I agree with Kimmel and Messner's view on gender, race, and class. People, in general, only identify with the cultural factors which cause them oppression. White, middle-class males are the 'norm' of society and, therefore, do not experience cultural oppression. I liked the story about the black woman, the white woman, and the white man looking into the mirror. The white woman looks into the mirror and sees a woman. The black woman looks into the mirror and sees a black woman. The white man looks into the mirror and sees a human being. Both the white woman and the white man are blind to the features that avoid them oppression, because these features are the 'norm' to them.
Personally, I do not look at my race as a significant part of my identity. My gender, however, is very significant. The only time I truly identified with my race was in Ecuador. I felt angry, because I was given privileged treatment over others due to my race. In Ecuador, white is the 'ideal,' but it is not the 'norm.' It was definitely good for me to be put in a situation where my race had different significance, even though I sometimes felt guilt for the cultural repercussions of the 'white ideal' in Ecuador. The mestizo (half white, half indigenous- the majority of the Ecuadorian population) people often have identity issues, because they are neither white nor indigenous. They do not know how to classify themselves. They strive to be white, and they do not want to be indigenous, yet they are both. It is not uncommon to hear about couples breaking up, because she wasn't white enough for him, etc. Between the racial prejudice in Ecuador and me being the 'ideal' racial minority, I began to see my race as significant. Upon returning to the States, I re-adapted to the culture and no longer see my race as significant. I look into the mirror, and I see a woman. While I was in Ecuador, I looked into the mirror, and I saw a white woman.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Gendered Ads and Food
For my analysis paper, I wrote about the new Mitchum deodorant advertisement campaign. I think these ads are degrading to both sexes. Although, when I showed them to my boyfriend (Justin), he did not appear as offended as me. He thought some of them were funny. Of course, I got on a rant about gender stereotypes and how women are not sex objects, etc. After a little thought, Justin decided that some of the ads were definitely offensive (or maybe he was just trying to stop my rant...?). When I see ads like the Mitchum ads, my thoughts immediately go towards the underlying messages. Justin (like many people) enjoys ads based on their face value without evaluating the underlying social content. I think if more people took the time to analyze ads, they might make different consumer choices. For example, due to Dove's positive advertising of the female body, I try to stick to their brand when buying hygiene products.
After discussing Mitchum (and ensuring that Justin was not buying their deodorant), our conversation transferred to food. Did you ever notice that the salad line in Muddy is about 90% female? Society seems to dictate that women should be thin, and therefore, eat salad. Men, on the other hand, should eat meat. Right after Justin and I talked about this stereotype, a commercial came on TV with a man eating a hamburger (ironic, right?). Another example of the idea of gendered food occurs in the movie "Shallow Hal." When Hal's girlfriend orders a lot of food at McDonalds, Hal mentions that he likes a girl who eats more than just a salad. The gendered food stereotype is something I never picked up on before talking with Justin. I am going to pay more attention to it and see what I notice.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
You're a hardcore feminist. I swear.
I loved the article "You're a hardcore feminist. I swear.," because I felt it addressed many issues and stereotypes that people associate with feminism. I call myself a feminist. Yet, my father seems to think that the 'typical' feminist hates men and is a lesbian. This stereotype has led to many interesting dinner conversations...no dad, I have not made the political decision to become a lesbian... I have met some feminist lesbians (one in particular who is a lesbian out of political choice), but I feel there are lots of non-lesbian feminists in this world, too...like me. As a feminist, I do not consider myself a man-hater. I support male rights. For example, I see male circumcision as a crime against men. I will be the first one to stand up and defend men when it comes to circumcision. My other favorite stereotype that I get when I tell people I am minoring in Women's Studies is "haha, dyke studies..." Yep, that's a good one. I've learned to shrug off the stereotypes, because I love working with and learning about women and gender too much to let stereotypes get in my way. In fact, now when I tell peers that I want to be a gynecologist, I usually just look at them and say "Yep, I want to look at vaginas all day." Somehow blatantly mentioning the word vagina wipes the awkward look off of their faces.
I don't feel like I am an 'exception' to the feminist stereotype, because I feel the stereotypes are false. I am a typical woman who wants rights for humanity and equality for women, and therefore, I am a typical feminist. I like how Valenti described the feminist T-shirt in the article which states "This is what feminism looks like." The shirt tries to emphasize that feminists are normal people. Good stuff... Personally, I am not bothered by stereotypes, but I can see how many women would be. I like how Valenti tries to normalize feminism. Hopefully, her efforts will work and more women will identify as feminists.
I don't feel like I am an 'exception' to the feminist stereotype, because I feel the stereotypes are false. I am a typical woman who wants rights for humanity and equality for women, and therefore, I am a typical feminist. I like how Valenti described the feminist T-shirt in the article which states "This is what feminism looks like." The shirt tries to emphasize that feminists are normal people. Good stuff... Personally, I am not bothered by stereotypes, but I can see how many women would be. I like how Valenti tries to normalize feminism. Hopefully, her efforts will work and more women will identify as feminists.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Chris Barker: Gender, Race, Culture
In his article, Chris Barker makes an interesting observation about gender, culture, and race. "...what it means to be a woman, a child, Asian or elderly is formed differently in different cultural contexts...It matters whether we are black or white, male or female, African or American, rich or poor, because of the differential cultural resources to which we will have had access."
When I was in Ecuador, I experienced a difference of 'treatment' within the culture, because of my race and gender. I am a white female. In Ecuador, everybody in my apartment complex spoke to me in the formal tense. However, the janitor at our apartment complex, Javier, was black. All the people in the apartment complex addressed Javier informally, even though he spoke to them formally. At first, I did not take this language differentiation seriously, but then I realized that the language difference had racist roots. After coming to this revelation, the difference in language choice between Javier and me became infuriating. Whenever I saw Javier, I made a point to speak to him formally. Whether this helped or not, I am uncertain, but I like to think that I helped a little in combating the racism Javier faced daily. Javier was one of the kindest people I know, and he was always in the best of spirits. Perhaps, he did not find the discrimination bothersome, or perhaps he was just used to it. In Ecuador, being black makes you a lower part of society with less cultural resources. Maybe it is not like this in parts of Africa, where the culture is predominately black...
As a female in Ecuador, I experienced discrimination. Walking down the street to the bus stop every morning meant putting up with whistling from men on the streets and with honking car horns from men driving by. Being white, I was an especially good target for men to whistle at, as I looked foreign, and I was assumed to have money. If you ask an Ecuadorian men why they always whistle at women, they will tell you that it is a compliment, because you are pretty. To me, it was degrading. It made me feel like property. I do not see myself as property (whether attractive or unattractive- that's irrelevant), and I do not see my vagina as a reason for people to whistle at me and try to make me feel like coveted property.
Ecuador was an amazing, dynamic culture. It is a developing country, so many of the issues (such as racism and sexism) are more visible and blatant to the eye. Living in Ecuador allowed me to better observe similar issues in our country. I am sure that many of the girls in our class have been whistled at in America and have taken offense to it. I am also sure that others in the class have observed differences in treatment in America due to race. As Chris Barker says, your gender, race, and class are important, because they can increase or limit the cultural resources/respect that a person gets. I believe that this is true of every culture in the world, not just of the U.S. and Ecuador.
When I was in Ecuador, I experienced a difference of 'treatment' within the culture, because of my race and gender. I am a white female. In Ecuador, everybody in my apartment complex spoke to me in the formal tense. However, the janitor at our apartment complex, Javier, was black. All the people in the apartment complex addressed Javier informally, even though he spoke to them formally. At first, I did not take this language differentiation seriously, but then I realized that the language difference had racist roots. After coming to this revelation, the difference in language choice between Javier and me became infuriating. Whenever I saw Javier, I made a point to speak to him formally. Whether this helped or not, I am uncertain, but I like to think that I helped a little in combating the racism Javier faced daily. Javier was one of the kindest people I know, and he was always in the best of spirits. Perhaps, he did not find the discrimination bothersome, or perhaps he was just used to it. In Ecuador, being black makes you a lower part of society with less cultural resources. Maybe it is not like this in parts of Africa, where the culture is predominately black...
As a female in Ecuador, I experienced discrimination. Walking down the street to the bus stop every morning meant putting up with whistling from men on the streets and with honking car horns from men driving by. Being white, I was an especially good target for men to whistle at, as I looked foreign, and I was assumed to have money. If you ask an Ecuadorian men why they always whistle at women, they will tell you that it is a compliment, because you are pretty. To me, it was degrading. It made me feel like property. I do not see myself as property (whether attractive or unattractive- that's irrelevant), and I do not see my vagina as a reason for people to whistle at me and try to make me feel like coveted property.
Ecuador was an amazing, dynamic culture. It is a developing country, so many of the issues (such as racism and sexism) are more visible and blatant to the eye. Living in Ecuador allowed me to better observe similar issues in our country. I am sure that many of the girls in our class have been whistled at in America and have taken offense to it. I am also sure that others in the class have observed differences in treatment in America due to race. As Chris Barker says, your gender, race, and class are important, because they can increase or limit the cultural resources/respect that a person gets. I believe that this is true of every culture in the world, not just of the U.S. and Ecuador.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Gender and Race: the 'ideal'
The reading by Nakano-Glenn was very interesting to me. Colored men are taken as the universal racial subject, while white women are taken as the universal subject of gender. The author then points out how colored women are left out of both categories, making them "invisible both as racial and as gendered subjects." I found it interesting that white men are also left out of the 2 categories. However, unlike colored women, white men are not considered "invisible".
When Nakano-Glenn introduces the issue of class, she discusses Asian immigration. In America, middle and upper class Asian immigrants, who are educated and wealthy, are naturally 'whitened', while lower class, non-educated, Asian immigrants are naturally 'blackened.' It is as if society automatically believes that white people are richer and more educated than black people. In my opinion, it is these stereotypes which allow white men to be left out of gender and race discussions, while not becoming invisible. It is as if the white male status is assumed to be 'ideal.' But is it?
Last May, I met a man from South Africa. He explained to me that on a job application in post-apartheid South Africa, a person is required to put their gender and race. Black women get the most points, followed by black men, indigenous women, indigenous men, white women, and finally white men. Therefore, it is much easier for a black woman to get a job than a white man. The question in my mind was: is that job policy ethical? Assuming that white men have the 'ideal status' in society, this policy could be ethical to make the job search more fair. However, what is the 'ideal status' and what makes it ideal? Are white men 'ideal' because they supposedly face the least discrimination or are their other factors? Should the people who are born into this 'ideal' status genetically (by being male and white) be given fewer points on job applications to make up for a culture's natural discrimination against women and people of color, even though they have no control over their race and sex? Does anybody really know who experiences more discrimination, a man of color versus a white woman? Is this South African policy taking the issue of race and gender too far or does it really help to create equality?
After reading the article by Nakano-Glenn, I immediately thought of South Africa and the racial, gendered, job policy. The South African society has attempted to turn the 'ideal' upside-down to make the "invisible' more visible. Is this good or bad?
When Nakano-Glenn introduces the issue of class, she discusses Asian immigration. In America, middle and upper class Asian immigrants, who are educated and wealthy, are naturally 'whitened', while lower class, non-educated, Asian immigrants are naturally 'blackened.' It is as if society automatically believes that white people are richer and more educated than black people. In my opinion, it is these stereotypes which allow white men to be left out of gender and race discussions, while not becoming invisible. It is as if the white male status is assumed to be 'ideal.' But is it?
Last May, I met a man from South Africa. He explained to me that on a job application in post-apartheid South Africa, a person is required to put their gender and race. Black women get the most points, followed by black men, indigenous women, indigenous men, white women, and finally white men. Therefore, it is much easier for a black woman to get a job than a white man. The question in my mind was: is that job policy ethical? Assuming that white men have the 'ideal status' in society, this policy could be ethical to make the job search more fair. However, what is the 'ideal status' and what makes it ideal? Are white men 'ideal' because they supposedly face the least discrimination or are their other factors? Should the people who are born into this 'ideal' status genetically (by being male and white) be given fewer points on job applications to make up for a culture's natural discrimination against women and people of color, even though they have no control over their race and sex? Does anybody really know who experiences more discrimination, a man of color versus a white woman? Is this South African policy taking the issue of race and gender too far or does it really help to create equality?
After reading the article by Nakano-Glenn, I immediately thought of South Africa and the racial, gendered, job policy. The South African society has attempted to turn the 'ideal' upside-down to make the "invisible' more visible. Is this good or bad?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)