors wanted to present several ways in which fathers could work to improve the lives of women and girls. They think it starts with young girls because this is when girls are the most impressionable and need to feel empowered so that this is translated into their adult lives as well.

The authors wanted to present concrete ways for fathers to change the environment girls grow up in and they see the best place to begin is through breaking down the stereotype that men are rational and logical while women are overly emotion. They suggest doing this by fathers being willing to express their own emotions so that their daughters see that this is not a characteristic that just women possess and so they do not feel bad when they want to express their emotions. They also want dads to really listen to their daughters so that they know that their voice matters.

Another easy thing for fathers to do to better the environment for girls is to not say sexist jokes and not purchase pornography that is degrading. This objectification of women is one of the biggest problems that they see and therefore they think it needs to stop. They do not support debutantes and pageants and fathers should not look at other women in a purely sexual way. If girls think that they are only valued for their bodies, they could have very little self-worth and lack confidence.

Lastly, they want fathers to really value their daughters for more than their looks by telling them that they are more than pretty or cute. They can also tell their daughters they are powerful and smart. If dads see and encourage this strength, they will not need to be over protective like the common stereotype.

Many of the issues addressed in this article relate to our class discussions. We have talked about how men are not supposed to show their emotions but these authors offer this as a solution to oppression.  We have also talked about pornography and how it treats women as objects. It also seems like this article is asking men to recognize the role they play in the oppression of women.

Do you see any more themes that relate to our class discussions? Do you find it interesting that they think that fathers are the ones who would care enough about their own daughters to change their actions? Often times people only care about issues that directly affect them. Is there a way to appeal to men that are not fathers?

Queer Art

Over break, I was in Chicago romping around, visiting museums, ect. I met with a very interesting photo-graphical ethicist (I am not sure if this is a professional term, because I just made it up) called Jess Dugan. I had an amazing conversation with him and it turns out he takes photographs of the queer community. I thought this might be relevant to our study, so I have included a link to his website here. I have included, to the right, a somewhat comical but mostly depressing piece I saw at the Museum of Contemporary Art. I figured it would be a propos considering our focus on women's studies. Hope all is well.

best,
t

Black Women

During our class discussion on Spelman’s “Gender and Race: The Ampersand Problem in Feminist Thought,” I began to think about the way that Black women are viewed in American society. It seems, as Spelman suggests, that Black women are often placed in a category separate from that of “women” or “Black.” I began to look at some of the representations of Black women on television, in music, and to a lesser extent in literature (since these seem to be the most broadly consumed media).

I came across an article suggesting that Black women are most often represented in one of three categories: Mammy, Jezebel, or Sapphire. Mammy characters are the motherly caretakers; Jezebel characters are the overly sexual and/or promiscuous types; Sapphire characters are depicted as loud, overbearing, and hostile.  I found it very difficult to find characters that did not meet these stereotypes, even in media created by and for Black audiences (think Tyler Perry’s Madea characters).

These stereotypes go beyond the radio or the television screen. I have had numerous conversations with family and friends about the effects of these stereotypes. One of the most interesting insights that have stemmed from these discussions has been in regards to Black women and marriage. Marriage rates, while on the decline in general, have even further declining among Black women (according to BET News). Some of my father’s friends have suggested that the “Sapphire” stereotype is difficult to avoid, making many Black women undesirable candidates for marriage. While I can’t say that any of the Black women that I know fulfill these stereotypes to the core, the fact that some people feel that Black women do is problematic.

These classifications of Black women seem to be unique from the stereotypes of women and of Black men, though they do hold some similarities. (White) Women are often stereotyped as caregivers and Black people (men) are often highly sexualized. Black women take on the worst stereotypes of the two groups. So I wonder, why is it that Black women are not placed in the categories “Black” and “woman” when they are expected to take on the negative aspects of both?  Why do these stereotypes seem to hold more weight when discussing Black women? 

Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man

                  Act like a lady, but think like a man? As a young woman, what am I supposed to make of such a statement? Initially, it sounds like the answer to all my problems with society and the people around me. However, upon giving it more thought, I'm not quite sure what is being asked of me. Does this mean that I act as a young woman traditionally should, but think of the world as a man traditionally would? Or am I to be a man in a woman's body...sort of like a wolf in sheep's clothing? The statement is above is just one example of how contradictory this world can be. What is implied in the statement is that as a woman should I should act as a woman, but structure my mental processes and outward perspective of the world so that it is the opposite gender of me. The statement is asking me to lead a somewhat double life. This all brings me back to the a point that some of feminists of the week pointed out. Those is power of a system of oppression have a "act like me, but don't be like me" syndrome, and "act like a lady, think like a man" is evidence of the patriarchal system of oppression alive today.
                 
                  Hopefully thus far what I have said does not come across as simply a rant from on top of a soapbox. The inquiry that I am making is of genuine interest and concern. This entire blogpost was born when I came across the song that Jennifer Hudson just released titled "Think Like a Man." The song itself is serving as a single for the upcoming drama/comedy of the same title. While I do think that this would be a good movie to go see, what has raised my eyebrows is that this is not simply a movie or a song. "Act like a lady, think like a man" is an expectation that is real and alive in society today. And as much as I would like to single out a gender on this one, I cannot because both men and women hold other women to this expectation. It all goes back to my main question...what are women to do with this? If one did this properly would it not make her...a bitch? There are plenty of women who are feminine in their own right, but who "think like a man." They are successful, highly intelligent, possess dominant personalities, and have both the wealth and merits to serve as credentials. However, these women are told that they should tone it down and revert to more traditional women roles. Obviously, here is where the "don't be like me" piece comes in. Well then, I'm still confused as to what the end goal is here.

                So what? Why bring up this topic and raise all of these questions? First, I think that this is an important aspect of the plight of women. We have had discussions on the definition of feminine, traditional v. modern roles of women, and even the heterosexual v. homosexual/transgendered women battle. This is just another dimension to add to the equation...the man & woman v. woman issue. The reason I label the issue in such a manner is because (as stated before) this is one topic in which not only men perpetuate a cycle of inequality but women do as well. This issue is definitely one where women undermine themselves by lacking solidarity and upholding a standard of oppression. Secondly, (going on about the recent point just made) I find it enlightening, and useful, to illuminate issues and topics in feminist theory in which women undermine women. It's important to note where we as a gender do not support one another and perpetuate viscious cycles that continue oppression.

So my closing questions:
                Is it enough to just say to women to be comfortable in their own skin and accept themselves for who they are? How would this maintain or destroy the current system of oppression in place?

Feminist Stereotyping

So this week for my blog post I wanted to do something fun and relative to the course. However, I struggled to find anything worthy of writing about. I flipped through numerous news websites and found no fresh or exciting feminist news. After my failing attempts to find something juicy in the news I figured I would touch on the thought about feminists as a category and the stereotypes that are given to feminists. Keyana wrote back in January about “Positive Stereotypes,” and she questioned if there was such thing as a positive stereotype. She concluded that she did not believe positive stereotypes existed.

My post is going to build off the idea of stereotyping and specify on the topic of the “feminist.” I researched what the most common stereotypes of a feminist were and I found only negative responses and extremely pessimistic stereotypes. On one website I found a list of top ten stereotypes that society gives feminists. I found these same stereotypes on several different websites so I want to list them below:

10. Feminists hate men

9. Feminists hate the idea of family

8. Feminists are masculine and unattractive

7. Feminists hate God

6. Feminists don't shave

5. Feminists are all pro-choice

4. Feminists can't be stay at home moms

3. Feminist whine about everything

2. Men are not feminists

1. All people who label themselves as feminist believe in the exact same things.

What do you guys think of these stereotypes? Do you think that this is societies way of lashing back against the various waves of feminism?? The list is extremely harsh. As harsh as I find the list I still have to admit that these stereotypes are not unusual. I remember my first advisor here at Rhodes was helping me pick classes and when I decided to take the intro course to gender and sexuality studies course made some comments that were unintentionally stereotyping of the “feminist.” The advisor was a male and as we were walking to his office he offered to hold the door and said he should do it now before I take the GSS course and won’t let men open the door for me. I really loved this advisor, but do you think this unintentional comment was out of line? Do you think society feeds in to these stereotypes so much that we hardly even catch comments like that or dare to call the individual out on their stereotypical claim? Let me know what you guys think! If you have any specific responses to the various “feminist” stereotypes post a comment!

Gaslighting

Gaslighting

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yashar-hedayat/a-message-to-women-from-a_1_b_958859.html

 I came across this article a few months ago and had forgotten about it until a few days ago when I noticed the effects of gaslighting on myself.

Gaslighting is essentially when someone reacts to your emotions by telling you that you are being irrational. All those times people tell you to “calm down”, “relax” or say that you are acting “crazy” after they have done something to piss you off: yeah, that’s gaslighting.

Gaslighting causes people or, as this article contends, specifically women, to try to hide their emotions to assure they are not perceived as irrational. i.e. when you send someone what is supposed to be an angry text for being 30 minutes late, you might say “you’re late :)”, throwing in that smiley face to make sure you simultaneously voice your annoyance but don’t come off as bitchy for expecting your date to understand that 7:00 is not 7:45.

There is clearly a stigma that comes with being a woman. A stigma that says that women are emotional, bitchy, needy, nagging, erratic, and irrational. Gaslighting is a way to play off of this stigma.

 Our society teaches women that we are predisposed to all of these tendencies by nature. It’s all in our DNA. But, nevertheless, these are all bad, and we must work constantly not to fall into this pit that nature has dug for us. So when men say that we are being emotional, bitchy, or erratic they are probably right. We are probably just succumbing to our nature and we need that nice little nudge to help us back out of our pit. (read in a terribly patronizing voice)

That is exactly why gaslighting is so effective. It uses our fear, subconscious or conscious, of becoming the nagging woman against us. And it inevitably leads to subordination. Because it reinforces that idea the women are predisposed to these tendencies and because it makes these tendencies seem disadvantageous, women are subsequently perceived as less valuable than men. 

How is it that we can combat this? How can we change not only our perception but the perceptions of others?

As a parting gift: Meredith Books!

Stay out of my uterus!

The forbidden “birth control”! Much of the political arguments have highlighted this issue for a few weeks. I’m probably getting upset even though I’m not a birth control user yet because of how outrageous and ridiculous these debates are! Birth control, abortions, why are men talking about those issues and why aren’t there women on the platform of these arguments? Also where is the separation of church and state?

I just read an article and I pasted the link bellow. In the article, a law student in Georgetown University is requesting to speak in front of congress about the issue of birth control. And as a consequence Rush Limbaugh says, ““What does that make her?” On his Wednesday night show Limbaugh says, “It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute.” “She wants to be paid to have sex,” Limbaugh continued. “She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception.”

So when men have too much sex but they don’t need contraceptives because they don’t get pregnant, they aren’t “sluts” or being “prostitutes”. So why is this a case where a young law student is publically humiliated by such a strong public figure? And let’s say she actually is having too much sex, who is he to say what is too much or too little? There is never too much sex for men. So why is it wrong for a girl to be in touch with sexuality? And if he is concerned about women having multiple partners, well there are thousands of women who are in marriages, committed relationships, or even use birth control for multiple other uses like acne, extreme cramps, or hormonal imbalances. Health care should be affordable to everyone not just to upperclass citizens! Birth control should be affordable to people who actually want to take it, the option should be there.

What do you guys feel about this issue? What are the steps to be taken to change this dilemma? Why aren’t there any women standing in those arguments?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-buzz/post/rush-limbaugh-calls-georgetown-student-sandra-fluke-a-slut-for-advocating-contraception/2012/03/02/gIQAvjfSmR_blog.html?tid=pm_local_pop

Attack of the Feminazi

So, my post goes right along with Andrea's and reaches back to our discussion of Mackinnon. Also, it's basically an angry feminist rant. This week, I've been following Rush Limbaugh's comments on the controversy surrounding birth control availability. Here are a few articles that address the issues.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/01/10552338-limbaugh-contraception-advocate-should-post-online-sex-videos

http://jezebel.com/5889443/rush-limbaugh-calls-birth-control-advocate-a-whore

It's the first article that really got me thinking about what we've been discussing in class. Clearly, Rush Limbaugh is offensive on so many different levels that it's impossible to discuss them all in one blog post, but this week he is really on his game. His claim that women should post sex videos online if taxpayers have to pay for their birth control is particularly ridiculous. He calls an advocate for birth control availability a slut and of course throws around his hilarious and clever term Feminazi a few times for good measure.

This rhetoric isn't unusual for Limbaugh. I've heard similar things when riding in the car with my relatives who listen to him or when reading blogs/commentary on his crazy comment of the day. In high school, my science teacher, a regular listener, called me a feminazi on more than one occasion. The problem is this: Limbaugh's program is the most listened to talk radio program in the US. He reaches a wide audience with his condemnation of female sexuality and accessible female reproductive health.

This is what his listeners heard this week: Women who need birth control are sluts. Women who need and dare to ask for help to pay for their birth control are particularly offensive. We have no obligation to consider, much less cover, the reproductive health needs of women but if we're going to be MADE to provide birth control, we deserve a little something in return. Sluts who use our money should at the very least film their sexual activity for our viewing pleasure.

Limbaugh isn't producing traditional pornography on his show, but the completely degrading and shaming language he is using reminded me of Mackinnon. His language and tone are angry. This talk show host, whose product is widely consumed, sounds, at best, like he has no respect for women that step outside of his mold of a "good woman", and at worst, like he genuinely hates them. His "joke" about women posting their sexual experiences online as a reward for those who helped pay for birth control fits exactly into Mackinnon's claims about our culture. Men are free in this situation. He says nothing about the slutty men who have sex with these slutty women. This man wants women to be pure but thinks that those who are not should be exploited and enjoys that exploitation. After all, he saw the filming of sex as a reward for his monetary contribution to the distribution of birth control. Basically, these women are prostitutes; he tries to make this analogy in his first comments. Anyway, these are the messages that reach a very large audience.

Clearly, I am biased. There are few people who make me so angry, and listening to him literally makes my stomach upset. The thought of my family members subscribing to his show makes me sad. So, am I being unfair to him?

What do y'all think it says about our society that Limbaugh has such a wide audience? What impact do you think his show has on us and on our political conversations at large? Andrea talked about the importance of social media. Every article, blog post, FB status, and podcast that responds to Limbaugh only gets him more attention. Is there a better way to respond? Finally, to reach back to our discussion of pornography, what does it say that Limbaugh at once wants women to be chaste and sees viewing pornography as a "reward" for himself and other good people and a just punishment for women who are sexually active and on the pill?

The Issue of the Week? Check Facebook.

Last night in a Sexperts meeting, the Planned Parenthood representative mentioned how influential the social media is on current events and politics. She said after a week of people posting on Facebook, Twitter, Tumbler etc. about Susan Komen pulling funding from Planned Parenthood, action was taken to calm people down. Not only were people discussing the funding, they were sending hate mail to the foundation as well as private donations to Planned Parenthood. The response the issue got was tremendous; and it was due, most likely, to how easy it is to tell people the latest issue through our media.

With this in mind, I find it interesting what is currently coming up on my news feed, "The War on Women" some are calling it. What it really is are the many different current events surrounding abortion, health coverage, and birth control. There has been a lot of press over The Catholic Church vs. covering women's prescriptions for contraceptives. However, it is more than simply one group of people (the Catholics) versus women. Recently Sandra Fluke, a law student from Georgetown, gave a very good perspective on the debate (Link: http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/sandra-fluke-georgetown-students-spend-3000-per-year-on-contraception/). She explained that when the majority of the campus is against not covering contraception, and when people such as her lesbian friend need it for important medical reasons, it is wrong to not allow the students to get the healthcare they need. She explains that it shouldn't be a matter of, 'What did you expect from a Catholic School?' because what she expects is being treated fairly and being respected for pursuing a good education. She was not vulgar in her speech, she was very polite and respectful, and she gave very good examples of women needing to speak out to be treated fairly.

What was the response? I know that Rush Limbaugh does not stand for all conservatives and their beliefs (thank goodness) but he responded by calling Fluke a slut, prostitute, and told all women who expected the taxpayers to 'pay them to have sex' to videotape themselves doing it to 'give back' to society.

I first read about each of these occurrences on current event blogs and news sites, but I find it very interesting that they have all now appeared on friends' facebooks. The new medium gives people a way to speak their beliefs, give opinions, and show their friends exactly what they think they need to know. (How many times have we seen 'sign this petition' posts?) I think this new technology offers us a very unique way to express ourselves and get important messages known. However, I don't think it should stop at simply clicking 'share'. Being well-versed in such important issues as preventative health care, as well as current legislation trying to decrease it is very important to be an informed citizen.

Do you think the social media aspect is overall beneficial to current events?