Women in the Military: Just because they have cups to pee in doesn't mean there is gender equality

The article by Steven Myers “Living and Fighting Alongside Men, and Fitting in” presented the challenges that women face as mostly logistical and biological. His definition of “fitting in” seemed to be very literal, for example when he cites the fact that now there are women’s bathrooms and showers, alongside the men’s, and that there are gynecological treatment facilities, complete with an ultrasound machine. While this article acknowledges that sexual assault and harassment are issues, it mentions right after that the solution to these issues is precautions like advising women to travel in pairs, instead of addressing the root causes or advising something like addressing the men, who are the perpetrators of the assault.

The article then focuses on the complex issue of peeing. Women, biologically handicapped in their inability to discretely pee outside, have wondrously transcended gender differences by peeing in bottles. Triumph! After extensively discussing bladder relief, it is mentioned that while common, sex has “not generally proved disruptive”. When women become pregnant, that problem is easily solved by flying them home. Even though Patricia Bradford said that women are viewed “derisively” and she deflects this by being a “bitch”, the article generalizes that “women in today’s military say they do not feel the same pressure to prove themselves. They preserve their femininity without making much of it”. (Myers 5) While I’m sure this is valid for some women, I can’t imagine that this holds true for the majority of women in the military.

The author of this article seems to think that the problems that women face can be solved by female bathrooms and strange devices to help women pee like men. The problem is a patriarchal military system which results in women having to act like men in order to get respect. They are still being treated less than equals and sexually assaulted and harassed, as Myers describes in the article “A Peril in War Zones: Sexual Abuse by Fellow G.I.’s”.

Neither article addresses the issue of the military’s “Don’t ask don’t tell” policy, which has huge impacts on LGBT women (and of course men). LGBT women in the military face an extraordinary amount of discrimination and mistreatment which the article fails to mention. It does address that men are less likely to come forward and report assault because they are afraid of the repercussions if they are thought to be gay.

Separate bathrooms and pee devices are the least of the problems. The biological differences between men and women can and will be compensated for. Women are capable and should be involved more in the military, as it would benefit everyone. (Including improving the rights of women on the other side of the battle. For example, since male soldiers are not allowed to pat down Iraqi women, they often force the woman’s husband to pat her down while the soldiers watch. This humiliating procedure could be avoided if more women were in combat.) The U.S. military is completely capable of making infrastructural compensation for women, the question is how to address the deeply rooted patriarchal system deeply embedded in the military social structure.

Response to Emma's Post, 3/30 (Had to do a new post because it got too long)

I think Emma’s last point, “that it is crucial to be educated about the portrait of an average rapist, and to dispel many of the myths about rape” is of incredible importance. I was going to write this blog post about the merits of taking individual action to both fight against rape and deconstruct the raunch culture, but now I’m not sure how I feel about it. To a certain extent, I want to say that rape is an unfortunate reality of our society and while it should be fought on a macro-level, the individual should do everything they can to fight against it, but I realized as an individual, I don’t do that in my own life.

As Emilie Morgan described in her heartbreaking story, rape and sexual assault are part of our society. While sexual assault is a horrific crime that hopefully will be reduced in the future as it is more addressed, it is currently an unfortunate reality of our world that both women and men are not always safe. Women especially face attacks on all fronts, by strangers, friends, and even loved ones. The flaws in our society need to be addressed on a macro level but as individuals, there are actions that we can take to prevent rape.

While I believe this abstractly by supporting a “we can fight this” attitude, I feel incredibly hypocritical when I emphasize personal responsibility because there are a lot of things I do personally which probably put me in risky situations. I haven’t taken karate, I don’t even carry mace. I walk home alone at night, frequently from campus to home on weeknights but every now and then on a Friday or Saturday night. I always feel guilty when I do, that it would be my fault for not using the “buddy system”. I know that I could call campus safety and request a ride from them or ask one of my friends to pick me up, but I’d rather just walk and be independent than burden my friends or inconvenience campus safety. I’m not as mindful of open drinks on the weekends as I should be. I don’t always lock my door. I walk while listening to music. So whenever I do walk or don’t lock my door, I feel guilty, like I’m not protecting myself and making myself vulnerable. If I were to be attacked, I would be at fault.

Reviewing all these things in my mind, I’m angry. I’m angry that as a woman I am physically vulnerable to attack at any moment. I am angry that I can be overpowered because I am physically weaker than a huge segment of the population and I am susceptible to attack at any moment, and that to a certain extent, it would be my fault for not defending myself. I’m angry that I was born into a culture where I am on the defensive, and even though no one would blame me 100% for an assault, it would still be a degree my fault for not protecting myself fully. I’m angry that what I “should” be doing is taking karate. I don’t want to take karate. I “should” be concerned on a Friday night for my safety - instead of having fun with my friends, that I should be actively defending the drink in my hand against date rape drugs. I’m angry that I can’t listen to my iPod when I’m walking alone because that makes me more vulnerable. I’m angry that when I walk through a parking lot at night, I have to grip my car keys between my knuckles and prepare to jab someone in the eyes.

And I’m angry that I can’t be angry without being labeled a psycho feminist. I feel like I should try to be a “nice feminist” to prove the bitter-man-hating feminist stereotype wrong. But women face rape and sexual assault as a daily burden, which I don’t believe is true for the majority of men.

So ultimately, I don’t know where I stand. I am angry at men because I’ve heard firsthand from a male (who told me this sentiment fully knowing that I am a feminist) at Colgate who told me he thinks that women often “put themselves in that situation” for sexual assault. The fact is that the majority of the rapes that occur are men raping women, and yet the burden is placed on women to act constantly on the defense.

Readings for 3/30

Susan Brownmiller’s article, “Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape” brought up a lot of valid points about rape, but I think one of the better points she brings up is about the misconception of a typical rapist profile. Since rape is a controversial and stigmatized subject in our society, it isn’t talked about, and this leads to many false assumptions about both victims and perpetrators. Rape, along with many other criminalized acts, is often thought of as something that only ugly, poorly groomed men in dark alleys at night do. In reality, as Brownmiller states, “the typical American rapist is no weirdo, psycho schizophrenic beset by timidity, sexual deprivation, and a domineering wife or mother” (274). Yet when people think of rape as something that only deviant, mentally ill people do, it gives women a false sense of security and makes it more difficult to deal with a rape by a date or a friend. On a somewhat related tangent, I believe that many anti-criminal agendas, such as anti-drug programs, make the same mistake of portraying a criminals as a deviant, unstable individual. I remember in elementary school watching an anti-drug film, which featured a scary looking bunny with red eyes in a dark alley as the drug dealer. The message that films such as these send is that as long as you stay away from dark alleys, you will be fine. This isn’t effective message years later when it isn’t a scary person in an alley offering students drugs, but most likely their friends or acquaintances. Similarly, I think that the commonly held assumption that rape is just something strangers do is a very detrimental belief, because a variety of people commit rape. As in Emilie Morgan’s story, “Don’t Call Me a Survivor” she is raped first by a complete stranger, then by her date, and then by a group of friends.

The Susan Brownmiller article made me think about the danger of rape on college campuses. I think that when it comes to small, segregated schools (like Colgate) that are cut off from the larger population, students feel a sense of security because chances are that you are friends with or know of everyone. Many believe that rape isn’t something that happens too often, because there aren’t a lot of scary old people hanging around. I think a good example of this misguided thought is the situation last semester when a person pretending to be a Colgate student broke into some apartments, and according to a rumor going around campus, also sexually assaulted a girl. I wasn’t here last semester, so I am unsure of the exact details and I understand that there is still question if whether or not a sexual assault actually occurred, but regardless, the panic and paranoia that I heard from my friends at Colgate was very high. It is interesting that an (alleged) sexual assault by a non-Colgate person was so talked about and publicized, but rape by Colgate students to other Colgate students is hardly ever talked about, although I’m sure that it happens. I am unsure of why this is. Perhaps because rape by an average looking boy in one’s psychology class is harder to come to grips with than rape by a complete stranger. What I learned from Brownmiller’s article is that it is crucial to be educated about the portrait of an average rapist, and to dispel many of the myths about rape.

3/25: How Child Birth Went Industrial: Gawande and Goer

The New Yorker article by Gawande was really shocking to me, not because of the explanations of the multiple ways that childbirth can go wrong, but the cultural implications of childbirth. I was most shocked by the priorities established during early childbirth, where it seems like the life of the mother was put as a higher priority than the life of the child. The mother always putting her life second to her children defines childbirth and motherhood in our western culture. You always hear stories about mother’s, or fathers for that matter, risking their lives to save their children. I know that my own mother almost died giving birth to me, but she always said that that she would have chosen my life over hers. I thought the idea of crushing a baby’s skull in order to save the mother was absolutely horrible, but is that just because we’ve been socialized to believe that once a baby is born that their life is more important?

I was also really interested in the medicinal aspect of the article. I just did a presentation in another class about western medicine practices vs eastern medical practices. When Elizabeth Rourke’s doctor arrived in her room and started administering one medicine it seemed to cause a domino effect where only more chemicals would help cure the problem. I think that we’ve taken childbirth to be this situation where only one way is the correct way for it to be done and every other way is incorrect. It seems to me that western medicine, and this article, has made childbirth seem much more precarious and dangerous than it actually is.

In the deconstruction article, Goer suggest that planning caesarian sections for women may be the answer. I think that both of these articles are dramatizing childbirth. Is it something that I actively want to go through as a female? No. But I think that most women who do choose to have a baby understand the risk involved and the actual process that they are going to go through. I know that if I were giving birth I would want every drug under the sun to make it not hurt, and I may choose to have a caesarian section, but I don’t think that standardizing it is the answer because not everyone is the “worst case scenario” as these articles make it seem.

News Flash: Shiloh's Tomboy Haircut Controversy

Three-year-old Shiloh Jolie-Pitt, daughter of celebrities Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, made headlines this past month when she was photographed sporting a new, short haircut. Tabloids went wild with the news, and within a week many major celebrity magazines published entire articles devoted to Shiloh’s new haircut. Yet the media frenzy did not come simply from the haircut, but rather what the short haircut might imply about the gender identity of Shiloh. Shiloh had previously been photographed in outfits that caused the media to label her a tomboy, and her new haircut just added fuel to the fire. Life & Style magazine ran a front page story about the drama with the headline “Why is Angelina Turning Shiloh Into A Boy?” and US Weekly ran an article titled “Stylists Rate Shiloh’s Princess Charming Haircut” (Lifeandstylemag.com and UsMagazine.com).

While it may seem easy to dismiss the fact that a magazine would devote an entire article to stylist comments about a three-year-old’s haircut as silly, the reason behind this media frenzy is not so laughable. What is really behind this current media obsession with Shiloh is the fact that she does not fit the expected mold given to her when she was born. Because of her immensely famous and gorgeous parents, Shiloh’s birth was possibly one of the most anticipated births to date. She was predicted to be one of the most beautiful baby girls in the world. Yet, as she grew from a baby to a toddler, Shiloh didn’t take on her expected role of pampered Hollywood princess, dressing in girly pink clothing. As Irin Carmon of the feminist gossip website, Jezebel, sarcastically writes: “Doesn’t she realize she’s the crown princess in the fairy tale? She’s ruining it with that whole ‘wanting to be a boy’ thing!” (Jezebel.com). Even at three years old, Shiloh (or her parents) is breaking the gender stereotype of what it means to be a girl. Although the attention given towards her short haircut and tomboy clothing is exaggerated because of her famous parents, at the root of this attention is the fact that Shiloh does not easily fit into our constructed gender standards of girl or boy. Hence, this media attention about Shiloh’s haircut is an example of our society’s compulsion to put people into defining categories, and our society’s discomfort when one does not fit easily into said category.

In Sexing the Body Anne Fausto-Sterling traces the progression of how we think about gender and sex. She states that we see these as two distinct categories, and usually associate sex with nature, and gender with nurture. In other words, gender is something that can be learned or taught. She traces the spread of this belief to 1972 with the works of sexologists John Money and Anke Ehrhardt (Fausto-Sterling 3). Money and Ehrhardt argued that “sex refers to physical attributes and is anatomically and physiologically determined. Gender… is a psychological transformation of the self- the internal conviction that one is either male or female (gender identity) and the behavioral expressions of that conviction” (Fausto-Sterling 3). Because of this belief, it is now commonly held that our sex is something we are born with, but our gender is something that we acquire. The concept of gender is where the trouble with Shiloh is found. It is clear that her sex is female, but it is her gender that is in question.

The question arises of whether or not parents can, or should, teach their children how to adhere to gender norms. It is clear in the title of the Life&Style article, “Why is Angelina Turning Shiloh Into a Boy?” that the blame is put on Angelina for not teaching Shiloh the proper way to be a girl. Further blame is also placed on Brad Pitt as the result of what he said in an Oprah interview a year ago. While on Oprah, Brad Pitt talked about how Shiloh loved the movie Peter Pan and how she liked to be called by the names of the male characters: ‘“We've got to call her John," he told Oprah Winfrey, noting that when he started to ask, "Shi, do you want..." she would interrupt with "John. I'm John." Then, Brad continued, "I'll say, 'John, would you like some orange juice?' And she goes, 'No!'" (Life and Style Online). While this exchange seems pretty typical of a three-year-old, some critics believe that her parents shouldn’t be indulging Shiloh’s desire to be called John.

The question of whether Shiloh’s parents should indulge behavior like wanting to dress in boy’s clothes or wanting to be called boy’s names has experts split. Some, like parenting coach Karen Deerwester, believe that is very healthy and normal for a child to want to express him or herself in various ways, and the parents should support these choices: “Giving preschool-age children the freedom and flexibility to experiment with how they want to be seen in the world is a wonderful gift” (Life and Style online). Yet others, such as Glenn Stanton, director of Family Formation Studies at the conservative organization Focus on the Family, believe that Shiloh’s parents need to encourage and foster her to adhere to the female gender: ‘“Little girls have never been women before. They need help, they need guidance of what that looks like. It's important to teach our children that gender distinction is very healthy”’ (Life and Style Online). Using the theories found in Sexing the Body, it appears that Deerwester would be in agreement to seeing gender on a spectrum, whereas Stanton would be in agreement with the doctors who feel it is necessary to do intersex corrective surgeries as soon as possible because gender is learned and developed from a very young age (Fausto-Sterling).

The majority of the people in the Internet world criticized the magazine’s focus on Shiloh, with comments ranging from “Practical suggestion- my mom made me wear my hair short because I had seriously fine hair that would not stay in any barrette or ponytail. Sometimes it's not about your personality and all about how irritated your Mom is because you have tangled hair every night” to “The tabloids need to back off and let Shiloh be a child. It is sickens me to see the amount of gender bias in the US media. Children should not be singled out or ridiculed for refusing to adhere to gender norms” (Jezebel.com). The comments from people on the other side of the debate were equally, if not more, strongly worded. Some reactions to the Shiloh debate not only questioned her gender, but her sexuality. Alana Kelen, fashion stylist for VH1, was quoted as saying: “Shiloh is pushing the boundaries of a tomboy look and crossing over to cross-dresser territory” (Life and Style online). As seen in Sexing the Body, there is an underlying belief that if gender is not clearly defined, people assume that this also means a step towards deviant sexuality. Again, there is an emphasis on properly learning gender: “The development of masculinity, femininity, and inclination toward homo- or hetero- sexuality, nurture matters a great deal more than nature” (Fausto-Sterling 46). Thus, the concern about Shiloh is not only rooted in current presence of her short haircut, but also the long-term effect that the short haircut could have on her sexuality.

When society believes that a person should fall into distinct female and male gender categories, it is implied that there is a correct and incorrect way to be a girl. In Touch magazine featured a spread that epitomizes this exact belief. In the article, Shiloh is contrasted with Suri Cruise, daughter of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, in a variety of categories, including hair styles, dress, and accessories. The article is titled, “Shiloh & Suri have such different styles” (In Touch online). And while it is not explicitly stated, there is an implicit message that Suri, with her purses and high heels, is a prime example of how to be a girl, while Shiloh, with her camouflage pants and sword, is an example of the wrong way to be a girl. Even though Shiloh and Suri are still quite young, the attention paid to their dress at such a young age shows society’s belief that gender must be developed from birth.

While it is unsettling and almost shocking that tabloids today can make a story out of a three-year-old’s hairstyle, the underlying implied messages about gender and sexuality are not a product of the 21^st century. As Fausto-Sterling writes, the construct of gender as nurtured is a belief that stems from theorists in the past. It is thought that gender must be developed, and if it is not done so properly, there can be long-term consequences for the child. The recent attention on Shiloh is the epitome of this belief. When Shiloh did not turn out to be the blonde hair, blue-eyed princess that was expected of her and instead preferred stereotypically boy attire, the inability to place her in a category felt confusing and uncomfortable. The media felt they needed to address this confusion by devoting articles to the issue that speculated about possible explanations, and contrasted her to a prime example of a very feminine girl her age. The attention about Shiloh shows that even in 2010, there is still a right and wrong way to be a girl.

Sources:

Sexing the Body by Anne Fausto-Sterling.

"Shiloh and Suri have such different styles" In Touch Magazine online. http://jezebel.com/5484790/this-week-in-tabloids-angelinas-rough-sex-with- ralph-fiennes--shilohs-harmful-haircut/gallery/

"Stylists rate Shiloh's 'Princess Charming' Haircut" US Weekly. http://www.usmagazine.com/momsbabies/news/stylists-rate-shilohs- princess-charming-haircut-2010252

"Why is Angelina Turning Shiloh into a boy?" Life and Style Magazine Online. http://www.lifeandstylemag.com/2010/03/large-1011-cover.html

"Why The Gossips Find Shiloh's 'Tomboy' Attire So Odious" Jezebel Online. http://jezebel.com/5480503/why-the-gossips-find-shilohs-tomboy-attire-so- odious

Abortion-3/23

For this post, I am going to focus on the topic of abortion. In the readings for today's class, after getting some background on abortion from the Roe v. Wade case, we read articles and chapters both on pro-life and pro-choice. Personally, as a Catholic, I side with pro-life with the exception of rape, but both Crews and Muscio brought up points that I agree with and I thought both had some weaknesses.

Muscio, although I agree with her position on pro-life, the fact that she claimed to be against abortions even though she had 3 seemed very hypocritical and I had a really hard time admiring her for being against abortions given her past. I don't want to justify any of her abortions, but had it been one abortion and then she realized how painful and emotionally traumatizing and would learn her lesson about unprotected sex, I would have had a little more sympathy for her, but 3 times in my mind seemed stupid. It is people like her who give credit to the claim that if abortions are legal, they will become a method of birth control. I personally think it is the rare woman who will use abortions as birth control because of the emotional and physical pain involved, but she is a prime example of that claim. If I were pro-choice, I would have had a real problem with Muscio because I would think that she is one of those women whose actions, which contribute to the abortion as birth control concern, is jeopardizing safe abortions for other women.

I thought Crews made an interesting and legitimate point about not making abortions so political and more of an individual situation. "It seemed as if everyone I encountered felt they had a right to force their opinion on me regarding the best choice for my child's future- and this choice was almost exclusively to give him up for adoption" (Crews, 146). I definitely agree that those who make this a political thing contribute to that and if society can't tell you how to raise your child etc, then why should they tell you to have the baby or not to have it? It seems to be a valid point. That being said, I think it speaks volumes that she chose to have the baby and cancelled all her abortion appointments. What I liked most about this article is that her being pro-choice, didn't mean she wanted to make abortions legal, but that every woman had the right to be uninfluenced and uninhibited by outsiders in terms of their reproductive abilities.

Newsflash #2: Australia Grants Recognition of “Not Specified” Gender, then Retracts

Australia’s government last week officially recognized the category of “not-specified” as an alternative to either female or male in legal documents. The act which marked a shift in the binary gender system was the issuing of a ‘Sex Not Specified’ Recognized Details Certificate, in place of a birth certificate to an individual named Norrie. Norrie, now 48, was born an officially designated a male. After going through gender-reassignment hormone therapy and surgery, Zorrie was issued a gender recognition certificate and officially legally recognized as a female. However, the transition to female still left Zorrie unsatisfied with zir gender identity. Ze began to view sex and gender through the Eastern idea of yin and yang, that the two halves make up a greater whole. Working with a group called Sex and Gender Education, Zorrie began to be politically active in fighting against the idea that the two genders are mutually exclusive. If this stereotype was ended, Zorrie hypothezied that “in Western culture [we] would have more options for happiness if we too had permission not simply to be of one gender or the other, but also to be of both genders, if such was our nature." Zorrie’s new legal status in Australia appropriately represents zir identity and allows for correct legal representation.

This development reflects the harsh reality that in most countries, including the United States, every single person is cataloged as either male or female. In addition to falsely representing individuals’ identities who do not consider themselves either male or female, there can be severe legal implications as well. Zorrie blogs about this issue, saying that having to choose one gender on a document like a passport “makes the statement false, which is not acceptable for legal identity documentation, and puts me in danger of detention and assault.” It seems only logical that the legal code would embrace intersex to give them basic rights, considering intersex individuals have naturally existed for a long as humans have. Our society’s rigid binary of male-female reflects how much gender is socially constructed. Basic rights are denied to non-heterosexual groups in general, with the most glaring example being the lack of legal recognition for gay marriage.

The rigid binary system does not reflect medical reality, where there is much more of a continuum between the two genders than a harsh polarization between the masculine and the feminine. Although a fictional character, Cal from Jeffrey Eugenides’ novel Middlesex represents this well, as s/he does not completely identify with either gender. Cal did not feel particularly out of place growing up as a female, and not completely “at home” in the body of a man. The doctors involved in the treatment were ignorantly of the possibility of both genders co-existing in a single body. Initially, the presence of another set of genitalia was simply ignored and Calliope was considered 100% female. The next doctor wanted to remove all vestiges of masculine genitals present in Cal’s body and give hormone therapy to “fix the problem”. For Cal, having the identity of “not-specified gender” would have had the potential to make her life much better. Giving it a name is the first step in making intersex more accepted and embraced by society.
An interesting part of this article was that it uses the gender neutral pronoun “zie” to refer to Norrie. (Conjugated: Ze laughed, I called hir, hir eyes gleam, that is hirs, ze likes hirself, Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun). Both the decision made by the Australian government and the rhetoric of the article reflect expansion from the binary system of gender as polarized between male or female. They allow for a third category, which is a prerequisite for further social progress. A change in legal code and a change in language are both necessary in our society.
The shift in legal classification reflects the growing need to expand from the binary system of only including the two polarized options of male and female. It represents an opportunity for doctors presented with an intersex baby at birth to not have to follow rigid scientific protocol or make an arbitrary decision to assign a gender which could have potentially huge repercussions for the individual later in life. Instead of using inch measurements of the penis or chromosomal analysis, the child can be registered as “Sex not specified”. It reduces the urgency of the situation, which would ideally allow for more time to arrive at the appropriate decision, if a decision need be made. Parents, therapists, doctors, and the child can all discuss the matter without a pressing need to check the box either male or female, an issue that Anne-Fausto Sterling raises in Sexing the Body. Sterling aptly criticizes the system in which the deciding factor of a baby’s gender is the doctor’s subjective opinion.

What change does this truly bring about or represent? While this development is a huge
marker of progress for the intersex community, one way to view it is that it indicates only legal advancement and not radical social change. It can be analogized to the American Psychological Association removing homosexuality from its classification as a mental disorder. This was a huge step forward for the gay community, but did not end the discrimination and prejudices that plague those of non-heterosexual orientation to this day. However, in this case, small legal change can signify momentous progress for the individuals who are intersex. It may be a small change for those who have already had to choose between the two sexes, but for future births it can mean a promise of a more true identity. It will not alleviate prejudice, stereotypes, or discrimination, but it can help families and babies who are born intersex to have a more nuanced approach instead of jumping to give the child a “normal” life as either a male or female. Tracie O’Keefe describes this radical step forward as “an enormous legal breakthrough for the rights of intersex children whose doctors and parents are confused about their sex at births and that they could be registered as ‘Sex Not Specified’ until they decide what sex would be right for them”, which would avoid intersex children being “forced into male and female identities, when not medically necessary, which they later felt were incorrect, including unnecessary brutal surgery to give them stereotypical looking genitalia, often leaving them without sensation or function.”

The change in legal code to adopt a more progressive approach to gender reflects Kenji Yoshino’s conception of current discrimination taking the form of forced covering. While it may be legally acceptable for someone to have “non-specified” gender, the reality of society, especially regarding employment, is that while legal terms and abstract notions might indicate equality, the actual treatment of intersex individuals is far from equal. Society maintains the categorization of its people as male or female because it such a convention makes things easier. It is hard for people to wrap their heads around intersex people being comfortable being neither solely male nor solely female. “Covering” for intersex involves outwardly choosing one sex as their public or outward identity. Zorrie writes that ze received a lot of discrimination for being androgynous, which was one of the reasons for the initial surgical transition to becoming a woman.

In a rather depressing sequence events since I began writing this, the document that granted Zorrie gender-neutral status was revoked. Attorney-General John Hatzistergos issued a statement that the registrar acted wrongly and it “may only issue a recognised detail certificate or a new birth certificate following a change of sex in either male or female gender”. Zorrie reported that the registry had responded to her by saying they were unable to enter gender unspecified into their computers, but would work with computer programmers, adding “It is the job of the system to fit the people it serves, not the job of the people to fit the system”. This issue reflects the difficulty and potential ineffectiveness of working within the system to effect change. Adding a third category for gender can still make the third category be just “the other” in relation to retained heteronormativity. Working outside of the system and creating entirely new ideas of what is male, female, neither, or both, could be the only effective way for the intersex community to be represented legally and given civil rights and recognition by mainstream society.

Regardless of the status of this legal situation, Zorrie is an individual who is neither male nor female. Eventually, the law must catch up with the status of individuals. Unfortunately, by requiring classification as either male or female, it remains representative of an antiquated system of binary gender polarization.


Sources:

http://www.awid.org/eng/Women-s-Rights-in-the-News/Women-s-Rights-in-the-News/Australia-is-first-to-recognise-non-specified-gender

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1217232/Sex-'non-specified'-certificate-invalid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun

News Flash 2: Gender Neutral Bathrooms

Say goodbye to designated female and male bathrooms, or should I say, say hello to gender-neutral bathrooms. According to an article from Fox News, the University of Vermont has recently added “gender neutral” bathrooms to the new Dudley H. Davis Center. Included in these bathrooms are four single bathrooms and each includes a toilet, sink, shower, and lockable door. Behind this radical addition, according to the Vice President for Student and Campus Life, is the desire for “inclusivity and accessibility and the importance of meeting all people’s needs, not just a few.” The University of Vermont is not alone. In fact, it is one of seventeen other colleges and universities who have added gender neutral bathrooms to their campuses. This change seems to reflect a recognition in the limitations of the two sex system and the fluidity of gender and a move toward acceptance for those who don’t fit into that socially constructed system. As understandable and progressive as these additions may be, there are serious concerns and problems associated with them.

The installation of gender-neutral bathrooms has brought mixed opinions on the topic. According to Kelly, a 19 year old transgendered student at the University of Vermont, in gender segregated bathrooms she has felt uncomfortable and thinks that the introduction of gender neutral bathrooms is “a really important thing to have…Just because there can be tense situations in gendered bathrooms, especially for trans-identified people, you need a space to use the rest room and feel safe and comfortable” (CNN Article). Similarly, the university’s Director of the school’s Lesbian, Gay Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning and Ally Services felt “a multi-use bathroom doesn’t necessarily feel safe to transgendered students, because they have concerns about how their gender would be read by others” (CNN Article). However, Stephen Cable, the founder of Vermont Renewal, a group dedicated to “promoting traditional moral values” says “I always have concerns when institutions or the government legitimized behaviors or practices that could be discovered in the future to be harmful to those individuals” (CNN Article).

These views represent opposite ends of the spectrum. There are several authors from class who would have comments regarding the introduction of gender- neutral bathrooms. Anne Fausto-Sterling, who points out that gender is not as fixed as we think and suggests that the two sex system and the pressure we put on intersex people to fit into our two sex system is all a product of social constructions would be pleased to see this change (Fausto-Sterling, 16). She would argue that this is a progressive move away from our rigid socially constructed lines of gender and a step towards including those who don’t fit into the two-sex system (Fausto-Sterling, 30). The University of Vermont’s installation of gender-neutral bathrooms certainly shows a progressive change and openness to those outside the two-sex system. While it is admirable, it lacks practicality. This change, while occurring, is occurring at some of the most liberal institutions in the country, colleges and universities. There are few places outside of college where these transgender students will have public gender-neutral bathrooms. Should they live in a false reality for their four years of college? Should they find ways to individually “be” and work within the two-sex system? Their fear of judgement is understandable, but if the majority of work environments, restaurants, etc do not have gender neutral bathrooms, they are in for yet another wake up call and challenge to face in the world as a transgender. Without these bathrooms, they could use this time in college, a time of self-exploration, to find out what works for them as individual transgenders in our society.

Similarly, while Cal from Middlesex doesn’t ever convey problems in public bathrooms, he spends most of the book feeling very uncomfortable in his skin, especially around Julie, who he should trust and with whom he should be comfortable (Middlesex, 167). Consequently, would identify with the 19-year-old transgendered student from Vermont and understand her feelings and fear of being judged in gendered restrooms. We can try to imagine the level of discomfort and fear that runs through transgendered people’s minds but as mentioned earlier, college is a time of self-exploration and using that time to self explore and become comfortable in your own skin is crucial. There are obviously more hurdles in that process for transgendered people than heterosexuals, but regardless, as individuals in this world growing comfortable enough in one’s skin is important in all aspects of life and perhaps learning to become comfortable in one’s own skin can start in the bathroom.

The idea of gender-neutral bathrooms is an interesting idea. Certainly the desire to be inclusive and accepting should be reflected in decisions and there should not be discrimination against intersex individuals. In an ideal world they would feel comfortable enough in their own skin to share a gendered bathroom, but we don’t live in that kind of world. Aside from the fact that it costs “$2500 per private bathroom” (CNN Article), which in difficult economic times could be problematic for those who cannot use those bathrooms but are still seeing an increase in their tuition. What makes us different and unique is special, but catering to everyone feeling “comfortable” is an impossible battle. There are so many different religions, sexes, genders, cultures, ethnicities, etc that it is impossible to please everyone. Intersex people face so many problems in society and have so many uphill battles to fight and problems to face, so a bathroom seems like a small innocent step to help them out. Their feeling of discomfort and fear of judgement is completely understandable, but with all the issues in the world that intersex people face, is the bathroom the proverbial battle they want to pick? There are larger issues at hand for them that deserve priority and attention before gender-neutral bathrooms.

Sources:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294633,00.html

Ariel Levy: Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture.

Allan Johnson: “Patriarchy as a System”.

Anne Fausto-Sterling: Sexing the Body

Jeffrey Eugenides: Middlesex

Jennifer Lopez is Not Black: Lumping Hispanics into Black Sexual Politics

Collins criticizes the media for associating women of African descent with “animalistic, wild sexuality” (27) which is exemplified by the fascination with Jennifer Lopez’s large bottom. I find the argument problematic on the basic level that Lopez is not of African descent, she is Hispanic. While it is true that there is a dichotomy between the stereotype of black women as uncivilized “freaks” and white women as pure, simplifying societal stereotypes to two polar opposites fails to include the entire spectrum, including women of all other races. Lumping Jennifer Lopez into the category of black sexuality precludes analyzing the specific prejudice or stereotyping she faces as a Latina. The similarity in media generalizations of women of color is emphasis on the butt. I’m not sure how having a large butt qualifies Lopez as a “Latina brushed with the hint of Blackness”. Collins does clarify that she is “not clearly of African descent” but says she “caries the visible sign of Black sexuality” (29). Collins cites evidence of J-Lo’s “fluid ethnicity” by citing evidence of her different film roles playing women of different races/ethnicities. How can one conclude facts about her true racial/ethnic identity through her acting different roles in films, playing fictitious characters that do not resemble her reality at all?

While it is true that Black women, especially with the history of slavery, have been treated as objects to be purchased and enjoyed by white men, Hispanic women on their own have a unique history of stereotypes, media portrayal, and objectification. Hispanic people, alongside African-Americans, also face “disappearing jobs, crumbling schools, drugs, crime, and weakening of… community institutions” (35). There is a good deal of racism that specifically targets Latinos without categorizing them as black. Collins seems to argue that blackness is fluid, especially as she writes about impoverished white Americans, saying “they are not biologically Black, but their poverty and downward mobility can be explained if they are seen as being culturally or socially Black” (41). I think discrimination against poor whites is class discrimination, and is more complex than categorizing poor whites as embracing black culture. When Collins writes that “whites who embrace Black culture become…stigmatized” (41) after the sentence which describes how poor whites are considered culturally black, it becomes extremely problematic in regards to race implications because it associates Black culture with poverty.

I’m not sure how helpful it is to lump Jennifer Lopez into black sexuality for the sole reason that the media focuses on her butt. I think there should be more nuanced analysis of media stereotypes instead of a polarization between white and black stereotypes.

3/4: Everyday Feminists

For this post, I would like to focus on the Alisa Valdes article “Ruminations of a Feminist Fitness Instructor” because I think her story is symbolic of the struggle many feminists face between being a feminist and being practical. Sometimes, as Valdes states, it is not always possible to act out our feminist ideals due to monetary constraints. As with most causes, the people in charge are people who have the time and money to do so. Not everyone can spend their time writing feminist manifestas, going to rallies across the country, and participating in other progressive activities for the feminist movement. Regular people need to work a 9 to 5 job, and then perhaps come home and make dinner, help their children with their homework, and walk the dog. As we have seen before with the feminist movement, it is often middle and upper class women who can afford to lead it. It is difficult for other women to find where they can fit into the feminist movement, or how they can live their lives as feminist when they have to do a job that might not be cohesive with feminist ideals, such as an aerobics instructor.

Valdes started her career as an aerobics instructor and was quite successful. But during this job, she realized the conflicted messages she was sending and felt a sense of failure: “I had betrayed myself, betrayed my dreams; most of all betrayed my gender” (Valdes 28). Valdes decides to pursue her dream as a feminist writer in addition to keeping her job, but finds that she cannot handle the pressure of both jobs. She realizes that she must quit her internship and reflects on the difficulty of balancing feminism and real life: “I watched as my lifelong dream of being a professional feminist writer slipped through my fingers and back into my spandex and sneakers, all because I needed to pay for a roof over my head and the food in my stomach. I realized that only the children of the rich are able to afford to be entry-level journalists for the progressive publications of our nation. The poor become, well, cheerleaders for the status quo” (Valdes 29).

Valdes raises the problem of class in the feminist movement. Class hierarchies are present even in the most progressive of movements. I think Valdes also raises another question unrelated to class, which is: how can we act out our feminist ideals in our everyday life? Even women of the upper class may have jobs as lawyers or doctors, or other professions where it seems impossible to work a full time job and be a contributing member to the feminist movement. I pose this question to my fellow bloggers: what ways can we act our feminist ideals in our everyday Colgate life?

I think my biggest problem with the article sex lies and advertising is the idea that they assume that there are topics of a magazine, or products that are advertised that appeal to all women, and that the issue is in the advertising sector. I think the real issue is that they are creating magazines that are directed towards women and not towards interest. They are also expressing a clear distinction between ads that are directed towards women and ads that are directed towards men. In trying to

Overcome the issue of advertising towards one sex they are playing even more into the stereotype by saying "let's go out and get advertising for male interests".

I think that advertising has an even more potent effect when it is directed towards women. When reading the Body Projects reading, I couldn’t help but think about where these girls were getting the ideas for the “ideal body”. The answer is pretty simple, from fashion and advertisements that in these modern times are edited and falsified to portray a form of beauty that is impossible to achieve. The article really demonstrated the fact that girls want to create the body image that is popular at the time, such as big breasts during the times of Marilyn Monroe or slim thighs during the 1990s. This article really relates to the work that I do with the group Ophelia’s Girls. We mentor girls in middle school in high school in all aspects of their lives. One of the more recent meetings that we have had with these girls focused on body image. The statistic that we told these girls that always sticks out in my mind is that idea that the actual number on the scale does not determine whether or not someone thinks that your body is attractive, it all has to do with proportion and looking natural. The one example form the Body Project reading was Carol who “had an ample supply of close girlfriends, dates with boys, a good school record, and artistic talent, but her self esteem was surprisingly dependent on the numbers she saw on the bathroom scale.” It seems to me that the cases that we see in this reading are all about trying to look like the images we see in the media and pleasing other girls rather than ourselves and the real form of beauty.

I also thought their argument about trying to alter appearances on clothing was incredibly interesting. I know that as a girl, the idea of wearing a bra is something that is completely natural to me, but I know that it wasn't always this way. I remember when I got my first real bra it hurt at first to wear and felt weird. I feel as if we are socialized and forced to accept this as natural. I think that this author would benefit from updating their article to talk about the idea of the Spanx products which are tights that have control tops that girls wear under clothing. They are the modern version of what they speak about in the article. Women always talk about how much they love Spanx, but are they really comfortable? It seems to me that the only reason why they love spanx is because they love what they see in the mirror while wearing them.