"You play ball like a girl!"

Structural forces are the meta-monsters of societies.  These seemingly inanimate networks of social and political laws, moral values, and institutionalized practices (such as chivalry) are the jaws of an all-consuming beast that stifles the actions and opinions of all individuals bred into its clutches.   Children in Kindergarten, Sunday school, Girl or Boy Scout camp, Sports practices, Dance practices, are going to be constantly exposed to the norms and acceptable behaviors to practice in order to “fit in”, or avoid punitive consequences.  These are institutional milieu’s that are vehicles for social conditioning.  We teach little boys to act this way and little girls to behave another way.  The verb choice illustrates a distinction between allowing boys to act out or be active, where as good little girls behave by the rules and behave our manners, generally, we just behave ourselves.  It is as though females are made to suppress the rowdy feelings of aggression and excitement at the sight of an open playground or neighborhood baseball field, while boys are taught to misbehave, so as not to end up a ‘sissy boy’.  In the baseball film, Sandlot, one of turning points of the film is when Scott Smalls (who goes by ‘Smalls’) is told by his mother to “Run around, scrape your knees, get dirty, climb trees, hop fences. Get into trouble for crying out loud”. This is one of the many examples of how gender roles are enforced though a familial institution; but even more so, this message is mass-produced for the world to consume and imitate. 

Regardless of whether one agrees with this claim or not, we must acknowledge the power in using the educational, extracurricular, and familial institutions as tools for indoctrinating new ideas and values in all future generations. When Pluto was struck from history books around the world as a planet in our Solar System, it didn’t take long for children to begin correcting adults, ensuring them that Pluto is no longer a planet—“read it in my textbook”, one might say.  Textbooks.  Also a dominant form of institutionalized education, spread to the masses of our young impressionable minds and bodies that make up our national and global communities.  Textbooks contain all the formally indoctrinated knowledge regarding the sex/gender system that was written by a specific group of people, with a limited and distinct content of “facts”, and are the sources of a vast majority of our fundamental and tacit knowledge.  But as we all know, just because the system works a certain way, does not mean it has to work that way.  Assuming this is a legitimate statement, can we not recognize the system for what it is and actively work against its reifying forces?

Judith Butler suggests that, “Gender is what is put on, invariably, under constraint, daily and incessantly, with anxiety and pleasure, but if this continuous act is mistaken for a natural or linguistic given, power is relinquished to expand the cultural field bodily through subversive performances of various kinds” (2008:107).  I interpret this to be the most accurate description of what goes on play-by-play to produce gender as a ‘natural’ phenomenon.  During our daily activities, from birth, we are exposed to emotional and physical stimulants that make us cry, laugh, smile, cower, scream, and get angry.  These same environmental factors primarily exist within the previously described educational and extracurricular institutions, as well as the familial institution.  Through interpersonal interactions, individuals are conditioned by incessant praise or punishment that shapes masses of individuals each day.  This phenomenological experience is mistaken for a ‘natural’ phenomenon, rather than one that is, both biological and socially shaped.  But by accepting our behaviors as purely natural, and by reproducing our discourse that reifies this belief, then as Butler exclaims, we are all contributing to a self-propelling system that constrains our horizons of expressions and possibilities.  We mustn’t be compliant with the repetition of our “subversive performances” anymore. Shan’t we broaden our choices, our language, our conceptualizations of ‘what gender is’ and ‘how is it constituted’, in our everyday conscious and self-reflected decisions? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Boys Have a Penis and Girls Have a Vagina!"

In class on Tuesday, Dr. J asked us to reevaluate the claim that gender is solely a social construct. We made a list on the board of things we thought were actual biological differences between male and female and another list of gender differences between man and woman. The task was to decide if any of the gender differences listed corresponded to any of the biological differences we decided existed. While we were doing this exercise we decided that the glaring biological difference between male and female are our parts. No one will contest that we cannot socially construct a penis or a vagina. I am sure that we all think our own biological sex is very real. Even as children, an aspect of identifying as on gender or the other comes through understanding the parts that one was born with. This makes me think of the scene from the classic film, Kindergarten Cop, when the little girl proudly stands up and exclaims, “Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina!!” The question then becomes is this the only difference that exists?

In class we also agreed that things such as strength might be another biological difference that exists. I was a competitive swimmer my whole life and I can tell you that the boys can swim faster than the girls. However, it was hard for me to accept the fact that many of the other differences I see between myself and a man are simply socially constructed. In her essay Judith Butler claims that she “will try to show some ways in which reified and naturalized conceptions of gender might be understood as constituted, and hence, capable of being constituted differently (98)”. Which conceptions of my gender then remain naturalized and which ones are constructions?

An essential aspect of my own identity as a woman in tied into my ability to have children. I know that this is an extremely personal part of ones identity and I do not discredit any woman who does not have or want to have children, but the fact still remains that women are the ones who have the ability to make babies. My mind keeps going back to this during all of our discussions concerning naturalized versus constructed differences in gender. It is important to me as a woman that I have this reproductive ability and I believe that it is one of those biological differences that crosses over the line on the board to the side of gender differences. I do not fully understand the biology of all the hormones we have in our bodies, but I do know that there are reproductive hormones in women that men do not have. I do not mean to imply that men cannot be nurturing or that women are slaves to their crazy baby hormones. However, this significant difference does exist and I think that it needs to be considered when examining the constructions of our gender norms.

Privilege

McIntosh’s article about privilege, specifically white privilege and male privilege, caused me to think about other types of privilege in our society. There are many privileges enjoyed by all groups of people that are never really acknowledged. In this piece, I will only talk about middle class privilege and heterosexual privilege though I acknowledge that many other privileged groups exist.

Middle class privilege will be defined as benefits enjoyed by members of middle class society that those who are not in this class, specifically lower class individuals, do not enjoy. Though this list will surely not encompass all of the privileges, it will hopeful serve to show that privilege is not only limited to a particular race or sex.

• When at the grocery store, I can make choices based on other characteristics such as nutritional value, not just cost.
  • I can afford to send my children to schools that I consider the best because I can afford to pay for them.
  • If my child is struggling in a class, I can afford to provide a tutor for him or her.
  • If I or anyone in my family is sick, I can go to the doctor and pay for the medications that are prescribed.
  • If I or anyone in my family is sick, I can afford to miss work.
  • I can afford to take my family on vacations.
  • I can afford to live in neighborhoods where I feel safe.
  • I can afford a safe and reliable mode of transportation.

Heterosexual privilege can be defined as privilege enjoyed by members of society who engage in romantic relationships with members of the opposite sex. This list is only a fraction of the privileges enjoyed by heterosexual individuals.

• I can hold hands with my significant other in public or show other forms of PDA without fear of what those around me will say or do.
  • I can bring my significant other to meet my family without worrying about if they will accept the relationship due to his/her gender.
  • I can expect to learn about other people with my family structure in class.
  • If I want to be married anywhere in the United States, I have that option.
  • I do not have to be told that my form of sexual expression is a sin.
  • My significant other can make medical decisions for me if necessary.
  

These lists serve to show that viewing oppression from a privilege standpoint can be enlightening for the privileged group. However, what does the privilege framework do for those who are not privileged? Should unprivileged individuals merely hope that the privileged group will out of the goodness of their hearts give up those privileges? While it is possible that some privileged individuals will elect to abandon those privileges, many will choose not to do this. Therefore, while it is important to enlighten people about the privileges they enjoy, it most certainly cannot be the only method of tackling oppression.

Where does it stop?

Sticking with the trend set by Colin and Manali, I also want to call into question issues of oppression in the music business. Manali wrote about misogynistic lyrics in “certain genres” of music. Now, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the rap and hip hop genres, in particular, tend to produce more songs that contain lyrics that are possibly offensive to women. I don’t profess to be any kind of expert on rap and hip hop; admittedly, I know very little about those genres. However, as an American consumer, I have been exposed to them and feel as though I can cite examples of sexism in those genres without assuming too much.

Let me invoke the example of hip hop’s golden couple, Jay-Z and Beyonce. A few years ago Jay-Z put out a song called “99 Problems.” While the song itself is actually about issues of racism, the most-repeated line is “I got 99 problems but a bitch ain’t one.” The message of the song itself is not sexist, but this line is unquestionably offensive. What woman is actually ok with a man referring to all women as “bitches”?

Well, clearly Beyonce is. Beyonce, who the public views as a strong, confident woman. Beyonce who has put out songs with (arguably) a positive message for women, such as “Irreplaceable,” “Single Ladies,” and, with Destiny’s Child, “Independent Woman.”

Jay-Z is definitely not the most misogynistic rapper, or musical artist, or man, out there. Far from it. But isn’t it just a little counter-intuitive for a woman—who has a mostly positive image and is considered by many a role model—to be with a man who refers so publicly to all of her gender as “bitch”? Why do any of us women love the men who, to different degrees, represent and embody the oppressive, patriarchal society?

I think Judith Butler gives us a possible answer to this enigma in her essay “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory.” On page 105 she says this:

“Performing [one’s gender] well provides the reassurance that there is an essentialism of gender identity after all. That this reassurance is so easily displaced by anxiety, that culture so readily punishes or marginalizes those who fail to perform the illusion of gender essentialism should be sign enough that on some level there is social knowledge that the truth or falsity of gender is only socially compelled and in no sense ontologically necessitated.”

The gist of this, as I understand it, is that we recognize, on some level, the influence of society on the roles that we play, and we know that people are not born hardwired to think or act a certain way. We recognize the influence of “nurture” on our “nature.”

This relates all the way back to the second day of class and the debate over door-opening. If I truly believed that a man opened the door for me because he felt I was weak, I would protest; yet, it is much more likely that he opens the door for me because he has been taught that men should open the door for women—not because we are physically incapable, but because it’s respectful. He’s just performing what he’s been taught to do, what society expects him to do. Others who observe a man not opening a door for a woman might think him rude or disrespectful; thus the social punishment for not fulfilling his role. Maybe in the same way Beyonce recognizes that Jay-Z, by calling women “bitches,” is not denouncing our sex as the equivalent of a dog (as that word implies), but fulfilling a cultural imperative to put out a certain image.

Door-opening out of respect is relatively harmless. What about men who have been socialized to believe that women actually are physically and mentally inferior, even worse those who are taught to act accordingly? Is referring to all of womanhood as “bitch” in order to conform to a cultural stereotype crossing the line? At some point we have to take a stand and stop rewarding unacceptable behavior while explaining it away as the fulfillment of a socially constructed role.

Feminist Lyrics

In “The Introduction to the Second Sex”, Simone de Beauvoir states, “ …she- a free and autonomous being like all human creatures- nevertheless finds herself living in a world where men compel her to assume the status of the other. They propose to stabilize her as object….”

After reading this quote, I began thinking about the music industry’s influence on the role of sexism in today‘s society. Women always talk about overcoming oppression and changing the face of the current sexist society; however, I think we subconsciously contribute to our own oppression especially through listening to certain types of music lyrics. I personally listen to certain genres of music simply because for the beats in that song but I never actually listen to the lyrics. When I do focus on the song‘s content, I realize how objectifying the lyrics are toward women, but women still listen to them.

The music industry is still growing today regardless of the lyrics that are created in songs. I wonder how to go about avoiding this problem which is one of the contributors to the sexism. So I am not sure how women can counteract this problem while enjoying music that explicitly objectifies females. Some would respond by saying that men need to change the lyrics they create to make them less demeaning. However, the other side of the problem is that sometimes these objectifying lyrics are sung by women themselves which other women listen to as well. Women write lyrics that stereotype the image of a female in society today. I still listen to the lyrics and contribute to the marketing of such music. Consequently, women are endorsing the image that is presented through these lyrics.

While I agree that we need to recognize men’s role in society, women are the ones who need to take initiative to eliminate their own oppression. I want to make it clear that I am not trying to entirely blame men for the overall oppression of women. It is more the result of women’s own actions that causes sexism in society today ; as Beauvoir says,” If woman seems to be the inessential which never becomes the essential, it is because she herself fails to bring about this change.”

Therefore, are women contributing to their oppression through listening to lyrics that objectify women and by encouraging male and female artists to continue creating such lyrics? Also, can a significant change be seen in the type of lyrics that are created without losing the essence of certain genres of music?

My Feminist Christmas

I had a very unusual Christmas Eve last year. Most families in the neighborhood were spending quality time together or were busy wrapping last-minute presents, but not my family. No, the Antaya family was engrossed in a tense feminist debate starting around six o’clock in the evening, when my aunt boldly declared, “it’s all men’s fault!”, until about nine o’clock, when I could be found apologizing to the four women in my house, my dad having taken the opportunity to escape long before. The debate was heated and rather circular, but a topic came up that I find relevant to our current discussion: namely gender as a self-generating cycle.

My aunt’s accusatory, and I would argue rather unfair, statement was made while she was flipping through the channels and came upon Mariah Carey performing in an outfit (if you can even call it that) which was quite revealing. Surprised and a bit offended, I asked my aunt to explain what she meant by that sweeping generalization. She told me that Mariah only dressed that way because the male dominated society made it so that she could not be a pop star if she dressed otherwise. In response, I pointed out, as most men would, that the vast majority of people in the audience were women, as were most of the consumers who bought her albums. In a business that often attracts fans more through visual displays than through original or quality music, it seemed to me that Mariah must have had her female fans in mind when she choose her outfit. Indeed, I asked, there are millions upon millions of women who aspire to “Hollywood” bodies and praise those who have achieved them, so how can this ideal be blamed entirely on men?

At the time, that seemed like full-proof reasoning. After reading Butler’s argument for gender as a self-perpetuating form of psychological oppression, however, I have come to realize that there really is no clear-cut answer to my aunt’s challenge. I think that my aunt’s claim was an oversimplification of a complex issue, but so was my response. I was right to argue that women do play a part in the continuation of the “Hollywood” body ideal, but I was wrong to not see that this perpetuation exists because our society tells each young woman that the body she is born with is less “feminine”, indeed less natural, than the airbrushed one she sees in magazines. When you believe, as our society continually indoctrinates, that having the gender “woman” is a natural classification and that a body like most female pop stars have is the most feminine, how can you avoid feeling that your body is somehow unnatural?

Combating Oppression

On NPR’s This American Life, the show featured stories pertaining to the idea of long shots or people overcoming the presumed impossible. The first story was about a man, John Smith, that received parole after 30 years in prison for murder only to be denied in the final stages by the governor. Devastated, he continued to try against all odds to attain parole again. He had done everything right while in jail and was the perfect candidate to be released, yet he was literally captivated behind bars. The idea of a man kept behind bars despite his impeccable record and also under the impression he would never be released seemed to parallel our discussion on Frye’s “Oppression” essay. While in class, I sat there wondering if there was even a possibility that despite all odds the ways of our society would change. We have a book over 800 pages long full of essays creating awareness of the sexist system we live in, yet men and women both seem under aware of the changes psychologically, politically, and economically that need to take place. It almost seemed discouraging, because despite all these women’s work there is still no formula or correct way to solve this sexist system that we deem normal in our society.

The prisoner on the show and our discussion of the individual trying to overcome the system of oppression we live in seem to have similarities. While in jail, the prisoner did everything right to keep a perfect record. When women see themselves as individuals fighting against the system, we try to do everything “right.” We open the door for ourselves as a way to try to raise awareness. We pay for our own meals. We work our way to the top of the company. We fight against all odds, yet the bars of our society are still there. Our individual work does not represent the issue as a whole, because every time I act I act as a student, a daughter, a friend etc, just as the John Smith does not act as himself but rather as a prisoner, a killer, an unforgivable person. We can fight against the presumed characteristics of oppression, but the bars are still there.

It seems to me that there is a long shot that the system will change soon. Of course there will be subtle changes, but a drastic change needs to take place in both men and women as well as the society we live in. It seems a little overwhelming, but there is a chance that with women opposing oppression, they can overturn the system. John Smith fought against all odds and in the end his case was approved and he received his freedom. The story made me start thinking to what extreme would it take for the system to be overturned and how would we achieve this? It may be done little by little over time as we have seen, but is there a quicker way to change our sexist system?