CNN had a story about a suicide bomber who wounded 5. The perpetrator was a woman. The headline reads, “Female Suicide Bomber Wounds 5 In Iraq.” Wounding 5 people is important, and a big deal, but if the perpetrator was a man, it probably wouldn’t have been on the front page of the website. Maybe if five people were killed, because suicide bombing is still a fascinating occurrence to Westerners, but probably not if there were no casualties. At a time when hundreds if not thousands of people are killed every day in a variety of gruesome ways, five people being wounded is not terribly earth-shattering. Saying “Female bomber” is an example of othering; a male suicide bomber is just a suicide bomber, but a female suicide bomber must is specifically a female suicide bomber. Police ended up killing her as she exploded her vest.
I think the reason why this was front-page worthy is because most readers are more horrified at a female suicide bomber, because women are supposed to be kind and caring and nurturing, not destructive. It seems that women suicide bombers are less common than males, but, in the article it says that more there have been more than 30 cases of female suicide bombers so far this year, showing that it is not uncommon.
The Earth, a British news source, has a more detailed story about the woman, explaining that there have been increased warnings about female suicide bombers, because they can pass by easier since Islamic law prevents guards from touching women while searching them.
This suggests that female suicide bombers seem are taking advantage of cultural gender norms to infiltrate places that men would have difficulty entering. If instances like this continue to happen, will traditional Islamic law be reevaluated or reinterpreted to allow for women to be searched more thoroughly? Will they find some alternative possibility, such as employing more female guards who could search women without breaking as much with cultural norms?
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
Article about Transgender kids
In the November 2008 issue of The Atlantic there was an extensive 5-page article title "A Boy's Life" about transgender children. I was impressed by the thoroughness of the article. It discussed various viewpoints concerning transgender kids, from doctors in the Netherlands who first started giving puberty-blocking hormones to pre-teens, to a therapist in Canada who works with families to get their kids to identify with their birth gender. It’s tough, because with kids it’s hard to tell. When I was younger I wanted to be a boy, almost all of my friends were boys, I dressed mostly in boyish clothes and was proud when someone asked me if I was a boy or a girl. But, in middle school and then in highschool I started acting more “girlish,” and I so completely love being a woman I could not imagine anything different. But, if I had been asked at age 11 whether I would want puberty-blocking hormones, I might have said yes. Maybe not, but it would be a possibility. I cannot imagine growing up as a boy, though. My femininity is so sacred and wonderful and beautiful to me, I would not change anything about it for the world.
Many kids go through similar phases, and sometimes it is difficult to tell whether the child is gay, transgender, or just more comfortable acting like the opposite sex at that point in their life. Thus, there is quite a bit of discussion about what is best to do for children. Many parents are pretty adamant about letting their child go to school and act like the opposite sex in every way, while others try therapy to “fix” the “problem.” For “truly” transgender people, the earlier they can be comfortable identifying with their inner gender, the easier it will be for them to be socially accepted. But, overly encouraging kids who act like the other sex and offering puberty-blocking hormones can even further confuse the child.
The article interviewed mostly the parents of transgender children, but also various therapists and scholars in the field, and I think it is a pretty comprehensive article which discusses the different attitudes toward transgender children.
Many kids go through similar phases, and sometimes it is difficult to tell whether the child is gay, transgender, or just more comfortable acting like the opposite sex at that point in their life. Thus, there is quite a bit of discussion about what is best to do for children. Many parents are pretty adamant about letting their child go to school and act like the opposite sex in every way, while others try therapy to “fix” the “problem.” For “truly” transgender people, the earlier they can be comfortable identifying with their inner gender, the easier it will be for them to be socially accepted. But, overly encouraging kids who act like the other sex and offering puberty-blocking hormones can even further confuse the child.
The article interviewed mostly the parents of transgender children, but also various therapists and scholars in the field, and I think it is a pretty comprehensive article which discusses the different attitudes toward transgender children.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Women Small Business Owners Receive Pathetic Amount of Federal Contracts
On Thursday, October 2, the New York Times had an article in the business section called “Female-Owned Small Businesses Push for Share of Federal Contracts.” Right now only 3.4 % of annual federal contracts go to female-owned small businesses, even though women account for almost half of all small businesses. A bill was passed in 2000 with a 5% quota for women small business owners to receive the federal contracts. But 5% is absurd. If women own almost half of all small businesses, they should be getting a corresponding quota. Quotas are not even the right way to go about it, but it may be a necessary first step. The article did say that less than ¼ of female-owned small businesses are registered with the government, which may partially account for the pathetic amount of contracts awarded to women. There are also several groups who are working to help women register there businesses.
The article does not address what percentage of male-owned small businesses are registered with the government compared to the percentage of contacts awarded, but if men own slightly over half of all the small businesses, and even if all of them are registered, they should not be getting 96.6% of the contracts. If 1/8 of the businesses registered are female-owned, women should be getting at least 10% of the contracts, at the very least.
The article says that even with the groups helping women to register, “many women remain flummoxed by the system.” It does not say if the men are flummoxed, but it seems they cannot be if they are receiving so many contracts. If the men are not flummoxed it does not say why they are able to so easily register their businesses. Why do women need these special groups helping them anyway? Are there groups that help men and ignore women? If there are groups that help men, and now there are groups that help women, why are men still receiving such a disproportionate amount of the contracts?
The article does not address what percentage of male-owned small businesses are registered with the government compared to the percentage of contacts awarded, but if men own slightly over half of all the small businesses, and even if all of them are registered, they should not be getting 96.6% of the contracts. If 1/8 of the businesses registered are female-owned, women should be getting at least 10% of the contracts, at the very least.
The article says that even with the groups helping women to register, “many women remain flummoxed by the system.” It does not say if the men are flummoxed, but it seems they cannot be if they are receiving so many contracts. If the men are not flummoxed it does not say why they are able to so easily register their businesses. Why do women need these special groups helping them anyway? Are there groups that help men and ignore women? If there are groups that help men, and now there are groups that help women, why are men still receiving such a disproportionate amount of the contracts?
Palin Not Airbrushed
The recent hubbub about Sarah Palin’s Newsweek cover and the lack of retouching of her photo is reflective of our current societal norms, including our impossible beauty standards. Sarah Plain is widely regarded as beautiful, indeed, she was a beauty queen when she was younger. The fact that our society cannot handle to see pores, wrinkles and “unwanted hairs” (which is totally problematic in itself…do we know that she really hates those hairs? Who says that they are unwanted? Why are they unwanted?) shows how our ideal of beauty is getting out of control. It is so common to airbrush pictures, that the picture of a politician on a news magazine is expected to airbrushed. Models, maybe, but politicians, really? Also, there would not have been this hubbub if it were a man showing pores and “unwanted hair.” They did bring up the claim that Obama’s pictures are all airbrushed, and I cannot find a written statement either confirming or denying this claim, but from the pictures that I have examined, they do not seem to be. Fox News did a clip on this controversy, and brought in two women to debate it. There was a woman from the Women and Politics Institute at American University, Julia Piscatelli, and a Republican media consultant, Andrea Tantaros. Due to their backgrounds, it makes sense that Piscatelli was arguing for the public to accept flaws because they are natural and okay, and we don’t need to hide them all, while Tantaros was upset because she thought it somehow made Palin’s image worse.
As my friend said when we were talking about this issue, if I was in any way supporting Palin, I would probably support her more if I knew she wasn’t airbrushed in photos, because it makes her more real.
Piscatelli brings up the fact that Hillary Clinton has had unflattering pictures of her on magazine covers, which also shows how Palin, a younger woman, is sexualized, while Hillary is desexualized as an older woman.
As my friend said when we were talking about this issue, if I was in any way supporting Palin, I would probably support her more if I knew she wasn’t airbrushed in photos, because it makes her more real.
Piscatelli brings up the fact that Hillary Clinton has had unflattering pictures of her on magazine covers, which also shows how Palin, a younger woman, is sexualized, while Hillary is desexualized as an older woman.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Best and Worst Dressed from the Emmys
“Cojo’s Best and Worst Dressed Emmy Picks” http://www.etonline.com/news/2008/09/65835/
The idea of “best” and “worst” dressed is completely absurd, due in part to the fact that fashion sense is completely arbitrary, evidenced by the completely conflicting opinions of people over who was best and worst dressed at the Emmys. I looked at a couple different articles, and some of the same people who someone said was worst dressed, someone else said was best dressed. It is also almost always women who are subject this critique, because women are the ones who are supposed to have a fashion sense. Women also have more preassure on them to wear something unique and beautiful. Men are expected to wear tuxes or suits, which are extremely basic, and it is both difficult to go wrong or to be unique wearing a tux. But, women are expected to go all out. They get criticized for wearing dresses too short, too long, covering too much, not covering enough, dresses too sparkly, dresses too plain, wearing the “wrong” color…the list goes on and on. It seems almost impossible to wear an uncontroversial dress, even if someone wanted to.
In this particular critique, this man, Cojo narrated his best and worst Emmy picks. He chose 5 best dressed, and 2 worst dressed. All seven people are women, with only two are women of color, Sandra Oh, and Eva Longoria Parker.
Cojo is a very flamboyant man, and regardless of whether or not he is gay, he has the “gaze” down pat. He has a sexual comment for most of the “best dressed” women, referring to Teri Hatcher as “butter,” saying he wanted her to “melt all over” him, and complementing her on the feminineness of her dress. For Sandra Oh he calls her “smoldering,” and said that her black lace dress had a feel of “naughty underthings,” which was a completely unnecessary sexualization of her dress. Next he talks about Mariska Hargitay and how she is a “woman” who has “curves for days,” saying she turned her dress into “pure sex.” Christina Applegate and Marica Cross he did not so blatantly sexualize, saying only that Applegate looked “phenomenal,” and Cross’ dress was “so right.” Why couldn’t his other commentary been equally admiring, but without the sexualization?
Heidi Klum, one of the “worst dressed,” who went out on a limb by wearing a sleek dress with a cape, he asked “why so covered up? Why the cape? Are you auditioning for the next batman movie?” calling her outfit choice “a scandal, a shame.” He seemed especially mad because she is a model, and she was wearing something he thought was atrocious. This leaves no room for women who are trying to be totally unique in their choice of dress. For Eva Longoria Parker, the other worst dressed who was wearing fringe, he denounced her for the fringe, and said that “fringe says to me ‘do you want a lap dance?’”
This goes back to the whole idea that women can only look nice if they look sexy, if men want to have sex with them just from looking at them. There is nothing wrong with people stating their opinion about other people’s clothes, but to equate sexiness with beauty and to only judge women, and only judge them on how sexy they looked to you, is unnecessary and absurd.
The idea of “best” and “worst” dressed is completely absurd, due in part to the fact that fashion sense is completely arbitrary, evidenced by the completely conflicting opinions of people over who was best and worst dressed at the Emmys. I looked at a couple different articles, and some of the same people who someone said was worst dressed, someone else said was best dressed. It is also almost always women who are subject this critique, because women are the ones who are supposed to have a fashion sense. Women also have more preassure on them to wear something unique and beautiful. Men are expected to wear tuxes or suits, which are extremely basic, and it is both difficult to go wrong or to be unique wearing a tux. But, women are expected to go all out. They get criticized for wearing dresses too short, too long, covering too much, not covering enough, dresses too sparkly, dresses too plain, wearing the “wrong” color…the list goes on and on. It seems almost impossible to wear an uncontroversial dress, even if someone wanted to.
In this particular critique, this man, Cojo narrated his best and worst Emmy picks. He chose 5 best dressed, and 2 worst dressed. All seven people are women, with only two are women of color, Sandra Oh, and Eva Longoria Parker.
Cojo is a very flamboyant man, and regardless of whether or not he is gay, he has the “gaze” down pat. He has a sexual comment for most of the “best dressed” women, referring to Teri Hatcher as “butter,” saying he wanted her to “melt all over” him, and complementing her on the feminineness of her dress. For Sandra Oh he calls her “smoldering,” and said that her black lace dress had a feel of “naughty underthings,” which was a completely unnecessary sexualization of her dress. Next he talks about Mariska Hargitay and how she is a “woman” who has “curves for days,” saying she turned her dress into “pure sex.” Christina Applegate and Marica Cross he did not so blatantly sexualize, saying only that Applegate looked “phenomenal,” and Cross’ dress was “so right.” Why couldn’t his other commentary been equally admiring, but without the sexualization?
Heidi Klum, one of the “worst dressed,” who went out on a limb by wearing a sleek dress with a cape, he asked “why so covered up? Why the cape? Are you auditioning for the next batman movie?” calling her outfit choice “a scandal, a shame.” He seemed especially mad because she is a model, and she was wearing something he thought was atrocious. This leaves no room for women who are trying to be totally unique in their choice of dress. For Eva Longoria Parker, the other worst dressed who was wearing fringe, he denounced her for the fringe, and said that “fringe says to me ‘do you want a lap dance?’”
This goes back to the whole idea that women can only look nice if they look sexy, if men want to have sex with them just from looking at them. There is nothing wrong with people stating their opinion about other people’s clothes, but to equate sexiness with beauty and to only judge women, and only judge them on how sexy they looked to you, is unnecessary and absurd.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Ad analysis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fucxG-he2qU
I happened to catch part of this ridiculous advertisement on the TV in CafeMac , and later found the whole thing on youtube. The ad is for a color cream to be applied to grey facial hair, and these two men visit this other man in “rest home.” The rest home, is, naturally, staffed by nurse/cheerleaders, (I counted at least six standing sexily in the background). The ad is obviously directed at men, not only because it is a product for men, and the constant reference to “men,” but because of the copious amounts of scantily clad cheerleaders. It is also focused around football (the man in the rest home is a football star), which is a male-dominated sphere. I understand that cheerleaders and football go together, but it is such a blatant effort to use women to sell a product, I was disgusted.
The first the audience sees of these girls is a straight-on view of a girl who is bent over, giving the audience a cleavage shot. She quickly bounces up, puts her pom-pommed hands on her hips and perkily asks “hello, may I help you?” This is the only line any of the girls have, the rest just stand around. All the girls are very thin, wearing a short skirt and a bra-like shirt, with flowing long hair. The men are the ones who are doing, the women are very passive and supportive and flat. The three men in the advertisement, two interviewers and then the one they are interviewing, do all the talking, and appear in the foreground pretty much the whole time (except for the cleavage shot in the beginning), with out-of-focus cheerleaders in the background.
After the man gets out of the rest home due to the magic powers of the anti-graying cream, he is back on the football field, but not playing football, instead he is surrounded by a crowd of cheerleaders. At the end it says “he scores!” but again, there is no football playing going on. It says “he scores” when he is surrounded by jumping, smiling, bouncing, half-naked girls, suggesting the double-meaning of the verb “score,” and suggesting that by using this hair-coloring cream, you too can “score” with hot cheerleaders.
I happened to catch part of this ridiculous advertisement on the TV in CafeMac , and later found the whole thing on youtube. The ad is for a color cream to be applied to grey facial hair, and these two men visit this other man in “rest home.” The rest home, is, naturally, staffed by nurse/cheerleaders, (I counted at least six standing sexily in the background). The ad is obviously directed at men, not only because it is a product for men, and the constant reference to “men,” but because of the copious amounts of scantily clad cheerleaders. It is also focused around football (the man in the rest home is a football star), which is a male-dominated sphere. I understand that cheerleaders and football go together, but it is such a blatant effort to use women to sell a product, I was disgusted.
The first the audience sees of these girls is a straight-on view of a girl who is bent over, giving the audience a cleavage shot. She quickly bounces up, puts her pom-pommed hands on her hips and perkily asks “hello, may I help you?” This is the only line any of the girls have, the rest just stand around. All the girls are very thin, wearing a short skirt and a bra-like shirt, with flowing long hair. The men are the ones who are doing, the women are very passive and supportive and flat. The three men in the advertisement, two interviewers and then the one they are interviewing, do all the talking, and appear in the foreground pretty much the whole time (except for the cleavage shot in the beginning), with out-of-focus cheerleaders in the background.
After the man gets out of the rest home due to the magic powers of the anti-graying cream, he is back on the football field, but not playing football, instead he is surrounded by a crowd of cheerleaders. At the end it says “he scores!” but again, there is no football playing going on. It says “he scores” when he is surrounded by jumping, smiling, bouncing, half-naked girls, suggesting the double-meaning of the verb “score,” and suggesting that by using this hair-coloring cream, you too can “score” with hot cheerleaders.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
XC on course discussion
I suppose this is based of of question 15:
From the age of 15-18 my family went through divorce, bankruptcy, and jail. These were all intense and crazy individually, and they all made me think. All of these events were events that I always knew happened to other people, and to other people's parents, but never to me. My family used to be middle-class, respectable, we live in a primarily white suburb of St. Louis. My school was pretty mixed between privileged white kids and then black kids from the city. So, I was used to being fairly normal for my school (except for the fact that I was born at home, my family doesn't beleive in shots, and we have chickens, but that's another story). Suddenly, I could relate to all the other kids with divorced parents. Suddenly having a parent who is a felon didn't seem to be that big of a deal. Suddenly having money was a big deal.
These three events shaped my worldview and my own identity. I have a middle-class background, because my family used to have money, and most of my relatives working-middle or middle-class, so I can relate to and understand everyone coming from a middle-class family. But, I also know what it's like to be well below the poverty line, to not be able to afford going to the dentist, and to have to watch how much we spend on groceries.
For most of my childhood, I had two parents who seemed to have a decent-enough relationship, and we were all a relatively happy family, so I know what that's like, but I also know the shittyness of divorce.
I didn't realize how much illegal activity my dad did until late in highschool. So, for most of my childhood, being a felon meant that you were a horrible person who did horrible things, so I recognize that mindset. But, now, I realize that there are all types of crimes and all sorts of reasons for doing them, and not of all the "criminals" are criminal.
These three events have caused me to be caught in between all these different worlds and all these different attitudes. They caused my white-middle-class privilege to be called into question, and they made me feel more understanding based on class rather than race.
From the age of 15-18 my family went through divorce, bankruptcy, and jail. These were all intense and crazy individually, and they all made me think. All of these events were events that I always knew happened to other people, and to other people's parents, but never to me. My family used to be middle-class, respectable, we live in a primarily white suburb of St. Louis. My school was pretty mixed between privileged white kids and then black kids from the city. So, I was used to being fairly normal for my school (except for the fact that I was born at home, my family doesn't beleive in shots, and we have chickens, but that's another story). Suddenly, I could relate to all the other kids with divorced parents. Suddenly having a parent who is a felon didn't seem to be that big of a deal. Suddenly having money was a big deal.
These three events shaped my worldview and my own identity. I have a middle-class background, because my family used to have money, and most of my relatives working-middle or middle-class, so I can relate to and understand everyone coming from a middle-class family. But, I also know what it's like to be well below the poverty line, to not be able to afford going to the dentist, and to have to watch how much we spend on groceries.
For most of my childhood, I had two parents who seemed to have a decent-enough relationship, and we were all a relatively happy family, so I know what that's like, but I also know the shittyness of divorce.
I didn't realize how much illegal activity my dad did until late in highschool. So, for most of my childhood, being a felon meant that you were a horrible person who did horrible things, so I recognize that mindset. But, now, I realize that there are all types of crimes and all sorts of reasons for doing them, and not of all the "criminals" are criminal.
These three events have caused me to be caught in between all these different worlds and all these different attitudes. They caused my white-middle-class privilege to be called into question, and they made me feel more understanding based on class rather than race.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)