Re: Gilbert's "Type" and the Culture Clash in Media

I found this article online yesterday about Jennifer Lopez’s apparent nip-slip at the Academy Awards when she was presenting with Cameron Diaz.  In Enlightened Sexism, Douglas talks about Janet Jackson’s moment in Superbowl and how the amount of attention and backlash that moment received was incredible.  Like in the Janet Jackson case, this article talks about how the Jennifer Lopez moment was the most viewed moment among Tivo and DVR users live and twelve hours after.  Rather than watching the award for the Best Picture or Best Director, people sat around their televisions in awe of Jennifer Lopez’s nip-slip and even took the time to rewind and replay the moment over and over again.  Douglas questions people’s fascination with these moments, pointing to the fact that they exemplify the idea of sex in the media, centered around the female body.  Douglas also says that moments like these can be considered a culture clash because families at home complain about them, but at the end of the day, you can’t escape sex in the media.

I believe that Laurel Gilbert’s “You’re Not the Type” points to a similar culture clash, despite the fact that a nip-slip and a teen pregnancy are relatively unrelated.  Gilbert discusses her experiences raising a child at the age sixteen and the negative stigmas she received from people in her social circles.  Many of them did not characterize Gilbert as the type to be one of those teen moms.  Gilbert questions what that single teen mom type is on top of the fact that she also identifies herself as a lesbian and a feminist.  In the case of Gilbert, there is a culture clash between establishing your sexual identity at a younger age, as Douglas suggests, and the potential consequences of having that identity at a younger age.  On MTV, there is a whole show called Teen Mom about moms who the people in Gilbert’s social circles would probably characterize as “the type” to get pregnant at such a young age.  Representations of teen moms are very limited in the media, thus limiting and marginalizing moms who do not fit that type but were taught early on about sexuality most likely through the media.  The Janet Jackson and Jennifer Lopez moments were not that scandalous in the scheme of all media, but because they were characterized as “not the type”, the moments were scandalized.  If the same moment happened on the The Jersey Show, however, people probably wouldn’t second guess it, just like on the show Teen Mom.  These kind of contradictions that exist in regards to “the type” and sex in the media further illustrate the culture clash that is taking shape in many forms today. 

Response to Rupp, Rich, and Gilbert

There were several ideas from these readings that piqued my interest.  In the Gilbert piece, I was surprised to learn about the lifestyle of someone who can identify as a lesbian, feminist, single mother.  Although Gilbert looks back with positive feelings and perhaps some wistfulness on her relationship with Kris in high school, she really took her teenage pregnancy into stride, after the initial “thick fog” receded (Listen Up, 81).  She refused to let it slow her down, and she still managed to accomplish everything she wanted to do with her life, or at least that is how she portrays it.  She graduated from high school with a child in tow, got her B.A., and later her Ph.D., which is a very impressive resume for anyone, but especially difficult while caring for a child at the same time.  When you consider the fact that Gilbert never desired to have a child, or even necessarily a male lover, it makes the facts even more impressive.  She most certainly endured and continues to endure many hardships every day, yet she never let it affect her negatively, and kept a strong desire to succeed throughout.  From a lesbian, feminist, single mom, I thought this was a very powerful message.

            The second point from the reading that really was surprising to me came from the Rich article.  The idea of compulsory heterosexuality is certainly present in our society, and it was interesting for me to read an analysis of it and the reasons for it.  To me, it related back strongly to the Johnson article on patriarchy, but Rich also looked at the economic reasons that force heterosexuality.  She also looked at the pattern of women pursuing a connection with other women, regardless of it being platonic or erotic.  I thought this in particular was thought provoking.  Although I don’t know many people who (to my knowledge) have female erotic partners, it is a simulating thought that all women search for other women, on some level or another.  When factoring in the historical approach from the Rupp article, it is certainly reasonable to think about the idea that society has simply become less accepting of these relationships over time, rather than the fact that women’s perceptions and actions have changed.

Response to You're Not the Type

Before I continue with my response to Gilbert's paper, I would like to discuss this  (http://www.bofunk.com/video/10507/little_girls_dance_to_single_ladies.html) link.  I was reminded of this scandal during our class meeting on Monday.  The outfits are provocative, the dance moves radiate sex appeal, and for the most part the dancers and their parents are not upset by their show.  Parents stated that the video was not meant to released to the public and that all moves were appropriate given the caliber and type of dance competition in which they were entered. Blaming the performance on being taken "out of context," most experienced competition parents did not seem to see how inappropriate this hypersexulized performance was, or how typical, given the portrayal of young girls in the media. For those who commented and claimed the routine bordered on a type of child pornography, they were berated by other commenters and called "sick" individuals for making this connection.  The desensitization of this highly provocative and sexualized performance in girls so young is evidence that while in some way, our society represses sexuality, in others it is blatantly displayed and seen as acceptable because feminine, "powerful" girls are being represented. The enlightened sexism movement, promoting positive sexuality, has taken women in the current generation to an extreme, convincing them that it is through sexual control and domination over men that brings liberation; it is by being a sexual object and emphasizing sexuality as one's most prominent characteristic that girls are not portrayed in an affirmative way in media. What needs to be displayed through media outlets are sex positive teachings and a focus on individual independence, separation from male desires, and exploration of one's own sexuality for one's own sake.

Although Gilbert's story takes her through very different times in her life filled with uncertainty, her last pages give the reader the impression that she has come through her struggles as a strong, empowered, confident woman. She not only has never followed the path of least resistance but she has risen from a situation in which little to no educational material or emotional support exists. I would be lying if I said I hadn't though to myself that, after seeing a very young girl pregnant, she now has to settle in life, and can never achieve the goals of which she previously dreamed. But why do I have these views in my head? Gilbert clearly explains that her path was not an easy one, but there is no reason to believe that a child ends all changes of fulfillment, sexually, occupationally, academically, etc. It can be taken away from Gilbert's story that it is vital to provide women with multiple life options and dismiss taboos currently present that encourage frowning upon non-heterosexual, non-domestic, unmarried, sexually active females.

Summary of Rich, Rupp, and Gilbert

Rich: Adrienne Rich writes about  what she calls "compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence," which is also the title of the article. She begins by examining four recently published books that have differing viewpoints but all are considered to be feminist works. One of these books does not address lesbians, one does not address the resistance of lesbianism, another tries to place men and women as equal partners, and the final looks at the role of mothers and their relationships. Rich disagrees with parts of these works, specifically in their handling of lesbians/lesbianism.

            Rich claims that there is an overarching necessity for women to have heterosexual practices. One of the primary reasons is for economic purposes. In the past, and to some degree today, society was set up for men to have all of the economic power, for women to have an enjoyable social standing, they need to be attached to a man. Pornography acts as a means to degrade women, often depicting sex as violent and passively condoning force. She completely disagrees with the notion that “most women are innately heterosexual” and believes it is a “stumbling block for feminism” (26).

            After her discussion on heterosexuality, she dives into what she calls lesbian existence and lesbian continuum. She believes that just the term lesbian does not quite extent enough. She also places lesbians in a different category that homosexual men. Her main reasons for her terms are that there is an exclusion of lesbians in history, many women have a lesbian relationship at some point in her life, but they might not classify it as “lesbian”, and that “lesbian” keeps the erotic and the friendship separate.

Rupp: Leila Rupp writes about the concept of same-sex sexuality. In most cases today, same-sex interactions are placed in a western mind frame. If they are sexual in nature, they are classified as homosexual, even though the ones in the acts do not deem them as such. The culture in which the act originates is ignored. She looks at some current cases as well as from the past. In many of these situations, the sexual act relates to power—because one party has it or to pass on power. She expands sexuality into a large power. The act that is occurring has a lot to deal with dominance, regardless of who it involves.

Gilbert: In “You’re Not the Type,” Laurel Gilbert explores some of the reactions that she has encountered to her having a daughter when she was sixteen. Most people are in disbelief, she just does not appear to be the “type.” By this they mean, she is highly education and has body piercings and has an attitude not associated in young mothers. She grew up in Utah. During her high school years, she had a relationship with a girl named Kris. She did not know at the time what she would classify it as. They had a friendship that was much different from the “normal” high school best friends. They imagined a future together when they were much older. Gilbert had a desire to be closer to her friend, so they both ended up sharing a boyfriend at one time. By both sleeping with the same person, they shared a bond. This is how Gilbert became pregnant. She fought against other’s notions of what she was and who she could become. Through this struggle, she came to terms with that she could be a lesbian/bisexual person, a notion that she did not have when she was a teenager in Utah. 

Summary of Douglas, Walker, and Collins

Douglas continues to take us through the evolution of women as they are portrayed in the media. This time, she focuses on the extreme sexualization of adolescent males and females and the media messages influencing their views of the female body and proper female treatment from a very young ago. The creation of the "sexpert," a young women desiring sexual freedom and equality, eager to enjoy sex to the same degree as men without societal disapproval.  Total sexual equality was far from being achieved, but media outlets realized the popularity of this idea, and set out to pretend it existed.  The message that "it is through sex and sexual display that women really have the power to get what they want" (Douglas, p. 156).  By encouraging women to actively pursue the sex object role, they became convinced that they could satisfy men's desires and still have power over their own choices. At the same time, teen models in Calvin Klein adds and thongs in kid sizes surrounded children in a constant aura of sex. Shows like Toddlers and Tiarias continue to portray very young girls in provocative outfits, showing off their bodies, lengthening their eyelashes, bleaching their teeth, displaying the inappropriate subjugation of them to beauty measures that should not take place until college. Douglas claims that this "pornification" of women's and girls' bodies is a serious setback to the equality goals had by most feminists, often times seen as sex-haters when denouncing the media trends. The sexpert must be wildly physically appealing and sexually skilled but never threaten the power and prominence of a man. The highly sexualized portrayal of women in Maxim need not be taken seriously, because obviously men don't think of women as purely sexual objects anymore; women have succeeded in gaining equality and therefore no longer have to worry about being seen as inferior.  This view was and is so common and allows the objectification of women in media outlets to continue without question.  Television programs have evolved to include more raunchy behavior and random sex, with actual sexual content of shows has increased from 43% to 75% between 1976 and 1995; this type of content has been proven to encourage gender stereotypes, dictate perceptions of at what age to engage in sexual activities, and influence boys' view of girls/women as not much more than sexual partners. Clinton's sex scandal brought oral sex to the forefront of media coverage,  continuing the barrage of sexual imagery and innuendo into family life. Sex and the City provided a refreshingly new take on women, as the four stars related to men in a very detached, simple, pleasure-driven type of way, without desperation. Even forward-thinking shows like this, however, have to appeal to a mass audience and must avoid topic such as politics, books, families, current events, etc.  Douglas also brings up the concept of reclaiming words, as female rappers attempted to reclaim the word "bitch" with little success. These rappers also embraced violence, anger, rivalry, etc., encouraging delinquent behavior in young African American women. There is no opportunity to succeed for this women, who are treated as inferior if they stand idly by and are seen as dangerous criminals if they try to enhance their efficacy. Corresponding with this increase in sex in the media is a decrease in sexual education and an increase in abstinence-only education. Teens are having sex at a younger age, and aren't using contraception; girls are taught to believe their value is in their sexual charms, which is causing depression and anxiety issues.

Rebecca Walker's Lusting for Freedom takes her through her experiences with sex, starting from her first sexual encounter through her exploration of sex, dating multiple men, assuming multiple roles to please her male suitors. She had a range of experiences but was able to explore intimacy, power, freedom and pleasure together. She claims that without the allowance of exploration, we become disconnected from instinct and unhappy living under the rules of another. Because of general societal denial and avoidance of female sexual pleasure, women must resort to getting their information through media outlets, which debase women and their sexual pursuits. Walker claims that young women must have safe spaces to explore their bodies and sexuality, and claim them as their birthrights. Men and women must communicate, experiment, and encourage healing and sensuality.

Collins explains that through the invention of CDs and music videos, all of which can be rented, purchased, or downloaded, African American and Latino musicians can now enter racially segregated homes without notice.  While racial stereotypes or primitive, wild black sexuality are so persistent and pervasive in everyday life, almost to the point of being unnoticeable, Destiny's Child changes the traditional view by preaching ideas of owning one's body, embracing it. Historically, black women and men have been hypersexualized. In order for civilized nation states to maintain a meaningful national identity, they needed an uncivilized group, and African Americans were chosen for this role. Women's sexuality was promoted to a much higher degree, however, as men's sexuality was seen as needing to be controlled. New forms of global distribution of wealth and poverty, with few agents controlling the global economy, has created an additional way to segregate groups based on socio-economic or racial status, compounding on the historical patterns of racism already in place originating with the slave trade. While these new forms of racism rely on the media portraying African Americans as sexual deviants, the African American community has remained quiet on this topic.

The American representation of sexuality is also highly contradictory; in many venues it is closely censored and spoken of in a highly conservative way but at the same time hypersexualization is portrayed everywhere. Alternative sexual practices are seldom discussed or researched, since heterosexuality and sexuality are used as synonyms. "The goal is to neither stimulate debate nor educate, but to sell products" (Collins p. 41).  The African American population is further marginalized as society has often associated the biology of being black with the state of poverty and lower-class. However, more accurately, being described as culturally and socially black, as some white americans may be, can be used to describe the descent to a poor state.

Society continues to be fascinated with black sexuality and gender roles in private, but it is highly taboo to discuss these roles in the public sphere.  They are seen as both bad-influences and as freed individuals who have escaped the sexually repressive culture.

Response to Douglas's "Sex 'R' Us"

Douglas’s chapter Sex “R” Us did a very good job showing the shift in ads, magazines, and other media from fairly wholesome content to the complete permeation of sex and racy ideas into current media.  Several points throughout the chapter stuck out for me, and helped me to see the viewpoint she was coming from.  Unlike several of Douglas’s other chapters, this chapter was far easier for me to agree with in terms of her perspective.  Towards the beginning, she talks about song lyrics, which is something I’ve thought about a little on my own.  Twenty or thirty years ago, no one ever would have considered trying to write songs with the level of vulgarity that many songs today have.  It used to be more appropriate to speak vaguely about certain topics or use euphemisms, but many songwriters and artists these days are far from shy when it comes to writing lyrics.  In some respects, it’s warranted by our culture at this stage, yet I can see why a mother would hate the messages that many songs on the radio send to kids.

            The second part of the chapter that stuck out for me was the section on TV shows that advocate modeling and dressing up toddlers.  While I’ve never watched one of the shows, I’ve seen commercials for them, and always considered them to be somewhat twisted.  At some level, I suppose it’s okay to make a TV show out of the drama behind beauty pageants, but there is no reason for toddlers to be participating.  Girls that young don’t even realize what the show/pageants are doing to them, and it really just comes down to the parents of the kids trying to make money, at the expense of their children’s childhood.  It’s really weird to me that people even want to watch the show, but perhaps it has some strange appeal that I can’t envision.  All the same, I still find it inappropriate and unnecessary.

Response: Douglas and Toddlers & Tiaras

Over the course of this year, I have been told countless time that I must see the show Toddlers & Tiaras.  When I heard about the Little Miss Sunshine-esque premise of the show, I was immediately freaked out by the thought of watching little girls in beauty pageants as I recalled how scary and superficial Olive’s competitors looked in Little Miss Sunshine.  After reading Douglas’ chapter “Sex-R-Us”, I finally decided to check out some clips from the show to see what it was all about. One of the clips I found, which I later read about all the controversy in the news over it, featured one of the three year old stars of the show, Paisley, dressed as Julia Roberts’ prostitute character from Pretty Woman (thanks to her mom’s genius idea!).

As Paisley struts around on stage after being introduced as Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman, the show cuts to commentary from another pageant mom who says that she would never dress her daughter up like that and that instances like this are what give pageant moms a bad reputation for putting their daughters through these beauty pageants.  After this episode aired, people finally began asking if beauty pageants have gone too far.  What’s ironic is that it took a three year old dressed up as a prostitute to get this debate publicly started.  Clearly the show is extremely exploitive and harmful to not only the girls in the pageants, but also girls around the country watching.  Furthermore sexualizing a three year old girl who has no idea what she is representing and then showcasing her to be judged is pretty sick and twisted.  To Douglas’ point, girls are being exposed to sexualization at a much earlier age and the sexualization itself has become more provocative than ever before.  The question of whether or not the show should remain on air is floating around, but at the end of the day, people will still watch this garbage and people will still profit from it.  At a personal level, the only pro-active response I can have to it is to follow a path of least resistance that rejects it and questions fans who are entertained by it and laugh at it. 

Female Sexuality

                The big picture idea that I got from Douglas, Collins, and Walker is that there is a duel nature with female sexuality. The concept of sexuality in general is associated with White heterosexuals, but in this instance, women are the primary target. Women are being told that they are being repressed sexually but if they act in a dominate nature they are criticized.

            Women are repressed because they are just sex objects for men. Their desires are ignored and largely unimportant. They are tools for men’s pleasure. What they should worry about is whether the man is satisfied. The ultimate goal is that their man is pleased and happy. What makes them a real woman is that their partner wants them. This is portrayed in the media by things such as magazines with titles like “the top sex tips that will make him want you tonight.” The role of the female in the sexual relationship becomes more of mechanism for male pleasure rather than an equal partner.

            The alternate is this is that the woman is a sexual powerhouse. This is essentially the opposite of the first situation. Women do not care about the men, but rather focus on what they want. They are seen as taking charge sexually. But the trade-off in this case is their social reputation. They are often called “slut” or “whore”. They are seen as negative. These are people who women do not want to be.

            I think that there are more variations than just sex object and whore. A woman cares about her desires and the man’s in a happy middle ground. I do believe that the middle ground exists. The dichotomy that the writer’s talk about does exist, but I think that it doesn’t have to and there has been progress in the moving away from the two part nature of female sexuality. 

News Flash: Women in Combat

As the elections are fast approaching, the news has been swarming over the “war on women” in regards to women’s bodies and reproductive.  However, there is currently another war on women going on that is literally on the frontlines in combat.  Recently, there has been talk amongst officials in the Pentagon about easing restrictions on women in combat, opening up over 14,000 active-duty and reserve jobs that women have been denied access to.  While this would be a significant gain for women in combat, it does not address the fact that women are still not allowed to be on the front lines of war.  Discussions in the Pentagon began when officials realized that women were more exposed to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq than previous wars.  Women have always had a role in war, but they have primarily been relegated to behind the scene support jobs.  Recognition of women in war is long overdue, but the military is finally coming around.  However, easing restrictions on women in combat does not put them on the front lines where they deserve to be if they so desire.[1]

In March 2003, Iraqi insurgents captured Shoshana Johnson and held her and seven other members of her unit captive for three weeks until the U.S. Marines saved her.  Johnson was involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom when her unit got separated and was ambushed in the city of Nasiriyah.  Johnson became the first black female to be a prisoner of war.  In an article Johnson wrote for The Daily Beast, Johnson shows her feminist colors in the women in combat debate. Johnson notes that there are some who believe the military is right to not let women fight, in which she responds by saying that these people do not know what it means to be a female, and furthermore a female in the military. Johnson explains that the top three arguments of why women should not fight in war have to do with rape, injury, and last, but most insulting in Johnson’s eyes, the notion that women are not able enough to do the job.  In terms of rape, Johnson argues that, “rape is a crime, not a justification” for making the claim that woman should not take part in war.[2]  Rape is not a new phenomenon and it is not specific to war.  On the contrary, thousands of women are raped on a yearly basis and the majority of rape crimes take place outside of the military.  So why then, Johnson asks, should it be discussed at length in the women in combat debate?  Johnson’s biggest suggestion is to educate men until they are aware that rape in an actual crime that cannot be overlooked.  “Instead of suggesting that women refrain from certain jobs, we must make men understand that they have no right to take what has not been given.”[3]

Johnson then moves on to the discussion of women, injury, and death.  Johnson and other female soldiers that she was stationed with were all assigned to support jobs because those are considered to have a lower level of risk.  What the military has yet to realize though is that in unconventional warfare, like what is being fought in today’s wars, everyone is at risk.  Johnson’s ankles were injured before she was taken as a prisoner of war and she saw many other women get injured or die, despite the supposed level of lower risk.  In war, everyone’s lives are at risk, men and women alike.  Moreover, restricting women from combat jobs where injury and death are thought to be more likely is consequently restricting women from top positions that they may be more qualified than men to fill.

Johnson’s last point is in response to those who believe women are not able to do the job.  Johnson puts it quite bluntly by mocking this belief and saying that this shouldn’t even be a question.  From Johnson’s point of view, men and women come in varying shapes, sizes, and strengths.  A man might have stronger biceps, but their legs may not be as strong as a woman’s.  Physical strength is a quality that can be tested so anyone who is not able to do the job will be eliminated, male or female.

A strong advocate for women in combat is Senator Scott Brown, who served a lieutenant colonel and thirty-two year veteran of the Massachusetts National Guard.  Brown makes the case that our country has to recognize the sacrifices women have made in war and allow them to expand their professional opportunities.  Thus, they should be able to serve in front line positions if they so please.  Brown brings up the idea of the “red tape”, which is a reference to excessive bureaucratic regulation that keeps women from fighting on the front lines.  According to Brown, our bureaucratic government needs to break free from the red tape to acknowledge the potential of female combatants alongside their male counterparts.[5]

According to poll conducted at Quinnipiac University, seventy five percent of Americans support women serving in combat.  In addition, GOP candidates have been generally open to the idea as well.  Gingrich weighed in on the debate, making the point that anyone serving the country is at danger given the environment of total warfare, while Santorum had a different opinion on the matter.  During an interview on the Today Show, Santorum expresses his concern about women in combat physically and emotionally.  Santorum wonders, “how men would react to seeing women in harm’s way, or potentially being injured or in a vulnerable position, and not being concerned about accomplishing the mission.”[6]  Santorum’s stance on the matter is rather disconcerting because he is reinforcing the very basis of patriarchy that men feel the need to protect women who are less powerful than them and more vulnerable.  Furthermore, he is implying that women would be a distraction from the actual mission at hand.  Santorum’s remarks clearly did not sit well with female soldiers who felt insulted by his ignorance.  From a feminist perspective, Santorum is associating emotions with women because of the patriarchal and cultural structures in society that have created this stereotype.  Without getting overtly political, there could be some serious set backs for women in combat if Santorum were to be put into office, based his recent remarks.[7]

Johnson’s article is interesting in relation to a variety of hot feminist topics.  It sheds light on Susan Douglas’ “Warrior Women”, “The Ideology of True Womanhood”, and Johnson and Frye’s discussion on patriarchy and societal systems.  Bringing all of these ideas together, it is clear when you read between the lines of the debate that a lot of it has to do with the patriarchal system that keeps women in the private sphere.  In “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, Them, or an Us”, Johnson states:

“To see the world through patriarchal eyes is to believe that women and men are                          profoundly different in their basic natures, that hierarchy is the only alternative to chaos, and that men were made in the image of a masculine God with whom they enjoy a special relationship.”

Johnson discusses warfare in relationship to patriarchy, pointing out that is a common misconception to think that men are naturally aggressive.  In war, it actually becomes quite obvious that this is not the case and that men are, for the most part, following paths of least resistance and acting out of fear.  Nonetheless, the military continues to promote a patriarchal system based on the idea that it is natural for men to go to war.[8]  Going back to (Shoshana) Johnson, there is no doubt that she was a true fighter in war and as a prisoner of war.  Johnson experienced realities of war that most male soldiers never come into contact with.  To deny women the right to fight on the front lines is to say that men and women are not equal in war and that the patriarchal system is in place for a reason.  When the military is revered as a powerful and symbolic institution in our society, such a system needs to be broken in order for women to make gains towards equality.  In Johnson’s defense, it should not even be a question anymore about women fighting on the front lines when they have sacrificed their lives for our country.  The Pentagon did make a significant policy change for women, but it is not enough to really change the system that has become so problematic.  Johnson’s concluding remarks are particularly powerful in response to policy changes and advocating for women in combat:

“What it comes down to is that women have been fighting from the beginning of  time. Who kept farms running and children fed when the men went off to fight  each other? Women were fighting in their own way. From birth, we have fought for our voice to be heard, for our contribution to be acknowledged, to live in a world without fear. Now we fight alongside the men in war. The recent policy change is a step in accomplishing the equality we have long been denied—but it’s not a big enough step. I will not hide my strength. I am not going to the back of the bus.”[4]

Works Cited

Bohon, Dave . "GOP Presidential Candidates Cave in on Women in Combat." The New American. http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10981-gop-presidential-candidates-cave-in-on-women-in-combat (accessed February 24, 2012).

Cloud, David. "Pentagon to ease restrictions on women in combat - latimes.com." Los Angeles Times - California, national and world news - latimes.com. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-pentagon-women-20120209,0,5107352.story (accessed February 24, 2012). (Additional Reference)

Johnson, Shoshana . "Former POW Shoshana Johnson: The Military Is Keeping             Women Down - The Daily Beast." The Daily Beast.             http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/24/former-pow-shoshana-            johnson-is-fed-up-with-the-military-s-stance-on-women-in-combat.html (accessed February 24, 2012).

Johnson.  “Patriarchy, the System: An it, Not a He, a Them, or an Us””

---

[1] Bohon, Dave . "GOP Presidential Candidates Cave in on Women in Combat." The New American. http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10981-gop-presidential-candidates-cave-in-on-women-in-combat (accessed February 24, 2012).

[2] Johnson, “Former POW Shoshana Johnson: The Military Is Keeping Women Down”.

[3] Johnson, Shoshana . "Former POW Shoshana Johnson: The Military Is Keeping Women Down." The Daily Beast. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/24/former-pow-shoshana-johnson-is-fed-up-with-the-military-s-stance-on-women-in-combat.html (accessed February 24, 2012).

[4] Johnson. “Former POW Shoshana Johnson: The Military Is Keeping Women Down”.

[5] Bohon, ‘GOP Presidential Candidates Cave in on Women in Combat.”

[6] Bohon, ‘GOP Presidential Candidates Cave in on Women in Combat.”

[7] Bohon, ‘GOP Presidential Candidates Cave in on Women in Combat.”

[8] Johnson, “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us.”

News Flash: Response to Interview with Santorum

New York Times article: Santorum Faces Questions on Women in the Work Force

Right now, the United States is in a campaign year. For the past few months, citizens have been bombarded with candidates. This will only continue until the November election. Candidates are leaving messages in a wide variety of mediums, everything from radio ads to communication posted on Facebook. A direct method of learning about candidates is by watching or reading interviews with journalists. In comparison to speeches, interviews give a more personal view on the candidate’s beliefs. Rick Santorum is a candidate trying to get the Republican nomination for president. He recently had an interview with George Stephanopoulos in which he clarified some statements he had previously made. Santorum is not a stranger to controversy; his opponents and the general public have scrutinized some of these statements.

Brian Knowlton wrote an article for The New York Times in which he discusses the recent interview between Rick Santorum and George Stephanopoulos^1­_­­. He starts by giving some context to the interview. Just days prior, Santorum had answered questions about his comments about women serving in the military and whether they should be serving in the front lines. This leads to the interview in which he discusses part of his book “that accuses “radical feminists” of undermining families and trying to convince women that they could find fulfillment only in the workplace.” ^1­ To answer Stephanopoulos’ questions, Santorum explained that he didn’t write this part of his book and it was actually written by his wife, Karen, and that it was her opinion. Knowlton includes a direct quote from Santorum’s book to highlight these beliefs: “Sadly the propaganda campaign launched in the 1960s has taken root,” Mr. Santorum, or his wife, wrote in the book. “The radical feminists succeeded in undermining the traditional family and convincing women that professional accomplishments are the key to happiness.”^1­ Santorum claimed to be unfamiliar with the quote. This debate mirrors some of the discussions about his book that surrounded his campaign for re-election in 2006. During the Stephanopoulos interview, Santorum stated that women should be supported with whatever decision they make [in regards to working or being a stay at home mother]. Knowlton jumps back to the earlier discussion of Santorum’s comments regarding women in the military. He had made comments regarding soldiers and emotions. After his original comments, he clarified that he was saying that men would have emotions about seeing women in combat rather than commenting on the emotions of female soldiers. To press Santorum on his comments on feminists, Stephanopoulos asked him where the feminists are. His response was, “It comes from an elite culture, dictated, again, from academia, dictated, again, from the Hollywood culture and the news media, that says, ‘The only thing that’s affirming, the only thing that really counts is what you do at work.’ ”^1­ He also furthered that by saying that it was “wrong” to make these comments and that society should value time spent with children. In this article, Brian Knowlton gave readers the responses of presidential candidate Rick Santorum to some of  questions that stemmed from some of his comments regarding women.

Looking at this article about the Santorum interview, three things stand out: the debate between stay at home mothers versus the working mom, the idea of “radical feminists”, and the issue of women in the military. As far as women’s issues are concerned, these three have been discussed frequently and maintained their presence for some time. By looking closely at how these three things are portrayed, we can gauge the public perception of women and the feminist movement.

First, the first issue that was raised in the interview with Santorum was the debate over working mothers. His book claims that there is a group of people who are trying to tell women that they should be working mothers. It is likely that there is a group of people that are trying to convince women that they should be working outside of the home. However, an actual widespread campaign that advocates women in the workforce instead of at home does not exist today. Up until the mid 20^th century, there were certain jobs designated for men and women, for the women that worked outside of the home. The second wave of the feminist movement targeted getting women the opportunity to obtain occupations that were other than teacher, nurse, or secretary. The feminists at this time wanted women to be able to get out of the kitchen and into an office. As Ariel Levy writes, “The feminists’ conception of the liberated woman shared a common attribute. She no longer had to toil in the kitchen, benevolent for her brood; she was reconceived as her own, independent person. She was freed from domesticity.” ² Admittedly, it appears that these two things are in opposition to one another. However, the feminist movement was about giving the option of careers and not telling women that they should abandon the home. These two standpoints are now seen in opposition to one another, but in reality, they both are from a similar background. Both want women to make the best choice for themselves and their families. The issue of Karen Santorum feeling that women were looking down on her decision is a hard one to know the full situation. In the current economy, many women who would prefer to stay at home simply cannot due to the lack of financial support. The disapproval she felt may have stemmed from jealousy that she was able to have that option. The stay at home mothers and the working moms should not be in opposition to each other but should instead be happy with that they are doing what they can for their families.

Next issue that arises from Rick Santorum’s comments is the idea of “radical feminists.” For this case, Santorum does not give a personal definition to what he believes radical feminism is exactly who radical feminists are. As quoted earlier, Santorum does give his belief on where the message is coming from: “elite culture”, “academia” “Hollywood culture,” and “the news media.” ^1­ Again, elite culture is a vague idea without a concrete example to go by. The other three places are common sources to which many attribute our current societal views stem from. In recent years, feminism has gotten a bad reputation. Women who consider themselves feminist are often deemed radical, man hating, or lesbian. There are feminists who are those things. However, the vast majority of feminists would fall into a different category that is much more moderate. Radical feminism should be looked at through semantics. Radicals are commonly associated to be something negative: out of the mainstream and just out to cause trouble. They are ruffling feathers for the sake of making noise. Associating the word radical with the word feminist gives the impression that they are one in the same. The feminists are all radicals. They are out of the mainstream and they are trying to disrupt the system. Well, this is partially true. If the system consistently is oppressing women, then the feminist movement, by in large, is against it. Feminists are not aiming to destroy the family as some like to believe. The movement is about equality and how that equality can create a stronger society. Santorum’s statements about radical feminists are simply a tactic to make them appear as something different from him. They become people who are in conflict with him rather than people who he can work with in his hopes for presidency.

The last section in Santorum’s interview was about women in the military. He was resistant to the idea of increasing the number of women in combat roles. Previously, he said that it “could be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved.” ^1­_­­ At first, it seems as though Santorum is playing off the old stereotype that women are emotional. However, after that first response, he clarified and said that he was referring to the emotions of men. He believed that they would become emotional if they were to see a woman get in danger. ^1­_­­ This may be true. Men might become upset at the idea of seeing a woman becoming injured. The only problem with this argument is that women are also upset at the idea of men being injured. Also, soldiers regularly form bonds when they are serving and become an extended family. They certainly are upset when one of them becomes injured. To say that men would be the emotional ones if a woman is injured is ridiculous. There is just as likely of a chance that all members of a troop, male or female, would be upset if one of their members gets hurt. In the recent months, there have been new developments for female soldiers, including new opportunities to serve on submarines. This expansion of military roles for women could become a much wider discussion on the treatment of women. For example, it could reinvigorate the draft discussion: should women be drafted as well as men? Santorum’s opinion on women in the military will become very important if he becomes Commander in Chief.

These three issues may not appear to be as important in a campaign as national security or economic policy. They are important because the opinion of the President of the United States helps to gauge the viewpoint of the country. How the country views feminism and topics involving women help dictate how women are treated and how much work needs to be done in order for men and women to be treated as equals. 

1. Knowlton, B. "Santorum Faces Questions on Women in the Work Force." The New York Times, February 12, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/us/politics/santorum-faces-questions-on-women-in-work-force.html?_r=2&ref=politics 

2. Levy, A. Female Chauvinist Pigs. N.p.: Free Press, 2005.

News Flash: Santorum and Patriarchy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MLIZCuSlL8E

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/14/opinion/coontz-santorum/index.html

           

            As a republican candidate for president, Rick Santorum is almost required to possess certain beliefs about family roles and women’s rights to even be considered a legitimate party leader.  His views on federal funding of contraception, gay marriage, gay rights, and abortion rights all limit the reproductive rights and empowerment of women. Recently, he has been under attack from the left and women’s groups for statements he has made regarding limiting female involvement in society. As a first offense, he recently expressed his concerns with women’s participation on the front-lines of war.  Initially, his issue with it seemed to revolve around the emotional capacity of women to handle such pressure; his statements led one to believe that some sort of emotional distraction during front-line combat could sacrifice the mission, without referencing to whom he was referring. He later clarified, after much political uproar, by stating that it is the emotions of men he is concerned about and their socially ingrained desire to help those who are vulnerable, particularly women. He fears that physical strength and capability limitations would put men at greater risk as their focus will switch from the target to the helpless female; additionally, her lack of physical strength to be able to rescue an injured male from the front-lines is also problematic. 

            It also came to light recently that in his book, It Takes a Family, he took aim at radical feminists for “undermining the traditional family and convincing women that professional accomplishments are the key to happiness.”[1]  His justification for this statement is that 1) his wife wrote it and 2) academia and Hollywood are to blame for the encouragement of these feminists, who seek to convince men and women that success at work is the only thing that matters.  Rick Santorum’s incorrectly believes that his disapproval of female roles on the front-lines as well as his disapproval of feminist-aims to undermine familial relations are justified and equitable when, in actuality, they represent patriarchal, anti-female perceptions of women.

            Based on his dismissal of the widespread idea that he had intended on targeting female emotions as the object of his criticism, Rick Santorum seems to believe that he is not male-centered in any way.  He justifies his statements and placates the public by refuting their presumptions and explaining that it is males’ emotions that are to blame for potential disruption of mission goals. By explaining that he is merely concerned with the ingrained desires of men regarding women, he is an active participant in the perpetuation of the patriarchal society in which we unmistakably live.

            Johnson’s description of patriarch includes “the standards of feminine beauty and masculine toughness, images of female vulnerability and masculine protectiveness.” [2] Santorum claims that his fears come from the safety of the mission, but is it not also highly plausible that he is being governed by the idea that the socially accepted norms are “anger, rage, and toughness in men but not in women, and of caring, tenderness, and vulnerability in women but not in men?”[2]  Are his beliefs not also influenced by his fear of men losing the ability to “power over—control events…or one’s self in spite of resistance?”[2] If soldiers, our symbols of strength, honor, and perseverance, cannot preserve their power and resist temptation, they become vulnerable and weak, and lose their credibility and manliness.

            Experimentation on the cohesion of gender-mixed combat groups is inconclusive; simulations are often pre-maturely dismissed because of male soldiers’ claims that the events are too unrealistic.[3] Santorum’s other claim about female strength and ability is unclear; it is true that many women do not have the same physical strength as men, but that is not enough to conclude that all women should be barred from the front-lines and prohibited from utilizing their own unique strengths, as long as weaker men are not forbidden from the front-line as well. His original statement and his clarification of those comments are not as different as he may believe; they both address female vulnerability and male dominance, the only difference being in the latter he does not address women’s deficiencies directly. 

            He is very direct with his criticism of women in his book, where he attacks radical feminists, operating under the widespread assumption that they are extremist, elitist, family-haters. In Susan Douglas’ book, Enlightened Sexism, her chapter called Castration Anxiety discussed the anxiety increase at a societal level because of the actions of Fisher and Lorena, two women who broke the traditional mold of male domination and raised awareness about domestic violence. They raised concerns among mostly the male population about maintaining hierarchies and controlling feminists who were assuming male roles and removing themselves from males’ powerful grasps.[4]  The radical feminists Santorum discusses hide somewhere in entertainment industries, academia, and threaten the traditional women’s role of domestic caretaker rather than corporate participant. He is under the assumption that these feminists have radical views on women’s rights, rather than understanding that feminists simply desire gender equality and a decrease in emphasis on male-domination. They do not declaring that the only chance for fulfillment is through employment and that families diminish a woman’s chance for happiness.  They instead want women to have equal access to employment opportunities, which in most cases can be very mentally fulfilling, and not operate under the societal pressure to be the leader of domestic life. Santorum addresses them as family-haters because the population feels very threatened when the narrow view of family life and traditional order is disrupted. The very powerful historic organization of marriage and families--using a bi-gendered system, a requirement of only one member per sex, and a goal of reproduction--is a societal construct and works in conjunction with patriarchy to repress women and transgender, homosexual, bisexual, infertile individuals, etc.

            Santorum attempted to placate the disapproving public by claiming that he did not write that chapter in his book and it was, in fact, his wife wrote those aggressive words.  This brings up many additional concerns about his feelings on women in intellectual roles and his opinion of how society will be most easily appeased.  If his wife did write that chapter, she is not acknowledged at all as an author or contributor. Given that Santorum is using this excuse to justify the opinions in the book, he clearly thinks that a situation in which his wife was not acknowledged for her work is acceptable and almost natural; the public accepted this excuse and moved on. There should be nothing amiss, in a patriarchal society, about a woman contributing but only the man reaping the rewards. Without outwardly and obviously oppressing women, Santorum, and society as a whole, is not grasping that “there are people who are caged, whose motion and mobility are restricted, whose lives are shaped and reduce.”[5] There was no general objection to his excuse because “to live in a patriarchal culture is to learn what’s expected of men and women—to learn the rules that regulate punishment and reward based on how individuals behave and appear.”[2]  As a wife, it is her socially-established duty to support her husband, improve her husband’s book, and thus speak through her husband.

            An alternative view of this issue is that, in our political system, we only find it to be acceptable for candidates to criticize those in the equal or superior role.  For Santorum to speak negatively about women is to allow him to dismiss the oppression that women have faced for many years and treat the two groups as equally fair-game for judgment. Attributing the origin of those claims to his wife rather than himself is considered acceptable because she clearly is seen as possessing a lesser role than him, at the same level of power as other women, making her attack legitimate. This censorship not only inhibits honest and open debate, it is evidence of society’s perception of women as lesser than men. The exemption of women from derision by male political figures is not a positive development as some might believe, but is instead an attempt to protect the vulnerability, meekness of group of individuals needing to be protected.

            Rick Santorum has comforted the masses and assured the country that he is a worthy candidate for president, a family man, and a supporter of women’s rights—for goodness sake, he even believes they should be allowed to fly small planes! He, however, unsurprisingly perpetuates a male-centered and dominated perception of societal norms. His words and actions are constantly inhibiting the constitutional freedom of women. His love of “family” is actually a love of the status-quo, female docility, and a restriction of the reproductive rights of women. His success in this political race is scary, to say the least, but unfortunately is not surprising, given our ingrained beliefs.  His fellow politicians perpetuate the same stereotypes, and it will only be through active awareness, rejection of this system, women embracing their differences and forging a strong, powerful bond for advocating change, that we can hope for an improvement.

[1]  Coontz, Stephanie.. “Santorum’s stone-age view of women.” CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/14/opinion/coontz-santorum/index.html

[2] Johnson, Allan. The Gender Knot. Temple University Press, 2005.

[3] Henley, John. “Women on the Frontline: The right to fight.” The Guardian. 2010. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/23/women-in-armed-forces

[4] Douglas, Susan. Enlightened Sexism. Times Books, 2010.

[5] Frye, Marilyn. The Politics of Reality. Crossing Press, 1983.

News Flash: Yeardley Love, George Huguely, and Patriarchy

ABC Article: Jury: UVA Killer George Huguely Should Get 26 Years in Jail

Yesterday, a jury handed down a conviction sentence of second-degree murder to George Huguely for the murder of Yeardley Love after nine hours of deliberation.  The death was and is a serious tragedy for all of college sports, but particularly for the University of Virginia and its lacrosse programs.  One of the really unfortunate things about the murder is the effect on lacrosse nationally, as it is now starting to have a certain stigma associated with it, particularly after this and the Duke men’s lacrosse scandal, even though it ended up being false charges.  However, the effect on lacrosse is only one part of the story.  Particularly interesting is the thought that these cases never would have occurred or been alleged if more of society were educated about how our society is based on a patriarchy and the events that result from it.  Education systems in the United States need to teach the fundamentals of patriarchy and the unintended consequences that result from it in everyday life.

            George Huguely grew up outside of Washington, DC, and spent his high school years as a prominent sports star at Landon, a prep school well known in the area for its sports.  He excelled at lacrosse and was the quarterback of the football team, likely instilling a feeling of being at the top of his high school socially.  From Landon, Huguely was accepted at the University of Virginia and was a member of the lacrosse team.  Playing lacrosse at UVA is a big deal in the world of NCAA athletics, as they are fairly well known as one of the top schools to play for in college, if not the number one school, due to its recent success. It is likely that Huguely felt as though he was doing exceedingly well in his life so far, which is a fairly accurate statement.  As much as I would not like for it to be true, these feelings certainly may have contributed to his reckless lifestyle choices when it came to drinking and a lack of accountability down the road.

            Yeardley Love grew up in a similar setting, in Baltimore, Maryland.  She, too, was an athletic star, playing both field hockey and lacrosse in high school before being admitted to the University of Virginia.  At UVA, she also was a part of the varsity lacrosse team.    She and Huguely dated for a time, yet both ended up cheating on the other at different times, which resulted in a bumpy relationship.  Huguely had a history with alcohol, with two alcohol related arrests.  During one of the mishaps, Huguely resisted arrest and officers were forced to taser him to control him.  How much of this was known at the time by Love and his friends is unknown, but in hindsight, it is clear that there were underlying problems that would prove to be problematic.  Huguely himself knew alcohol had become a problem; in a letter to Love, he wrote that, “Alcohol is ruining my life…I’m scared to think that I can get drunk to the point where I cannot control how I act” [1].

            On May 3, 2010, Huguely reportedly went over to see Love to talk to her, yet the evidence does not point to any kind of civil conversation.  The conversation got heated, and Huguely admits to shaking Love some, but not to punching or doing anything severe enough to kill her.  However, the next morning, Huguely was charged with the murder of Love, after police found her dead the previous night.  Coroners confirmed the cause of death was blunt force trauma. 

            The whole affair is extremely depressing, and it’s even worse that it should have been avoided. It’s a perfect example of something that just never should have happened for a host of reasons.  Friends of the couple recognized that the two had serious fights and surely would have noticed Huguely’s alcohol problems at least to some extent. If only others had taken the initiative and stepped in, a life could have been saved.  However, the entire fault does not lie with Huguely and his friends.  The incident unfortunately also relates to the assumed patriarchy present in society.

            In his article on patriarchy, Johnson pushes the idea that patriarchy is a system that we all live in and interact with, often without thinking about the consequences.  Although individuals in the system may not intend to be oppressive towards women, the simple fact is that the system itself is oppressive to women, netting the same result.  Johnson carefully looks at the idea patriarchy through individuals’ acts versus patriarchy as a system.  In the above example with George Huguely, it is easy for opponents to say that his acts are his own, and that they are not caused by anything other than his own personal experiences and even by his alcohol issues.  While it may be easier to accept an argument along these lines, it is unfortunately not true.  As a part of modern society’s patriarchy, Huguely was certainly influenced by many of the ideas commonly found in patriarchy, such as gender oppression and assumed power structures.  According to Johnson, “Above all, patriarchal culture is about the core value of control and domination in almost every area of human existence” [2].  Evidence of this can likely be found throughout Huguely’s life, from the TV commercials he watched growing to the feeling of domination he felt on the lacrosse field.  When things in his relationship with Love did not go as intended, those who push the important of patriarchies would suggest that he wanted to feel the same level of control that he did in the other areas of his life.  For him, that meant confronting the problem head on, which resulted in the death of his ex girlfriend.  While the prosecution originally pushed for first-degree murder, which means that it was willful and premeditated, the jury felt otherwise and reduced it to second degree murder, which simply means that it was intentional but not planned or premeditated.  In my personal opinion, it should have been reduced one step further, to voluntary manslaughter, which also incorporates the idea of “heat of passion,” or that something emotional occurred that caused the individual to react more violently.  In my opinion, Huguely was trying to push a high level of control on his relationship, which meant that he handled Love in a physical manner that is unacceptable.  Unfortunately, the degree of control he wished to have is entirely not his fault; some of it rests with the patriarchal society we live in today.

            Johnson looks into the issue of what our society can do to help solve the problem of gender violence.  Noting that the vast majority of violence against women is male sourced, and that this takes place in a male dominated society, he looks into possible solutions.  When asked by a state committee what his suggested solution would be, he recommended that they become “the first governmental body in the United States to acknowledge openly that men’s violence against women is widespread, that we live in a patriarchal society, and that we need to devote serious resources to studying how those two are connected” [2].  While this solution is likely a bit radical at this point, it probably is the correct method to address the problem head on.  However, if that option is dismissed as overly aggressive, what is the correct solution?

            Most people will point to the fact that murders like this one are an individual problem, and refuse to connect it to the bigger picture of the social patriarchy present in our society.  However, if governmental agencies will not come out and make a public statement about it, another solution should be considered.  In my opinion, the education system needs to incorporate some basic teaching about patriarchies and what they mean in our society.  If children are educated at a relatively early age that our social structure has a large impact on events, commercials, and influences as they grow up, it will stay in the back of their mind and help to raise awareness.  While it will not make a huge impact initially, over time it will and it will cause conversations that will further raise awareness among other students and perhaps even with their parents.  Over time, the issue will become closer to the public spotlight and help to make it a topic of discussion at a national level.

            The death of Yeardley Love was a tragedy that will stick in the minds of college students at the University of Virginia and other college campuses for years to come.  The blame for the fault mostly lies with George Huguely, who will certainly regret his actions for the rest of his life.  However, the important takeaway message from this that our culture needs to recognize the serious side effects of having a society based on a patriarchy.  Proper education about the characteristics and effects of patriarchies will help to mitigate these issues, and hopefully lower the level of violence against women.  Only though education can our society be a better and safer place in the future.

Sources

[1] Andreadis, Cleopatra, Christina Ng. “Jury: UVA Killer George Huguely Should Get 26 Years in Jail.” ABC News (2012): http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-huguely-guilty-degree-murder-grand-larceny/story?id=15765239

[2] Johnson, Allan G., The Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 2005.