These are three things that are so deeply rooted in our culture that it makes me almost literally ill to think about it.
I just read this piece about a 14 year old girl who, yesterday, became a trending topic on Twitter. This happened after she was recorded, without her knowledge or consent, performing oral sex on a classmate. (At this point, I'm assuming the oral sex was consensual, but I don't know, and I would not be surprised to learn that it wasn't.) The tape was then uploaded to the internet, again without her knowledge or her consent, and her name was attached to the video!
Twitter users then responded, in large part, with with vitriol. All of which was directed at this girl.
I can't even begin to express how angry and frustrated this makes me. The fact that this girl is receiving all of the blame, ridicule and hatred for engaging in a sexual act just makes me sick. Especially when you consider that:
1. She engaged in said act with another human being; a human being who, though he is her peer, is receiving no ridicule, blame, or hatred.
2. She did not give permission for the video to made, let alone for it to be made public. Those who made the video, and made the video public are receiving very little ridicule, blame, or hatred.
What is wrong here is NOT that this 14 year-old girl performed oral sex on a classmate. I don't want to have a discussion about whether or not 14 years olds should be having sex. Whether I think they should or not, and whether you think they should or not, doesn't mean they aren't going to. "Should or not" is irrelevant. I remember being 14. I remember how grown up we all felt, and I remember having 14-year-old friends who were having sex.
14-year-olds are having sex, and they will continue to have sex, regardless of how adults feel about it.
Instead this conversation should be about safe, respectful sex. This conversation should be about teaching teenagers that, if they are going to engage in sexual acts, they should do so in a manner that is safe and respectful.
This conversation should be about how we as a society blame girls and women for being disrespected by boys and men, and what we as a society are going to do to change that.
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Pictures of Change
A Story in Pictures from Feministe
I heard a man say recently that he'd been taught since he was a child that if men were capable of getting pregnant, then there would be no question about whether or not abortion should be legal. He then went on to say he'd since come to understand that this would be true most especially if old white guys could get pregnant.
These two pictures really kind of says it all, don't they?
I'm especially fond of the second. Of course those women surrounding Obama were staged there...but that's exactly the point! There is the actual recognition of the way legislation affects women. And it shows the change come to Washington!
The first picture on the other hand...well, it's just old white dudes doing what they do with no recognition of the affects that has.
I heard a man say recently that he'd been taught since he was a child that if men were capable of getting pregnant, then there would be no question about whether or not abortion should be legal. He then went on to say he'd since come to understand that this would be true most especially if old white guys could get pregnant.
These two pictures really kind of says it all, don't they?
I'm especially fond of the second. Of course those women surrounding Obama were staged there...but that's exactly the point! There is the actual recognition of the way legislation affects women. And it shows the change come to Washington!
The first picture on the other hand...well, it's just old white dudes doing what they do with no recognition of the affects that has.
Friday, March 21, 2008
"Difference" Model of Feminism
This is an interesting article discussing the findings of Susan Pinker concerning inherent differences in the female and male brains, and the types of goals these differences inspire in each gender. I appreciate this analysis, probably because I am one of those difference feminists- willing and eager to embrace the idea that women's brains are just different, biologically and chemically than men's brains...but this doesn't make them inferior. Just different. But, I feel like I'm met at every turn by feminists screaming at me to get with the picture and realize that we're all still being kept down by our patriarchal society.
Even though I'm a huge believer in the influence of culture on individual choices, goals, actions etc...I am not one of those cultural anthropologist opposed to socio-biological theories, so I appreciated that aspect as well. I'm not saying I don't want to break through the glass ceiling, or see it gone all together...I'm just saying I don't believe that the glass ceiling persists out of nothing more than a some patriarchal cultural overtones.
The article provides a well balanced analysis of Pinker's assertions... I especially liked this:
"We shouldn’t wish the role of sex differences away because they’re at odds with feminist dogma. But that doesn’t mean we should settle for the reductionist version of the relevant science, even if the complexity doesn’t make for as neat a package between hard covers."
Now...if only I could get more people to think that way...
Even though I'm a huge believer in the influence of culture on individual choices, goals, actions etc...I am not one of those cultural anthropologist opposed to socio-biological theories, so I appreciated that aspect as well. I'm not saying I don't want to break through the glass ceiling, or see it gone all together...I'm just saying I don't believe that the glass ceiling persists out of nothing more than a some patriarchal cultural overtones.
The article provides a well balanced analysis of Pinker's assertions... I especially liked this:
"We shouldn’t wish the role of sex differences away because they’re at odds with feminist dogma. But that doesn’t mean we should settle for the reductionist version of the relevant science, even if the complexity doesn’t make for as neat a package between hard covers."
Now...if only I could get more people to think that way...
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Fuck Geraldine Ferraro. I once admired that woman a lot. In many ways, I suppose I still do, and someday I suppose I may again. right now I'm annoyed with her. Oh, and Mississippi, I annoyed with Mississippi too.
Mississippi I celebrate, because Mississippi went the way I want the nation to go and voted Obama. Or at least black Mississippi democrats did. And I guess that's what makes me sick about the whole thing. Not that black voters voted for Obama explicitly. But that the whole thing is so damn racially divided, as exemplified in Mississippi. But then again, to run all of the stereotypes to their extreme that I, as a northerner (who barely considers herself American at times,) have about the south...what else did I expect from Mississippi? Mostly from whites in Mississippi. And if I were honest, I would admit that it is the fact that white folk are aligning along racial lines that is pissing me off. Especially southern white folk, because that is just too fucking cliche and stereotypical.
But also because, for some reason, I have more empathy and understanding for a black person wanting to see a black person as president than I do for a woman wanting to see a woman in office.
I don't know why. Maybe it's just that, if you looked back 150 years into the past--though both would seem highly improbable...it just seems far more obvious that women, namely white women, had far more hope of ever becoming president of the United States, than a black guy. Does that make the fact that, in 2008, it is still such a historic and monumental occurrence to have a black man and woman as the contenders for democratic nomination right? No. It pisses me off that it is so historic and monumental. It pisses me off that we have not yet made enough progress so as to not even notice the fact. I suppose that is why is pisses me off all the more that people are paying so much attention to the fact the he is black and she is a chick.
Even still, somehow I understanding black people going with the black candidate without regard to much else, far more than I understand white people going with the white candidate (even if she is a woman.) Just because as a population with a shared history, 150 years ago this would have been more impossible for any group of black Americans than it would have been for all the white American women to hope for. Would my mind be changed if were talking about a black man and a black woman? Would I swing toward the one who was black and a woman? I have no idea. I hope I would still be more swayed by whichever I happened to believe in more, but I don't know. Maybe I would be swayed by what appears to me now to be a superficial and annoying thing to focus on.
Am I abandoning my race AND my gender now? Some people would have you believe so. Screw race...as the good, overly PC liberal, overly PC anthropologist that I am, I don't believe in race anyway. And screw gender too.
But, I digress....
Back to my first point. First Ferraro pissed me off last week when she was on Talk of the Nation screaming like a madwoman at Neal Conan at every turn, interrupting him and then demanding that the will of the people was only appropriate now, in this stage of the game-- But how dare we tell them (the democratic party) who to choose as the nominee during the convention. She was really insisting that in no way shape or form is it the responsibility to follow the will of the people. This was her attempting to defend super delegates who might go against the popular vote. I think she has completely forgotten the reason the parties (ostensibly) exist. It is to represent the people, the masses contained within their party.
Look, I understood and I agreed when she pointed out that Hillary's people will be just as disappointed at her losing the nomination as would Obama's. She had a very real, and very poignant point. And yes, this race is very contentious and very close. And even though I'm not in the Hillary camp at the moment, and can't imagine the disappointment I will feel if Obama loses, I feel for her campaign for that very reason. They are just as fired up and as passionate as are we supporters of Obama.
But to suggest that the party, the party leaders do not owe it to their constituents to follow the will of the majority in this process because they are wiser than we. That is just... absurd. And selfish. And conceited. Suddenly she has forgotten 2000, and the supreme court, and the millions of disappointed and disenfranchised voters. Unfortunately, in an election, there will always somebody disappointed and somebody thrilled. In 2000 the democrats were disappointed, and dejected. The republicans were thrilled.
Ferraro was quick to point out that Hillary's people would face disappointment at a loss no differently that Obama's people in a loss. But does that mean it is up to those who view themselves as wiser than the majority to make that decision? If the super delegates go against the majority, to the chagrin of Obama supporters and the thrill of Hillary supporters, I can't possibly see how that is any different than the same sort of choices against the majority decisions made by the supreme court in 2000. How can people, how can democrats have lost sight of that already, just because this race is so contentious?
I guess that is easy for me to say though, given that I'm in, what appears to be at least, the majority on this one...
Did I mention the way she was yelling at and interrupting Neal Conan like a spoiled child not getting her way? I was embarrassed for her. Especially since she was reminding me a whole helluva lot of Ted Stevens as she was doing it. And I KNOW she would cringe at the thought of having any sort of comparison drawn between herself and Ted Stevens.
But, I digressed again.
The second reason she pisses me off is because she really thinks Obama is winning because he is black. And her wanting to hold that opinion, and not hurt Hillary, is enough for her to resign from the Clinton campaign.
He is black (or, half black, if you want to be technical). That might be ONE of the reasons he is winning, but it is not the sole reason he is winning. He is winning because he is likable and Hillary, much less so. He is winning because he is inspirational and Hillary, much less so. He is winning, because his policy decisions and actions and words are just different enough to make him align more closely with more people in this party. He is winning because he is the new guy and we are tired of the old guard. He is winning because we desire and need a new leader, and we need that leader to be one that we can be proud of.
To say that Obama is winning because he is black is just as reductionist as many of the arguments made by feminist who haven't caught up with the progress they've made and (still) insist that all of their ills are because we live in a patriarchally driven, estrogen repressing society. (I'm not saying we don't, I'm just saying that ceased to be the root of women's problems a long time ago.)
So, Fuck Geraldine Ferraro. I can't decide if I'm happy she has quit Clinton's campaign or not.
Mississippi I celebrate, because Mississippi went the way I want the nation to go and voted Obama. Or at least black Mississippi democrats did. And I guess that's what makes me sick about the whole thing. Not that black voters voted for Obama explicitly. But that the whole thing is so damn racially divided, as exemplified in Mississippi. But then again, to run all of the stereotypes to their extreme that I, as a northerner (who barely considers herself American at times,) have about the south...what else did I expect from Mississippi? Mostly from whites in Mississippi. And if I were honest, I would admit that it is the fact that white folk are aligning along racial lines that is pissing me off. Especially southern white folk, because that is just too fucking cliche and stereotypical.
But also because, for some reason, I have more empathy and understanding for a black person wanting to see a black person as president than I do for a woman wanting to see a woman in office.
I don't know why. Maybe it's just that, if you looked back 150 years into the past--though both would seem highly improbable...it just seems far more obvious that women, namely white women, had far more hope of ever becoming president of the United States, than a black guy. Does that make the fact that, in 2008, it is still such a historic and monumental occurrence to have a black man and woman as the contenders for democratic nomination right? No. It pisses me off that it is so historic and monumental. It pisses me off that we have not yet made enough progress so as to not even notice the fact. I suppose that is why is pisses me off all the more that people are paying so much attention to the fact the he is black and she is a chick.
Even still, somehow I understanding black people going with the black candidate without regard to much else, far more than I understand white people going with the white candidate (even if she is a woman.) Just because as a population with a shared history, 150 years ago this would have been more impossible for any group of black Americans than it would have been for all the white American women to hope for. Would my mind be changed if were talking about a black man and a black woman? Would I swing toward the one who was black and a woman? I have no idea. I hope I would still be more swayed by whichever I happened to believe in more, but I don't know. Maybe I would be swayed by what appears to me now to be a superficial and annoying thing to focus on.
Am I abandoning my race AND my gender now? Some people would have you believe so. Screw race...as the good, overly PC liberal, overly PC anthropologist that I am, I don't believe in race anyway. And screw gender too.
But, I digress....
Back to my first point. First Ferraro pissed me off last week when she was on Talk of the Nation screaming like a madwoman at Neal Conan at every turn, interrupting him and then demanding that the will of the people was only appropriate now, in this stage of the game-- But how dare we tell them (the democratic party) who to choose as the nominee during the convention. She was really insisting that in no way shape or form is it the responsibility to follow the will of the people. This was her attempting to defend super delegates who might go against the popular vote. I think she has completely forgotten the reason the parties (ostensibly) exist. It is to represent the people, the masses contained within their party.
Look, I understood and I agreed when she pointed out that Hillary's people will be just as disappointed at her losing the nomination as would Obama's. She had a very real, and very poignant point. And yes, this race is very contentious and very close. And even though I'm not in the Hillary camp at the moment, and can't imagine the disappointment I will feel if Obama loses, I feel for her campaign for that very reason. They are just as fired up and as passionate as are we supporters of Obama.
But to suggest that the party, the party leaders do not owe it to their constituents to follow the will of the majority in this process because they are wiser than we. That is just... absurd. And selfish. And conceited. Suddenly she has forgotten 2000, and the supreme court, and the millions of disappointed and disenfranchised voters. Unfortunately, in an election, there will always somebody disappointed and somebody thrilled. In 2000 the democrats were disappointed, and dejected. The republicans were thrilled.
Ferraro was quick to point out that Hillary's people would face disappointment at a loss no differently that Obama's people in a loss. But does that mean it is up to those who view themselves as wiser than the majority to make that decision? If the super delegates go against the majority, to the chagrin of Obama supporters and the thrill of Hillary supporters, I can't possibly see how that is any different than the same sort of choices against the majority decisions made by the supreme court in 2000. How can people, how can democrats have lost sight of that already, just because this race is so contentious?
I guess that is easy for me to say though, given that I'm in, what appears to be at least, the majority on this one...
Did I mention the way she was yelling at and interrupting Neal Conan like a spoiled child not getting her way? I was embarrassed for her. Especially since she was reminding me a whole helluva lot of Ted Stevens as she was doing it. And I KNOW she would cringe at the thought of having any sort of comparison drawn between herself and Ted Stevens.
But, I digressed again.
The second reason she pisses me off is because she really thinks Obama is winning because he is black. And her wanting to hold that opinion, and not hurt Hillary, is enough for her to resign from the Clinton campaign.
He is black (or, half black, if you want to be technical). That might be ONE of the reasons he is winning, but it is not the sole reason he is winning. He is winning because he is likable and Hillary, much less so. He is winning because he is inspirational and Hillary, much less so. He is winning, because his policy decisions and actions and words are just different enough to make him align more closely with more people in this party. He is winning because he is the new guy and we are tired of the old guard. He is winning because we desire and need a new leader, and we need that leader to be one that we can be proud of.
To say that Obama is winning because he is black is just as reductionist as many of the arguments made by feminist who haven't caught up with the progress they've made and (still) insist that all of their ills are because we live in a patriarchally driven, estrogen repressing society. (I'm not saying we don't, I'm just saying that ceased to be the root of women's problems a long time ago.)
So, Fuck Geraldine Ferraro. I can't decide if I'm happy she has quit Clinton's campaign or not.
Monday, October 29, 2007
More thoughts on Feminism and Medical Anthropology...
I just had a small epiphany. Frequently the problem of many medical anthropologists, myself included, with the standard western biomedical complex is that it tends to lean toward reducing everything to biology.
However, this is precisely the problem with critical feminist theory, in medical anthropology and elsewhere. Feminism leads to a perspective that is entirely too reductionist in nature. I suppose that is the risk you run with any theory, especially critical theories.
People are too tied to their ideas and the motivation behind the development of such theories. But tunnel vision is dangerous in theory and anthropology (esp. medical or applied I think.) People are going to end up missing the big picture...and probably several smaller more nuanced parts of the picture as well.
People are complex, neither biology nor behavior nor culture can be easily reduced by any theory, no matter how hard anyone tries.
However, this is precisely the problem with critical feminist theory, in medical anthropology and elsewhere. Feminism leads to a perspective that is entirely too reductionist in nature. I suppose that is the risk you run with any theory, especially critical theories.
People are too tied to their ideas and the motivation behind the development of such theories. But tunnel vision is dangerous in theory and anthropology (esp. medical or applied I think.) People are going to end up missing the big picture...and probably several smaller more nuanced parts of the picture as well.
People are complex, neither biology nor behavior nor culture can be easily reduced by any theory, no matter how hard anyone tries.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Feminism and Theory
I'm having issues with critical feminist theory.
When I was in high school I felt very strongly that I was a feminist, but felt uncomfortable with the term...much the same way many liberal people seem uncomfortable with the term "liberal." The problem is that liberals who feel constrained by some of the potentially negative connotations with the term have "progressive" as an alternative. I was not sure in high school, nor am I now, what term I can substitute for feminism.
The issue is that, certainly on many levels I am a feminist. I feel a distinct level of disquiet in terms of the place of women in the workforce (i.e. equal pay for equal work) and am frequently frustrated by the clear devaluing of many traditional "female" roles...as well as my need to differentiate myself from "the girls." I feel the conflict and double standard between thinking of women (and myself) as sexually empowered and free to choose versus the woman as slut or as sexually objectified person. I feel the conflict between my own need to proceed in all things rationally and my sometimes uncontrollable tendencies toward emotional response. And I sometimes feel frustrated at my insistence on calling the later "behaving like a girl" with a distinct negative connotation.
All that being said, I'm a feminist. I desire equal rights, equal treatment and equal respect for my gender. And the crux, perhaps especially for women of my generation, is demanding this while also embracing the differences that are inherent to the sexes and genders (based as much an evolutionary-biological perspective, as a cultural perspective.) I'm not sure. But really, none of that has much at all to do with the issues I'm having.
Because of where many of my professional and academic interests lie (reproductive medicine and reproductive medical anthropology) I find myself reading a lot that seems to have been written by one form or another of a critical feminist. And I'm finding myself increasingly uncomfortable with the stands taken by said personages. I am, in many regards, a Neo-Marxist. I do view many issues of the world in terms of who holds power over whom and the resultant outcomes. However, I'm realizing that this does not extend into a strong critical feminist framework of thought in my brain, especially in terms of medical anthropology.
Too much of the feminist perspective is about the bio-medical complex trying to keep the woman down. I do believe that too much of the Western bio-medical complex looks at many things (not just reproduction and reproductive cycles) in terms of disease and ill-health, however I believe this is a problem system wide and not directed simply at women's issues. It's a problem with the cultural upbringing of the complex. Western bio-medical providers, at present, exist primarily as problem solvers. It's why more providers practice curative medicine than preventative medicine. In this country especially, it is probably due, at least in part, to the profit and corporation based system under which we operate.
Yet still, I'm a firm proponent of the bio-medical complex (something of which I someday intend to be a practitioner.) And it is difficult for me to believe that the system is still governed in an entirely patriarchal way that just hopes to point out how weak and unfit women are. The issue is not about being in control of women, it is simply about being in control. (Which, we must admit, has led to a lot of gains in terms of survival rates of humans in general, and particularly for women of child bearing age and their offspring.) The feminist perspective seems to be too wholeheartedly dismissive of medical intervention without firm scientific reasoning for such a standpoint. Yes, interventions happen unnecessarily, and probably too frequently, but it's a complex issue.
I'm currently reading this book, or trying to read, that I just ordered from Amazon.com. I was all excited about it, just like the last one I ordered for the same purpose (a paper I'm supposedly writing on how immigrant women perceive the childbirth experiences here)...but find myself frustrated as I go along. I was able to deal with this perspective from the books that are 30 or 40 years old. A generation ago feminism NEEDED to be different. A generation ago feminism needed to be highly critical of our patriarchal system. A generation ago women really were being kept down as a whole.
But, the author of the book I'm reading now originally wrote it in the early 90's. A new edition came out early this decade. This women, as is the case with many women who are interested in the cultural transects of reproduction, are just too focused on the narrow feminist world-view which is, frankly, outdated. It just turns everything into too black and white an issue. Nothing is simple and black and white. All issues that deal with human health and human culture are complex and multi-layered.
Seriously, is the issue REALLY that the bio-medical complex views sperm as virile and aggressive while viewing the uterus and ovaries as passive receptors?
When I was in high school I felt very strongly that I was a feminist, but felt uncomfortable with the term...much the same way many liberal people seem uncomfortable with the term "liberal." The problem is that liberals who feel constrained by some of the potentially negative connotations with the term have "progressive" as an alternative. I was not sure in high school, nor am I now, what term I can substitute for feminism.
The issue is that, certainly on many levels I am a feminist. I feel a distinct level of disquiet in terms of the place of women in the workforce (i.e. equal pay for equal work) and am frequently frustrated by the clear devaluing of many traditional "female" roles...as well as my need to differentiate myself from "the girls." I feel the conflict and double standard between thinking of women (and myself) as sexually empowered and free to choose versus the woman as slut or as sexually objectified person. I feel the conflict between my own need to proceed in all things rationally and my sometimes uncontrollable tendencies toward emotional response. And I sometimes feel frustrated at my insistence on calling the later "behaving like a girl" with a distinct negative connotation.
All that being said, I'm a feminist. I desire equal rights, equal treatment and equal respect for my gender. And the crux, perhaps especially for women of my generation, is demanding this while also embracing the differences that are inherent to the sexes and genders (based as much an evolutionary-biological perspective, as a cultural perspective.) I'm not sure. But really, none of that has much at all to do with the issues I'm having.
Because of where many of my professional and academic interests lie (reproductive medicine and reproductive medical anthropology) I find myself reading a lot that seems to have been written by one form or another of a critical feminist. And I'm finding myself increasingly uncomfortable with the stands taken by said personages. I am, in many regards, a Neo-Marxist. I do view many issues of the world in terms of who holds power over whom and the resultant outcomes. However, I'm realizing that this does not extend into a strong critical feminist framework of thought in my brain, especially in terms of medical anthropology.
Too much of the feminist perspective is about the bio-medical complex trying to keep the woman down. I do believe that too much of the Western bio-medical complex looks at many things (not just reproduction and reproductive cycles) in terms of disease and ill-health, however I believe this is a problem system wide and not directed simply at women's issues. It's a problem with the cultural upbringing of the complex. Western bio-medical providers, at present, exist primarily as problem solvers. It's why more providers practice curative medicine than preventative medicine. In this country especially, it is probably due, at least in part, to the profit and corporation based system under which we operate.
Yet still, I'm a firm proponent of the bio-medical complex (something of which I someday intend to be a practitioner.) And it is difficult for me to believe that the system is still governed in an entirely patriarchal way that just hopes to point out how weak and unfit women are. The issue is not about being in control of women, it is simply about being in control. (Which, we must admit, has led to a lot of gains in terms of survival rates of humans in general, and particularly for women of child bearing age and their offspring.) The feminist perspective seems to be too wholeheartedly dismissive of medical intervention without firm scientific reasoning for such a standpoint. Yes, interventions happen unnecessarily, and probably too frequently, but it's a complex issue.
I'm currently reading this book, or trying to read, that I just ordered from Amazon.com. I was all excited about it, just like the last one I ordered for the same purpose (a paper I'm supposedly writing on how immigrant women perceive the childbirth experiences here)...but find myself frustrated as I go along. I was able to deal with this perspective from the books that are 30 or 40 years old. A generation ago feminism NEEDED to be different. A generation ago feminism needed to be highly critical of our patriarchal system. A generation ago women really were being kept down as a whole.
But, the author of the book I'm reading now originally wrote it in the early 90's. A new edition came out early this decade. This women, as is the case with many women who are interested in the cultural transects of reproduction, are just too focused on the narrow feminist world-view which is, frankly, outdated. It just turns everything into too black and white an issue. Nothing is simple and black and white. All issues that deal with human health and human culture are complex and multi-layered.
Seriously, is the issue REALLY that the bio-medical complex views sperm as virile and aggressive while viewing the uterus and ovaries as passive receptors?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)