Monday, September 28, 2009

Week 5: Chapter 5: Barbie vs. the Menstrual Kit (p. 167-201)

Summary:

The focus of this article was the “girls’ movement” within feminism that focused on younger girls and the issues that they faced. The authors discuss a work titled: In a Different Voice by Carol Gilligan. Gilligan’s writing is a celebration of diverse experiences and “called for the appreciation of women’s voices, their different values and views” (p. 173). Approximately ten years later Gilligan started another work titled Making Connections. In this book she gave girls a voice by examining girls at a private school ranging from ages eleven to sixteen (previously a group that was not researched). Gilligan’s conclusion in both of these books was that women had to find their own voice and form strong relationships with other women starting from an early age.

Next, Baumgardner and Richards discuss another important figure in the girls’ movement, Nell Merlino. Merlino came up with the idea for “Take Our Daughters to Work Day” that was presented in the beginning of the chapter. This program was created to give girls a chance to see different kinds of working environments, especially if their own mother was not able to take them to work (for example, stay at home moms or women on welfare). The program was very successful and by 1999, fifty-six million adults and nineteen million girls had participated in the program. However, due to its immense success, not every program could be properly regulated. One issue within the girls’ movement is the portrayal of girls. The authors state that “The problem is not that we can’t simultaneously acknowledge girls’ strength and sexism; it is that girls are being labeled victims of society and, by implication, passive dupes whether or not they themselves feel this way” (p. 185). They also state that for future programs to be successful “We need to listen to girls instead of lecturing them” (p. 185).

Baumgardner and Richards discuss Barbie near the end of the chapter. They
begin by introducing the fact that “The literature of the girls’ movement might not be saying ‘you’re not thin enough or pretty enough,’ but it is saying ‘you’re not strong enough or confident enough’” (p. 191). Basically, girls are concerned with appearances and they should not be made to feel guilty for this reason. The title of the chapter comes from this section because the authors discuss “the menstrual kit” or the “first-blood ceremony.” This is supposed to be an empowering event, but it does not consider the girl’s point of view. They also provided an anecdote proving that the younger girls celebrating the ceremony often felt uncomfortable about it. This leads to the discussion of Barbie. Barbie has generally been viewed as very negative within the feminist movement. However, Baumgardner and Richards argue that girls do not always feel that they want to become Barbie, but often use the dolls to act out different scenarios and it really is not as negative an influence as everyone thinks. The authors do not dismiss Mattel though, and state that they have a responsibility to not give negative representations of women.

The concluding remarks of this chapter suggest that in order to improve girls’ self-esteem, and ultimately the women that they become, there needs to be a focus now on the younger generation. This needs to be accomplished by giving girls voice and the ability to make decisions.


Response:

I really enjoyed this chapter and I think that girls should be given voice within the feminist movement. This really was a difficult time of my life and I can only imagine how much it would have helped to have someone there to work through issues with me, especially if it was a group composed of my peers. I feel like adolescence can be a very isolating time and that by giving girls a support system it would ultimately help them to grow up and become well adjusted adults. I really feel like it would be best to stamp out self esteem issues immediately and give them the opportunity to really grow while they are still young. I think that this time period is also important when you consider identity. Overall, I thought the projects and programs presented in this chapter should be implemented on a larger scale.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Week 4: Monique Wittig: One is Not Born a Woman (p. 265-271) and Elsa Barkley Brown: “What has Happened Here”(p. 272-287)

Monique Wittig: One is Not Born a Woman (p. 265-271)

Summary:

Simone de Beauvoir said: “One is not born, but becomes a woman” (p. 265). Wittig states that there is no “natural woman” and that the idea of being feminine is created by society. She also notes that since a lesbian society does exist, this defeats the idea of “natural woman.” However, Wittig recognizes that many people still believe the oppression of women is “biological as well as historical” (p. 266). Wittig explains further that this could never be a lesbian approach to women’s oppression because it is based on the idea that the beginning of society is heterosexuality. Also, biology (or the capability of having children) is not enough to define Woman. Wittig also discusses the idea that sex is like race in the sense that it is visible and therefore seems to belong to some kind of natural order. This leads to the lesbian perspective that this perception of Woman is very “unnatural” because it was created and based before the women’s liberation movement. Wittig states: “To refuse to be a woman, however, does not mean that one has to become a man” (p. 267). Meaning, that refusing to “be a woman” is simply just refusing to accept imposed ideas of femininity. She also clarifies: “Thus a lesbian has to be something else, a not-woman, a not-man, a product of society, not a product of nature, for there is no nature is society” (p. 267). It is not enough to simply promote women (“woman is wonderful” concept); it is the idea of being a man or a woman “which are political categories and not natural givens” (p. 267) that needs to be rejected.

A materialist feminist approach sees women and men as separate classes. Therefore, the goal is “to suppress men as a class, not through a genocidal, but a political struggle” (p. 267). This means that if there was no longer a class called “men,” there would no longer be a class called “women.” The first step would be to dispel the myth of Woman. Wittig states that “‘woman’ is there to confuse us, to hide the reality ‘women’” (p. 268). She believes that the new focus would be on personal identity.

Wittig also presents a Marxist perspective. She states that Marxism lead to two results for women: the order of men and women was assumed to be natural and the conflict between men and women was hidden behind a “natural division of labor” (p. 270). Also, if women united it would threaten the strength of the people in a Marxist society.

Wittig concludes by calling attention again to the rejection of the myth of Woman. She believes that the categories of sex must be destroyed and that all sciences that use these definitions should also be rejected. She again comes back to the model of lesbianism; she states that this is the only category that goes beyond woman and man currently. So, in order to reject this myth of Woman we must destroy “heterosexuality as a social system which is based on the oppression of women by men and which produces the doctrine of the difference between the sexes to justify this oppression” (p. 271).



Response:


I thought this article was really clear in explaining the categories of sex. It seems to me that the categories presented by Wittig are Man, Woman, and Lesbian. However, Man and Woman are based on supposedly “natural” categories and need to be destroyed in order to eliminate this myth of Woman. I had never thought of lesbianism as a category comparable to the Man/Woman model, but it really makes sense. It rejects both categories of Man and Woman to create a new sexless category. I also really feel that by emulating this new category, it would destroy the Man/Woman model. Although, this is all theoretical, I think that if the heterosexual society model could be destroyed and a sexless system was created, then it would be much easier to stop the oppression to women.




Elsa Barkley Brown: “What has Happened Here” The Politics of Difference in Women’s History and Feminist Politics (p. 272-287)


Summary:


Brown introduces this article with the idea of diversity of women’s experiences and history. She suggests that others see highlighting differences within the women’s movement as counterproductive. However, she suggests that the underlying thinking behind women’s history and politics needs to be restructured to incorporate and celebrate diversity. Next, Brown discusses the problem of history by comparing it to jazz music. She states that jazz relies on improvisation and responding quickly to the music created by others in the group. In this way, everyone gets to play, but works together to create something unique. History should be looked at the same way because it is not a series of isolated events experienced by one person at a time. Instead, many people are experiencing the same event at the same time, but in potentially different ways. Brown also suggests that simply tying all women together with the word “gender” is equally limiting because all women do not share the exact same experience. She continues her explanation stating that acknowledging difference is not enough, we must also understand the “relational nature of those differences” (p. 275). She provides an example of women of color being exploited by multinational corporations who export jobs, which leads to higher unemployment for women of minorities and a growth in employment available to mostly white middle-class women. This split leads to different experiences amongst women. Brown also recognizes that most historians acknowledge differences and then ignore them, however, she states: “The effect of this is that acknowledging difference becomes a way of reinforcing the notion that the experiences of white middle-class women are the norm; all others become deviant—different from” (p. 276). Basically, by thinking this way, it is furthering the oppression of women because it assumes that the white woman is the standard. Brown continues: “We have still to recognize that all women do not have the same gender” (p. 276). She also explains that in women’s history being different means non-white and non-heterosexual, thus underlining the fact that this is the norm in our society and everything else is deviant or different. Also, this gives white heterosexual women privilege in the recording of women’s history.

Next, Brown discusses the case of Anita Hill in 1991. Hill was sexually harassed and became a “universal symbol, evidence of the common bonds of womanhood” (p. 278). However, her race was never addressed; her experience was simply reduced to the experience of a woman. Brown argues that in order to understand her experience, we must consider it from her perspective of not only being a woman, but also being “a young black woman, the daughter of Oklahoma farmers, whose family and community expected her to do well” (p. 278). Simply looking at her case from a woman’s perspective is not enough; it does not convey the uniqueness of her experience or represent the different pressures that she faced. Also, the stereotypes of African American women were not addressed or the fact that Hill was speaking against an African American man and potentially upsetting the entire African American community. Brown acknowledges that telling Hill’s story from these different angles would be very complicated, but could have “created a much broader base of understanding and support for issues of sexual harassment” (p. 280). She returns to the idea of chaos in her conclusion stating that people fear “layering multiple and asymmetrical stories will only result in chaos with no women’s history or women’s story to tell” (p. 281). Brown wants us to think past these ideas in order to gain a better understanding of women’s identity that is not explicitly based on gender, but on different experiences.


Response:

I was initially surprised to think that women’s differences were not celebrated within the women’s movement. However, Brown’s logic made it clear that they are not, or that if they are they are only recognized and thus create further walls between what is considered normal and deviant. The case of Anita Hill was interesting in the sense that hypothetically the case could have been treated differently if all of Hill’s identity markers were considered. It could have also potentially opened up the issue of sexual harassment even further. I also really liked Brown’s conclusion that we should be open to change the way we look at women’s history, so that each unique experience can be included. Some people see celebrating differences as detrimental to the women’s movement, but in reality looking at women as normal (white/heterosexual) and deviant (everything else) are much more damaging and limiting.

Monday, September 14, 2009

Week 3: Gayle Rubin: The Traffic in Women Notes on the “Political Economy” of Sex (p. 27-62)

Summary:

The purpose of this text is to clarify the definition of the sex/gender system. Rubin hopes to define this term by looking at the problem of women’s oppression from a different angle. Meaning, she looks to Freud and Lévi-Strauss for foundations of oppression. She also uses them to define different structures. The sex/gender system is defined in the beginning as occurring when a particular culture turns biological sex into “products of human activity” (p. 28).

Rubin begins her analysis with Marx; however, she states that Marx cannot truly explain women’s oppression because he does not address sex. Basically, Rubin explains Marx by saying that women’s domain became the home because capitalism is an institution inherited by men and women were not given the chance to lead or be in positions of authority.

Next, Rubin analyzes Engels’ The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State because he “sees sex oppression as the part of capitalism’s heritage from prior social forms” and “integrates sex and sexuality into his theory of society” (p. 31). Rubin explains that the desires of sexuality and procreation must be fulfilled and that they are not usually satisfied in a natural way. Also, in terms of procreation, every society has a sex/gender system, but the system is changed based on the differing cultures. Rubin clarifies that the sex/gender system is also known as “mode of reproduction” and “patriarchy.” However, the sex/gender system is different because it is a neutral expression that “indicates that oppression is not inevitable…but is the product of the specific social relations which organize it” (p. 33).

Rubin continues her analysis by employing Engel’s method (but not the results) to analyze kinship. She defines kinship as “a system of categories and statuses which often contradict actual genetic relationships” (p. 34). She also notes that kinship varies greatly among cultures. In Mauss’ Essay on the Gift he explains gift giving as an important social interaction. Lévi-Strauss explains further that marriage is a basic form of gift giving, as women are the most precious gift and that the incest taboo is put into place to ensure marriages outside of the family occur and thus the “gifts” that come along with it. Moreover, women cannot truly benefit from this exchange because men are the “giver” and women are the “gift.” So, it is really only an exchange among men and women “do not have full rights to themselves” (p. 39). Rubin argues that this exchange of women was the foundation of each society and it became part of the structure. In terms of kinship, Rubin states: “At the most general level, the social organization of sex rests upon gender, obligatory heterosexuality, and the constraint of female sexuality” (p. 40). On the other hand, she also explains that homosexuality can be established through kinship.

Rubin subsequently examines psychoanalysis and the Freudian perspective. Her goal here is to provide evidence that the psychoanalytic unconscious exists. She explains the “Electra” complex, which is basically the opposite of the Oedipus complex for girls. Moreover, Freud represents femininity as a “consequence of the anatomical differences between the sexes” (p. 44). Meaning that women learn to be passive and feel inferior because of penis envy. Also, the two genders were created to limit the sexual rights of women. Returning to the idea of kinship, it is seen as the learning of sexuality in society where the individual is taught to “play” their biological sex. The idea of the phallus is suggested to be the recognition of the domination of men over women. Finally, Rubin explains that “the oppression of women is deep” and that Lévi-Strauss and Freud serve to outline the structure of women’s oppression (p. 51).

Rubin argues that the sex/gender system is still organized by the theories of Lévi-Strauss and that “in short, feminism must call for a revolution in kinship” (p. 52). She also presents a potential solution to this problem:

“Cultural evolution provides us with the opportunity to seize control of the means of sexuality, reproduction, and socialization, and to make conscious decisions to liberate human sexual life from the archaic relationships which deform it. Ultimately, a thoroughgoing feminist revolution would liberate more than women. It would liberate forms of sexual expression, and it would liberate human personality from the straightjacket of gender” (p. 52).

Overall, she states that the purpose of her essay was to build a theory of women’s oppression by utilizing ideas from anthropology and psychoanalysis. She also hopes to change the sex/gender system through political action.
She concludes this piece by briefly discussing “The Political Economy of Sex” and the ways that the sex/gender system has been historically integrated into society. Again, she highlights the link between marriage and “economic and political arrangements” (p. 56). This also returns to the idea of women as the “gift” in an exchange between men.

Critique/Response:

I found this text to be particularly dense in presenting and relating a lot of different concepts. However, I found the anthropological perspective on the gift giver and the gift to be really interesting. I thought it was the perfect way to explain the idea of marriage. I also liked that it was outlined as another way that women don’t have control of their own bodies. This text really helped me understand how the oppression of women is built into the foundation of all cultures. Although the theories presented were very complex and presented quickly, I felt like the outline of this paper helped frame theory and history for me.

Monday, September 7, 2009

Week 2: Part 3 Introduction (p. 472-477); Guineas and Locks: Virginia Woolf (1882-1941) (p. 622-626); Virginia Woolf: A Room of One’s Own (p. 627-652)

Part 3 Introduction (p. 472-477)


Summary:


The readings from this section of the book are going to shift from moral crusaders to radicals and reformers. There will also be a larger perspective on feminism and class issues. For instance, there will be urban, cosmopolitan, and industrial focuses. These women will also raise questions about social institutions imposing on personal liberties. Another difference in these writings is that they are no longer involved in the church and theology. Finally, there is a shift to focusing on the rights of working class women.

Florence Kelly is given as an example of a feminist that wrote about developing industry and its impact on women and children. She was very concerned for the “human element” (p. 474). Her specialty was legislative reform instead of “political organizer and pamphleteer” (p. 475). She also translated the first English edition of Friedrich Engels’ The Condition of the Working Class in England.

Part three of The Feminist Papers is divided into two perspectives. The first is the radical perspective that critiques the links of marriage and property. This perspective includes the following women: August Bebel, Emma Goldman, and Suzanne La Follette. The second perspective is the reform perspective, which was focused on amelioration and sociologist principles. Texts have been chosen from the following women: Charlotte Gilman, Margaret Sanger, and Jane Addams.


Response/Critique


I am excited to talk about these readings in class this week. Although, they are not completely contemporary I feel that I will be more easily able to relate to the subject matters. Particularly, today I think that the socialist ideology is becoming more important in the U.S. I also believe that women could benefit greatly from a more socialistic perspective in the government. Having just lived in Europe, the improvement in quality of life for everyone is evident. This would just be one more way to level the playing field between men and women. For example, women’s health issues are much more expansive under France’s socialistic government. Also, France is a much more liberal country and I feel that the women have greatly improved rights because of it. The examples that come immediately to mind are child care and the right to an abortion covered by the government health care policy. Women do not have to choose between having a child and a career. The government pays for day care starting at age 2 or 3 and also provides the family a stipend to take care of child expenses. Also, if a woman chooses an abortion, it is not only affordable, but the French use different methods that make the process less traumatic for the woman. Overall, I think that single motherhood would be much more tolerable and comfortable for the mother and child in France.


Guineas and Locks: Virginia Woolf (1882-1941) (p. 622-626)/Virginia Woolf: A Room of One’s Own (p. 627-652)


Summary:


Virginia Woolf published A Room of One’s Own in 1929 after reworking an article entitled “Women and Fiction.” Woolf’s focus was less on political causes and more on her writing. She discussed the difficulties women faced in working creatively: “One was that a young woman must conceal the fact that she ‘had a mind of her own, so that no man should be shocked or offended,’ and the second that there are many things a woman may not freely say about what she physically feels or she will arouse severe masculine disapproval” (p. 622). In Three Guineas she also discussed the social roles of middle-class women, the education of women, professions of women, and women in a war economy (very contemporary).

A Room of One’s Own was written in a very conversational style that allowed Woolf to communicate with and engage the reader. It is very effective because you feel as if you are hearing her voice. She also includes observations about the social roles of men and women. For instance, she provides examples of ridicule and contempt men show towards women and the humiliations that women face in daily interactions. Overall, she argues that women need money (economic independence) and a room of her own (a space to allow contemplation and self reflection).

This excerpt includes texts from chapters two, three, and six of A Room of One’s Own. In chapter two Woolf poses questions directly to the reader and raises important questions. She begins: “Have you any notion how many books are written about women in the course of one year? Have you any notion how many are written by men? Are you aware that you are, perhaps, the most discussed animal in the universe?” (p. 627). She continues to provide examples of how writing represents patriarchy. For example, she discusses the opinions and stories within newspapers. It seems that men control everything, except for the weather in the local news. She continues her explanation that woman’s only purpose seems to be to bolster men’s confidence. Finally, she discusses the importance of money for women. If women are not dependent on men for money, they are freer to express themselves creatively. She argues: “I need not hate any man; he cannot hurt me. I need not flatter any man; he has nothing to give me” (p. 634). Money can represent liberation for women.

In chapter three, Woolf discusses the elevated status of women in fiction versus history or reality. She provides examples, such as, “Clytemnestra, Antigone, Cleopatra, Lady Macbeth, Phèdre, Cressida, Rosalind, Desdemona, and the Duchess of Malfi” (p. 637). She argues that women are viewed here as strong or independent, but historically women did not have the rights that would allow them to make history or even be included in history. At the end of this chapter she discusses the importance for a woman to have her own space or a “room of one’s own.” She also explains that it would be very difficult for most women to attain, but if it were possible, economic freedom and a personal space would better allow woman to thrive creatively and personally.

Finally, in chapter six, Woolf talks about women poets that have lived and died without ever having the chance to become poets. She attests: “She lives in you and in me, and in many other women who are not here to-night, for they are washing up the dishes and putting the children to bed. But she lives; for great poets do not die; they are continuing presences; they need only the opportunity to walk among us in the flesh” (p. 652). She is arguing that with economic freedom and a private space, women could become the great poets, but at this time, it wasn’t always possible to have this luxury.


Response/Critique:


I really enjoyed the last quote from chapter six of A Room of One’s Own. It reminded me of a quote I found last week by Elizabeth and Emily Blackwell. They stated: “For what is done or learned by one class of women becomes, by virtue of their common womanhood, the property of all women” (p. 355). This idea of the woman poet that lives on and the woman doctor that makes way for other women doctors, makes me see how the theme of connectedness and womanhood runs through these articles. The Blackwell sisters and Woolf are urging women to become a part of something larger and lasting.

I also liked the way Woolf explained the status of women in society. Since she did have the two things she thought all women should have (money and personal space) she was able to speak authoritatively on the subject. She presented both types of women, she knew what is was like to not have these things and how her life was greatly improved after obtaining them. Her style also made the reading flow. I felt like she was really talking to me and I think that’s what is great about women writers. You can really feel like a part of the text. Again, I think this contributes to the idea of common womanhood and “the property of all women.” I feel implicated in the writing, and as a result, I feel like I am also contributing to this idea of our property.