Racial asthetics and "Where are all the Black Swans?"

I recently attended the community forum "Where are all the Black Swans?"  The crux of the conversation was an article in the NY Times of the same name  { http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/arts/dance/06kour.html?pagewanted=all }  which talks about the lack of diversity, especially the lack of black female dancers in classical ballet.  On the panel, there were several African Americans involved in the arts, including a classical actor, a classical ballerina, a ballerina who dances in non-traditional forms, and a music teacher.  For me, the event raised a question of racial aesthetics and how  black bodies are ascribed negative physical characteristics whereas white bodies are ascribed positive ones.  One of the ballerinas spoke about how some classical ballet companies are hostile to what are perceived to be, black body types, and have a preference for white bodies.  This whole concept is highly problematic, given that there is no such thing as a white body or a black body, we only hold stereotypical notions of each.  There are plenty of white women, for example, who do not have the classical ballet body type.  So, how is it that we as a culture develop and maintain ideas that black bodies are a certain way (soulful, curvy) and white bodies are the opposite?  What are the politics of having an art form (like ballet) that excludes "black bodies" and what other art forms or professions are hostile to bodies that don't have what we perceive to be "white (Euro-centric) physical features?"  How is it damaging for both black and white female bodies (and all other women of color) to be judged against a Euro-centric and unrealistic body-type standard?  I think this relates greatly to Oyewumi's claim that Others are bodies, and Subjects are "walking minds," as well as her assertions about the ocular-centric ways of knowing in the West (the preference for what we see/observation).  

presentation of gender

As a painter, I am constantly questioning the right away to go about visually representing people.  Not only do I question what style to use (realism, abstraction, etc), but how color and application of paint can make suggestions about race, gender, and class.  I am currently working on paintings that attempt to address black and white as systems of color and value, as well as racial indicators with a history that dates back thousands of years.  Reading the Judith Butler essay has really helped me relate my thoughts about the theatre and presentation of race and gender as performances.  Not only have I been able to expand my vocabulary in sense of representing race, but I realize the inherent connections in representing gender as just another performance and how I can use these performative roles in dialogue with each other in my paintings.  Using painting as an alternative means to suggest that these roles are simply performed is the place that I have come to, but I still have questions about how to do it.  Keeping in mind what Oyewumi pointed out about Western societal expectations being arrived at primarily through vision begins to complicate my goal as a painter.  In a sense I am simply playing into our norms of perception by making two dimensional images.  But, then this goes back to Professor Hansen said about Butler, in that we cannot completely deconstruct those expectations, but we can disturb them.  We can create a temporary pause, a disruption; and I feel I have a good opportunity as a painter to do so.  So, now I just have to figure out how.  This is mostly just working through my own confusion, but perhaps there are some other thoughts on this dilemma.

Labels

During class on Tuesday when we were talking about intersex individuals, I kept thinking about labels. I have had conversations about this idea before, but I had never thought about it in terms of gender or sex. The context I had always thought about was with sexuality. Many people believe that sexuality is fluid and therefore people should not label themselves as having a certain sexuality because it limits themselves. For example, if I consider myself a lesbian, then I rule out the possibility of falling in love or being sexually attracted to a man. This may or may not occur for a lesbian, as many are set in their attraction to women alone, but because people change over time, labels can be very limiting. The same could be said for a straight individual. If they limit themselves to the opposite sex, they are ruling out possibilities for love and attraction. Many people are confident in their sexuality but others have fluctuating attractions. If they are only attracted to the opposite sex at one point in their lives and then become attracted to individuals of the same sex, were they straight and then gay or were they bisexual all along. It is a very difficult concept to deal with in this context. Therefore, I would like to say that sexuality should not have labels because they become constricting, so the ideal would be to eliminate them, but we live in a world full of labels and categories so this seems very difficult. I also think that having labels for sexuality can be a very positive thing. If an individual feels out of place in many aspects of their lives but then they discover their sexuality and can be a part of the LBGT community, this sense of kinship can be very important. In addition, labeling sexuality lets people know who their options are. Chances are if a lesbian finds out that a women she is attracted to also labels herself as a lesbian, she might then try to pursue that women. In this instance, labels provide people with valuable knowledge. Lastly, we live in a heteronormative world, and therefore people who are straight do not have to actively label themselves as straight because it is the assumed sexuality. In this sense, labels can be much more important for the Other than for the majority because being the other sets them apart.

To tie this back into class, I was thinking about the labels of gender. There are only two labels, despite the fact that not everyone fits into these categories. I think that intersex children should be raised without a gender until they decide what kind of genitalia they want to have. In an ideal world, that is all that would matter. If gender categories did not exist and there were not as many assumed characteristics for genders, then these individuals could act anyway they chose without having to fulfill a role.  But because our world operates using these two genders, little kids will want to know which they are so they know how to act and feel. If I had an intersex child, I would love to give them an androgynous name and send them to school as a child, not a girl or a boy, but given their environment, they would have to be classified as one or the other.

How you do feel about labels? Can you even imagine a world where sexuality or genders are not labeled? In terms of sexuality, do you see more harm or benefit to people labeling themselves or being labeled by others?

Universality and First-Wave problems

Following one of the topics discussed in class Thursday, is the problems evolving from the “waves” of feminism and how the attempt at universalizing could be construed as detrimental to the feminist movement itself.
Each wave is a designated period in the feminist movement. The first wave of the feminist movement describes the period in feminism in which women in America were fighting for basic political and civil rights, such as voting. This happened in the early 20th and late 19th centuries. After this comes the second wave of feminism, which focuses more on cultural aspects. These aspects include the significant differences in sex and gender, and learning to value feminism itself. Finally, there is the third wave of feminism, which we are currently in. This wave questions the homogeneity of the previous two waves and the flaws of its universality.
The third wave of feminism calls into question the aspects of the previous waves of feminism and how they might be flawed. One of the main criticisms put up by the third wave feminists is the universal aspect of previous theorists. They claim that the universal aspect of feminism is self-defeating to feminism as a whole, and that all previous definitions of the feminine and how they define a woman is that of the western, privileged woman. Given the many different aspects of a woman and how many cultures around the world, they argue that the previous ideas of the woman do not adequately recognize other women than the privileged, and they argue that much like the oppression on woman by the patriarchal and male-dominated society, the definition provided is extremely exclusive and the theories only apply to a particular group in a particular place from a particular time period.
What I want to raise then, is the question of whether or not the idea of “feminism” as it was raised by the first and second wave ideologists, is even applicable today, or if it is something that has become antiquated and should be used not as a prime model for discussing women’s rights and their advancement towards equality in society, but rather a basis on which to form new theories and ideas? It seems to me, given the views presented recently in class by the third wave philosophers, that in fact, the older ideas are something that are no longer completely relevant to our society to the present issues involving sex and gender equality as they did in their origins. What do you think? Should we continue to use the first and second wave teachings or move onto something more inclusive and universal? Or is the implementation of something universal too difficult to even come up with given the diversity of the subjects involved?

Freedom and "Faking It"

I found our class discussions last week to be both interesting and troubling. Our discussion on human freedom, to me, was quite optimistic. The idea that the human subject may is never without freedom despite the apparent lack of freedom was rather empowering. I immediately felt discouraged, however, after the realization that so many choose not to exercise their freedom, but rather allow others to dictate their actions (often failing to realize that they are doing so). This was even more apparent to me after our discussion of Butler. Her ideas of gender appeared to be another example of failure in human freedom. The description of gender performance as largely voluntary troubled me in that left me confused about my own understanding of gender as well as my understanding of my own freedom. Am I free to ignore the gender system, or will it inevitably make itself apparent despite my greatest efforts? Will the gender system ever change if we all continue "faking it?" The way I see it, as things stand, there is not much hope in regards to gender. There does not appear to be an escape from the gender system because it is all we know. No matter what we are taught or what we learn, it will always be, to some extent, a reflection of the norms and values set forth by the system in which we currently exist. Is this too pessimistic of a view to hold? 

Self Transparency

Self Transparency

                During class on Thursday, Professor Hansen said something repeatedly that stuck with me, “we cannot be fully transparent to ourselves.” This idea is closely linked to the preformative aspect of living in a society. Our performance changes constantly. We take on different roles depending on where we are, who we are with, what we are doing, and even just the time of day. This idea of changing our personality, our mannerisms, and our overall appearance is conditioned into us from the time we are able to talk. We are taught to act and talk in a certain way when we are in public. Most of us are taught to act like “little ladies” or “little gentlemen”. Because we are conditioned to act in a certain way during every part of our lives in which someone potentially may be watching, this performance bleeds over into all aspects of our lives. Even when we are not around other people, we still know how we are supposed to act, and we know that those actions represent what exactly we are supposed to believe. Has this pervasive performance molded and shaped not only how we act, but also what we believe? Surely it changes what we believe about ourselves and how we view ourselves? Because we are constantly performing, how do we really know who we are?

                Something about the society we live in makes it imperative to be able to perform well in a multitude of settings. One of the most notable ways in which we act is to cover up insecurities. It is evident in how we walk. In order to look confident, people walk with their shoulders up and their heads back. They adopt a sort of “swagger” to look as though they are completely sure of themselves. People dress in order to look self assured (professionals wear business suits when they are going to work in order to look the part). It is also evident in how people talk. When people speak while in a relatively formal group setting they add qualifiers to their speech like “I guess” “Does that make sense” “I mean” “like” and “kind of” almost subconsciously indicating that they are not entirely confident in what they say. They have not adopted it fully as their own idea and therefore cannot be judged for it. People also add vocalized pauses (ums) to their speech because they are not comfortable with the idea of having silence during their speech. All of this is indicative to the insecurities that we constantly try to cover up but are not quite able to. Why has our society conditioned us in such a way to be insecure about tiny flaws that are not unique to ourselves and to act as though we don’t have them while in public?

Expectations Ya'll

We touched on the idea of expectations in Thursday's class with Professor Hansen. In class we discussed how there is a certain expectation of how a woman or a man should be and the sheer disappointment and confusion or even anger some people face when their idea of a woman or man isn't present. In turn, they make assumptions and formulate ideas about the person as not being feminine or masculine. The example that caught my attention the most was when Professor Hansen said she went to the restroom that morning and found herself thinking of what that other woman in the restroom thinks about her. “Whether she thinks Professor Hansen doesn't belong there? Is she reflecting on her life and ideas of what a 'real' woman is? Does she feel uncomfortable?”

So whose to say what a woman is or what a man is? This article explains the definition of femininity and how the lines between femininity and masculinity have blurred.

http://science.jrank.org/pages/8160/Women-Femininity-in-U-S-Popular-Culture.html

To expand on that idea, I kept thinking yesterday about the expectations I am faced with as women and I'm sure men have to face as well when it comes to their masculinity. And I know I’m probably stating the obvious, but women are categorized by either being a slut or a saint. The upsetting issue is that women are expected to be perfectionist in literally EVERYTHING they do: the house, the kids, the husband, and to top it all off, their looks. Then when they want to even think about entering the job market they need to be on top of their game at that too, and if they don’t their sex is to blame for their slip up. They are expected to wear clothes that are never comfortable to be ‘easy on the eyes’ for everyone around them especially the men… So we know all of this, and I’m being a captain-obvious I know, but what are we doing about this? What would be the right course of action as feminist to actually reach equality? I know I’m posing many questions; I just have a really hard time finding those answers. And to even further this idea more, where is a woman’s loyalty and effort supposed to go, to the house or to the job?

The Political Agenda of Sex/Gender

Yesterday’s class discussion was a really good discussion and raised many questions that we should seek to, if not answer, thoroughly understand the rewards and consequences of plausible resolutions. The piece of the discussion that stood out the most to me was the political agenda of feminism. According to Judith Butler in “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution,” feminists Gayatri Spivak and Julia Kristeva push for a feminism that is composed of a feminist theory that calls for a radically new concept of “woman” but argue that for political interests no attention should be paid to the subject of gender constitution.  If it is generally understood that there is something inherently problematic with the current understanding of the term “woman” and the resulting concept, why then would feminists, and women, in general use it as a tool in eradicating the many issues that feminism seeks to correct? Where does the liberation come from if the only thing done is a redefinition of woman at the surface level?

                There are some points of Butler’s overall argument that I do not support, or don’t fully comprehend enough to give an opinion one way or the other, but I must say it makes total sense that to separate sex and gender is futile and to try to separate feminist theory from its relation to gender constitution is even more futile. Separating feminist theory from gender constitution while aiming to move forward with a political agenda based on the concepts and ideals tied to the out dated concept of woman is an end in and of itself. There is no expectation for progress if feminism seeks to construct and perpetuate a new view of womanhood yet it fights with one that it renders obsolete and oppressive. Really, what is the point to all of this? Butler makes a really good point by stating: “It is primarily political interests which create the social phenomena of gender itself… without a radical critique of gender constitution feminist theory fails to take stock of the way in which oppression structures the ontological categories through which gender is conceived.” In order for progress to be made it is imperative that feminists theory aligns with that of gender constitution and that the two are in sync with one another.

                So I wonder, how has feminism taken an account of society’s concept of gender constitution? Besides Butler, what other feminists push for a radical critique of the fundamental principles laying at the foundation of the current view of gender constitution that causes so much inequality? What can we do to set up “checkpoints” that serve as evidence that such things have come into question and that we are trying to reconcile feminist theory with gender constitution?  

But What About the Bathrooms?

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages."
-William Shakespeare

After discussing Butler yesterday, I kept thinking about this Shakespeare quote. Everyone is living their life in a performance. Suggesting a theatrical element such as Butler did, and Shakespeare suggests in this quote, however, seems to imply that everyone is aware of being actors in a play. Butler's theory gets a lot of criticism because of the engrained idea that certain things are just 'natural'. While discussing 'The Second Sex', most people seemed to agree that there is almost no clear way to 'naturally' define the two sexes other than by sexual organs. And even then, transgendered people and hermaphrodites seem to go against that separation. Even things we tried to attribute 'to most men' can never be universal because there will always be men who do not fulfill that attribute and women who do. At the point that it is a majority thing, the attribute is probably mostly perceptions of the men or just a possible statistical 'fact'.
Based on the fact that women and men act differently depending on culture, not to mention how men and women have progressed in 'normal actions' over the years, Butler's performance theory seems to make sense. People perform their gender and sex as they're taught, rewarded and influenced to act. Now if we continue from Tuesday that there really aren't huge differences to men and women (meaning all men are this thing versus all women are that thing) then other than genetic predispositions, it would seem that almost our entire personality is a performance of what we're 'scripted' to do. Sarah asked this question and I thought about the implications of it during the reading: what exactly do we have control over if everything is purely from influence. At some point we could choose to change influences (new friends, new job etc.) however couldn't that be said to come about based on previous things? It seems to almost undermine all individuality. The reason it is most important for gender is because women, for seemingly no reason other than what sex they are perceived as from birth, are treated differently and oppressively. So, after reading Butler, the big question is: What now?
Is there a solution to our performance behavior, and if so what would that world look like? What implications does this theory have on how the world ought to be? The immediate reactions in class seemed to be: is she suggesting a genderless society? This almost utopian idea (to use Tim's terminology from yesterday) seemed farfetched and problematic. Taking away the concept of gender does not seem like a progressive thing to do, nor way to deal with genders being prioritized or oppressed. To attempt to raise a child genderless, it would seem to necessitate almost raising them 'sexless' until other things change as well. Would anatomy simply just be taught as 'some people have these organs and other have these'? Would pronouns like hers/his she/he be a thing of the past? Would clothing stores no longer have mens' and women's sections? This would have to be applied so wide scale that it just does not seem possible.
So back to: what can we do? Professor Hansen mentioned that she does not think Judith Butler wants the extreme of no gender, but rather more genders. More than the forced binary of: you are man, you are women, which does not even seem to work. To achieve anything like this it would seem to necessitate a lot of community support. Every day articles are written about abuse and bullying against self-identified gays, imagine the reaction to someone claiming to neither be 'male' nor 'female'. Once people recognize they are performing a gender for the sake of approval rather than self-attainment, it doesn't mean they should reject anything typically attributed to whatever gender they are but rather they should be aware of what they do and why they do it. The question of makeup is written about frequently with feminists, but that is just the beginning of gender normative behavior. If people choose to act, dress, be a certain way, the perception of their being should not be based in engrained ideas of gender or sex. I think Butler's ideal society would be about self-awareness and support rather than utopia.
But what about the bathrooms? Tons of universities and places already have unisex bathrooms, the transition would not be all that difficult.

A Feminist Debate

Throughout popular culture, images of women, nearly nude, gyrating in performances of "simulated sex" are ubiquitous. Whether it be on music videos or reality television programs, there seems to be a consensus that such depictions are acceptable, despite all the ostensible baggage that they carry. Recently, one such display, in this case Niki Minaj's music video "Stupid Hoe," was actually deemed too lude to display on the television conglomerate BET. J Bryan Lowder, of Slate magazine drew attention to this story in a recent column. The controversy being that "Stupid Hoe" did not appear any more lecherous than the plethora of suggestive videos that preceded it. Although BET has not yet explained what exactly was so offensive about this material, it does raise an interesting debate nonetheless: Should these images be displayed at all? And, why or why not? In her article Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality, Gayles Rubin draws attention to the way in which this very debate has struck a schism in the Feminist movement, thus creating a dichotomy of sorts over the contentious topic of sex portrayals in popular culture. Some Feminists argue that the mere presence of sexual depictions leads to sex violence against women; furthermore, that the act of penetration itself is one of colonization and is, therefore, a violent act. Sexual liberation is condemned as yet another way to cater to the male hegemony. The consequence is a very conservative definition of sex in general. This ontological determination has ostracized many from the Feminist discourse. Those who self identify as sadomasochists are marginalized for having different sexual habits. The fight over what constitutes as "good" or "normal" sex points to a concept Rubin calls the Sex Hierarchy. The idea being that sexual acts are arranged from most acceptable to most deplorable, ranging from heterosexual-procreative-marital sex to the bottom where you find cross-generational love, S/M, and prostitution (among other things). Rubin continues by pointing to another concept she calls benign sexual variation, or lack there of. This concept refers to an inability to recognize that a sex act deemed uninteresting or disgusting to one person may be very appealing and intriguing to another, and that this recognition does not in anyway implicate either party as being abnormal. Partaking in such acts, or viewing such acts, in no way leads to a deluge of debauchery. It could still be though that, especially in pornography and "simulated acts," this kind of liberalism leads to the objectification of women. I, for one, can not find my feet on this particular issue. There seem to be several arguments on both sides. Most people will have noticed though, the female anatomy, considered "quite sacred" in our culture, is displayed disproportionately more than the male anatomy. Why might this be, and what effects does it have? This leads to more questions about how images in our culture are censored, and who is doing the censoring. How is it that we can show a nine year old images of human beings being broken down to atoms by land mines or Jason cutting a co-ed's throat, but not let them see "simulated sex"? These are the kind of inconsistencies that I am interested in speaking about.

What's It Going To Take?

In the article we read for Tuesday’s class, Introduction To The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir, there were a few lines that really stood out to me at the beginning. A quote from Aristotle stated “the female is a female by virtue of a certain lack of qualities…we should regard the female nature as afflicted with a natural defectiveness” (pg. 88) while a few lines later the article said “humanity is male and man defines woman not in herself but as relative to him” (pg. 88).

What I am about to say is very obvious. However because it is so simple, I think it is sometimes overlooked. When women are viewed as the other, the lesser version of man, the second sex, it is impossible to overcome inequalities because the people who believe in this idea do not see inequality. Instead, they see a structure that is rooted in tradition and a system that for a while was able to continue unscathed without being questioned or challenged. This leads me to wonder whether having every single woman in the world is enough opposition. Unfortunately it seems that since the society we live in is still a patriarchal one, unless the majority of men join in on the attempts to make alterations, not much will get done. Although this is very pessimistic, support from men seems necessary in the fight because right now the power lies with their sex.

After class on Tuesday I started thinking about situations where men and women are held to different standards and because it is the norm, it isn’t questioned. We’ve talked in class about job interviews, door openings, classroom environments, and other various situations. Is it possible that baby steps will lead to change or is radical action necessary? When circumstances and attitudes are so set in their ways what does it take to create tangible change? Support from the oppressors?

Blue Bra Girl

As I was browsing through some of CNN’s headlines over the past break, I stumbled across one that I thought I would reserve for this class blog. The article was published on December 22^nd, 2011 and is titled, “ ‘Blue Bra Girl’ Rallies Egypt’s Women vs. Oppression.” This article caught my eye because of its intriguing title and even more so, the picture that went with it (I encourage you all to click on the link!)

The article describes how Egyptian military forces beat one female protester and how that one beating affected the revolution in Egypt. The woman who was severally beaten by the military forces was deemed as a new revival in the revolution. During the beating, the woman who was wearing an abaya had it ripped open to reveal a blue bra. The beating was filmed and numerous photos were taken. As the word and the pictures traveled the women and men of Cairo responded. On the Tuesday following the beating, the women and even many men, marched in Cairo’s Tahrir Square. This act was said to be, “one of the largest demonstrations of women in Egypt in decades.” Such a bold movement was not taken lightly and with the women of Egypt going to the streets in protest, new advances in the protest were made. Although there were earlier attempts to rally the women in Egypt to join the protest, most attempts failed.

Apparently it is not uncommon in Egypt for women’s involvement in protests and marches to end poorly. Last March, there was a failed attempt to have a Women’s Day march. Unfortunately, not many women showed up and the ones that did ended up being harassed or rounded up for random “virginity tests.” Only one of the victims of these horrific acts had come forward and made attempts in pursuing a case against the military. Like most of the women who did not pursue cases after the harassment in last March, the girl who was beaten just a month ago has not come forward and is still only known as the “blue bra girl.”

Although we do not know who this mysterious girl is, the “blue bra girl,” stood for revitalization in the protest. Posing as a new symbol for the continuation of protesting and fighting against oppression, the women of Egypt saw this blue bra as an icon. However, with this new icon came the disapproval of the symbol from many of the men who found that the deep-seated history of patriarchy in Egypt was being threatened. Do you find this image to be empowering as the women of Egypt see it to be?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/22/opinion/coleman-women-egypt-protest/index.html?iref=allsearch