Starfish 4/24

Yesterday’s little experiment proved to be very interesting. I noticed many different things. When the women in the room were the only ones allowed to talk, different women who never spoke up that much in class before had a voice. They participated in the conversation and added a lot of solid contributions. I wonder why they spoke so much now, and not during regular class periods. Did it have to do with the men not being able to have a say? Did they feel more comfortable with just talking to women or did they feel obligated to say something since the men could not contribute to the discussion?

Another thing I noticed was how many of the men in the room reacted to not being able to speak. Many of them seemed bored and others seemed angry or anxious. Many of them wrote down messages, but some of the men in the room’s comments were not valid contributions to the conversation. It seemed that they were writing silly or stupid comments just to get attention back. Was it really that hard for them to just sit there, and listen without being immature? A couple of the men in class stated that women should not complain about not being heard because in today’s society they have just as big as a voice as men do. I wish this was the case but it is not true all the time. I have felt like my voice was not as important as a man’s before and I am sure many other woman can think of one time they felt the same way. I think this exercise really allowed the men to know what women in the past and present have had to go through to get in a word here or there. “Every woman has known the torture of beginning to speak aloud.” –Cixous. Some of the men in the room got the chance to endure that “torture” as well.

Wouldntulike2know 4/24

I absolutely loved yesterdays class. What a great idea from Dr. Rog to limit the mens expression to writing! Seeing how frustrated they got actually brought me satisfaction that I really didn't even know I needed. This experiment proved that I, falling into Althuser's position that People who believe themselves to be outside ideology are in fact, completely in ideology. Irigaray reinforces this in explaining how women are not aware of their own desires, sexual or not. She says "Must the multiple nature of female desire and language be understood as the fragmentary, scattered remains of a raped or denied sexuality? This is not an easy question to answer. The rejection, the exclusion of a female imaginary undoubtedly places woman in a position where she can experience herself only fragmentarliy as waste or as excess in the little structured margins of a dominant ideology, this mirror entrusted by the (masculine) "subject" with the task of reflecting and redoubling himself." The fact that I didn't even know that women are oppressed in this manner was rather shocking. For the thirty minutes that we engaged in this role reversal, it became clear how we as a society operate, "excluding the female imaginary" thereby allowing us to experience ourselves "only fragmentarily" Seeing the few men get so irritated by this exercise, forcing their voices to be fragmented, was highly enlightening. I think we should do it more often!

kMO Cixous & Butler

I never regarded feminist theory as being important to a critical media and culture major but after reading Judith Butler I see the connection. Dr. Rachel Ward somewhat discusses this topic in my communication 300 class which has helped me understand some of the more difficult concepts such as women denoting a common identity. Over the years it has become more prominent for the term woman or women to represent a “site of contest” which has led to some studies regarding name significations. I found this quote to be extremely interesting…”If one is a woman, that is surely not all one is; the term fails to be exhaustive, not because a pregnedered person transcends the specific paraphernalia of its gender, but because gender is not always constituted coherently or consistently in different historical contexts…” The political assumption that there must be a universal basis for feminism, one which must be found in an identity assumed to exist cross culturally has become somewhat of a cultural phenomenon. It would be interesting to get more in depth on this topic because as a woman I feel very uneducated. We represent an entire group which has been stereotyped for years so it would be of interest to me to find out how this affects current day mass media.

Bella Post Class4/25

Class yesterday was an extremely interesting experience. I have never been put in a position where a male professor put the girls in power of the class, on purpose. One thing I find interesting is how, though there are far fewer males in most of my classes than there are females, the males still tend to assume roles of power at time. I really enjoyed Dr. Rog’s comments about raising our hands, and commenting on the boys’ behavior. I know most of the guys, especially Danny, became extremely frustrated by not being able to speak. Some of the other guys sat quietly and listened, but many of them felt the need to express themselves. I think I learned a lot yesterday about the disjoint between men and women. For instance, Danny said he is not able to accomplish anything when he works with a girl or a group of girls–he says he has to take charge of the situation in order to finish the project. I have worked with Danny and I would say he is quite the opposite. He doesn’t always bring his full attention to the project or to class and is often focused on other things. If I were to respond to Danny, I would tell him that he doesn’t take control of a group, his group takes are of him. I think that many men are spoiled–they think everything comes easily, they don’t have to work to get a woman, to be successful, some of them just believe it’s going to be handed to them. As a woman, I know that I will have to work twice as hard as my male peers in order to be successful. Depending of where I decide to work after college, I know I will struggle to be as competitive as my male colleagues. The struggle of being a woman is something I have grown up and am fully aware of, so experiences like yesterday’s class, where the women are specifically put in power, was extremely interesting.

July-->Helene Cixous

Helen Cixous’s subject line is so interesting and controversial because it talks about the feminine role that women have either encountered or will encounter. There are a few men enrolled in my class, which means it is dominated by women, so I am excited to read the comments from my fellow colleagues. Blogging will definitely relieve some tension about women vs. men. Inequality that separates a man from a woman can easily be compared with racial inequalities among the black and white community.

Gender roles in society are supposed to be equal to one another, but as a woman I will have to admit that it has not reached its goal yet. Cixous agrees by mentioning, “Organization by hierarchy makes all conceptual organization subject to man” (male privilege). The United States is dominated by men, especially in hierarchy positions. Ever since we’ve established a government in the U.S. it has been a man holding down the fort. I don’t mind men holding higher ranks, but it becomes a problem when their success comes with a negative attitude. Respect is often the reason why both sexes can’t maintain a successful relationship.

Also, in reference to the domination that a man holds in the United States often comes with a shift in attitudes from the man and woman. We are not subject to be inferior to men, but in some cases women are more passive because it’s a common norm. Masculinity is normally forced on a man when he exits his mother’s womb. If it’s a boy he gets a blue room, once he grows old enough to walk he gets to throw a football, in his teenage years he is taught his role in society, and as he gets older he maintains an ego that causes he to believe he is higher than all women.

kMO Cixous & Butler

elizabeth byrne -april 24

I thought todays class was really able to show alot about how men and women interact not just in a classroom setting, but also in American Society. Through out history women haven't had much of a voice, but at the same time I think it is up to an individual to make her voice heard. I don't think Hillary Clinton is a good example of a women getting into power because she has prior history and knowledge that helped her get to where she is now. Not just any women could make it to where she has gotten her self. But at the same time, Hillary Clinton (regardless of her political beliefs) is showing women and girls around the country that it is possible. It is a movement that women are continuously getting higher positions in the corporate world and regardless if men like or not- it is happening every where right in front of our eyes. After class, elyse and i were talking about confidence in men and how secure they are with themselves in regards to the wife/ woman making more money.  Because of ideologies and society men feel that they have to hold more power or be a more dominant figure and now that women are going that extra step men have to step back and realize that yes this is the 21st century and they are going to have to actually work for a top position rather then getting it just because he is a man. In my brothers case, he has finally realized that it is not about Wallstreet and so what if his wife makes more than him or if he isnt making the amount of money he is making each year. Why sacrifice happiness for money when happiness is what matters? 

As I said earlier I think it is a sign of security for men to be happy with women as top figures and ceo's of companies , I also think that it is a sign of insecurity when women are afraid to have their voices heard or to act dumber around boys/ men. Just as men follow some ideologies i also think that women let themselves fall into the women roles (household chores, lower jobs, less income etc.) just because it is the easy way out. 

Nichole April 24

What did this exercise teach us? That I’m glad I didn’t go to an all girls school. I think, not so much the men in class, but more so the uneducated and other men in society, would say that they wouldn’t mind taking the back seat to women who wants to work in the corporate world, but that most of them really would mind. However, I do not agree that this is because of society and has more to do with the way that one is raised and the level of confidence bestowed upon them. My boyfriend, for example wears more pink than I do (ever hear the saying, only a real man can wear pink?) and has no problem getting the occasional pedicure with me (without polish of course). I think that the line between masculine and feminine is coming to an end. I wear blazers and vests confidently all the time and am not made fun of for it or called a feminist, and I know women that only shop at Dior Homme. Like Liza said, and I know her brother too, it’s no longer what someone HAS to do in life as much as what people WANT to do. I think he is confident enough in himself that he can pursue a career in teaching if that was his passion and not be discouraged if his future wife made more money. I don’t think a REAL man, one with confidence and happiness for his wife, should be humbled if she makes more than him. And in the end, who really cares what career you have as long as you are happy doing it… that to me is the point of life.

If a woman wants a career in a major corporation, she has obvious set backs and uneducated people might set her on a lower platform and might not offer her the job with the same credentials as a man, but she can rightfully pursue that career and I think that is what’s important here. I think we have all experienced the notion of “penis envy” that Iragaray writes about and that is because as aforementioned, a woman might not get the same job with the same credentials as a person of the opposite gender. Thus, if women had different sexual organs, she would get the job she wasn’t offered before and that is what Iragaray refers to in the essay.

Bumble: post class april 24

Today’s class was a very interesting drill. I believe that guy or girl, no one likes to be suppressed, or not given the right to speak. I think that this experiment might not accurately reflect what is happening in the world, simply because that is what Dr. Casey told us to do, so there was a different ideology of power structure at work. It would be interesting to keep some sort of tabs of how many times women speak in class and how many times their voices are heard and followed through on. What was said about being in-group projects and not be heard tends to be a common trend among women.

More importantly, despite what men might think, there are many times when women are silenced. Whether or not it is because of the outer ideologies at work, or stemming from inside there are many serious issues involved in this. In our cmc200 class we were talking about the notion of rape and dominance. There are numerous girls whom I know on this campus who have been sexually violated by guys and who are too scared (mainly for social reasons) to say anything. One girl even has an issue with understanding why the guy is at fault. If that is not the submissive ideology at work, then I do not know what is! Girls feel pressure to act in ways that they believe guys want us to. Maybe in certain arenas women have stepped up to vocalize certain things, but in sex… men dominate.

From the examples of girls who are raped and then continue to engage in sexual acts with the guy, because she feels like she needs to, it is clear that girls are constantly seeking approval from men.

I am curious about how much of what we say in class is taken seriously or is listened to at all? Is there selective hearing?

I am curious what guys think, and maybe it is the ideology of masculine power, but I am curious there is no escaping it!

There certainly are gender roles though in relationships which show the hierarchy of gender. Even the basic rule of dating, that the man must pursue, and the woman has to wait for the man to come to her.

boo boo bear 4-24

This is something I wanted to say when we were talking about how a guy would feel if their spouse/partner made more than they do. This is my response that I was about to pass on before the females in the class decided to cut off our power by not allowing us to pass on messages.
As long as a man does not have an ego, the female making more money than he does should not be a problem… this has caused problems in the past because some/most men have egos. For example: I want to be a high school teacher and baseball coach the rest of my life. My girlfriend desires to have a powerful well-paying career. The chances are, she will make more money than me, but just because she might make more money, this does not mean I will not be able to support my family in ways more important than finances (love, support, quality time, ect.). It is a common social belief and understanding that men should support the family (its actually a Christian belief as well). But support goes way beyond finances.

As far as what I learned in today’s class, I experienced the feeling that women have felt for hundreds of years. As soon as our discussion started and I was not allowed to express my feelings I FELT LIKE SOMEONE WAS SITTING ON MY CHEST. I wanted so bad to just blurt out my thoughts and join in the conversation. It almost makes it feel like your are not part of the class. This is why I think it is the dumbest thing for teachers, coaches or other authority figures to tell someone to shut up or quit talking. Speech, however so little or pointless, give people the sense of belonging. This makes people feel worthless. I imagine this is why some feminists are so extreme when it comes to equality.

Sgt. Pepper, Irigaray

Ok, so wow. I just sat myself down in the library, and curled up in one of those big leather chairs thinking I was about to read some critical theory that I most likely wouldn't understand. Little did I know, I was about to read some soft porn. I actually had to look over my shoulder to make sure no one was close enough to see what I was reading.

So the fact that I was being shy about such a sexual text, does that prove Irigaray's point exactly? What I got out of his article "The Sex Which Is Not One" is that ultimately women are forced to act inferior to men. It's this hegemonic practice that dates back a long way. "For when "she" says something, it is already no longer identical to what she means. Moreover, her statements are never identical to anything" (257). I think this idea of women bowing down to men definitely surrounds us in society. In advertisements and other media sources, the "shy, sexy woman" can be found everywhere one looks. And this propaganda is so well put out there that people hardly notice their acceptance of it. For one to truly be numb to gender stratification, practices really need to be taught (or not taught) from birth because the second a child steps into a classroom, girls are expected to stay quiet and boys are excused simply because of the saying "boys will be boys." My CMC 100 teacher, Dr. Cavanaugh, is actually putting this method of teaching gender equality into practice with his toddler-aged son. He told us that he does not give his son just "boy" toys, but Dr. Cavanaugh and his wife make sure to show no favoritism toward what our society sees as "masculine."

Though while I do agree with Irigaray that gender stratification is a problem, it seemed a little extreme when he compared women to slaves in the last paragraph. Of course, as a woman, I believe in equal rights for men and women, but I don't think 100% equality is what we need. I think we're different for a reason, and should be able to embrace our femininity.

NewYorker - Irigaray

This article seemed a little backwards to me, and somewhat outdated. Today, women are the most equal with men than they have ever been before. Sure, maybe in some cases they may earn a little less, or are still stereotyped as a homemaker, but overall they have come a long way. We even have our first woman running for President. That is something so new to us, yet in many other countries they have had women Prime Ministers for years. He talked about women wanting the masculine features, and while that may be true, we would be saying the same thing if the roles were reversed. But since it is man that is "dominant" of course women are going to want to be "dominant" as well.

Some people have already made interesting comments. Someone said that sometimes women aren't taken very seriously, simply because she is a woman. Therefore, it is key nowadays to dress for success - do not reveal too much skin, and look polished and professional. That way one can look the part. Just saying this though made me think about what we said in class- when a man wears a tie, it is more dressed up and professional - but why? Because somewhere in our culture that was the standard that was set. An unwritten rule.

Also, the Rosie the Riveter sign, brought up by someone also, was the beginning of change for women. Of course we wanted to show that we can be just as tough as men, because they were getting praise for being tough, so shouldn't we? Now more and more females are in the workforce than before, some women making even more than men. Despite this being true, I see thousands of commercials on TV of a mother in a middle class home doing all the housework. It's always a woman in a commercial for vaccums, cooking, Ziploc bags, Febreeze, etc... Why is this still the case to show women at home and not men? It is more common and acceptable now for men to be at home and take care of the house while the woman works, but since it is not "mainstream" yet adverstisers fail to show that on TV.

I also found it interesting that Marx categorized women as a different class - that is absurd to me. I don't even know how anyone could support that. I also thought it was funny that someone mentioned the pregnant man. I watched that Oprah episode and looked it up online, and the thing is is that the person is a female, just that she is undergoing a sex change - which is a whole other topic of discussion.

ChittyChittyBangBang Cixous & Butler

These readings really played off of each other and were nice to analyze together. Cixous and Butler both examined the social constructions of sex, gender, and desire. Both readings were very compelling and gave insight on man and woman's perceptions of themselves and each other. Both authors focus on the nature of femininity and Butler focuses more on the politics of feminism.
Cixous's reading was really interesting. I was really intrigued by her definitions of "bisexuality". "Bisexuality - that is to say the location within oneself of the presence of both sexes, evident and insistent in different ways according to the individual, the nonexclusion of difference or of a sex, and starting with this 'permission' one gives oneself, the multiplication of the effects of desire's inscription on every part of the body and the other body" (159). I always viewed bisexual as purely sex driven. I never imagined that it could also stand for women connecting with both sexes on more than just a sexual level. Men on the other hand do not have the same mentality.
In Cixous's reading she brings up the main fear men as a culture have: femininity. "But at the same time, man has been given the grotesque and unenviable fate of being reduced to a single idol and clay balls. And terrified of homosexuality, as Freud and his followers remark. Why does man fear being a woman? Why this refusal (Ablehnug) of femininity?" (159). Men typically become homophobic in order to establish themselves as masculine. Men are so afraid to be seen as passive or feminine in our culture. Why is like this? Why do the media type any feminine qualities in a man as "gay"? Why is it bad for men to have these types of qualities anyways?
Why can women have masculine traits and appreciate both types of sexes and men cannot? Why is there this double standard of acceptance? Our social constructions have made society think this way and it saddens me.
The quotes at the beginning of Butler’s article were striking to me. "Strictly speaking, 'women' cannot be said to exist", "Woman does not have a sex"... The word woman carries so many meanings. This reminds me Derrida and how at the root of every word there is only difference. I suppose women want to be equal to men and by being differentiated by the word, women, has lowered us in society. "There is a great deal of material that not only questions the viability of 'the subject' as the ultimate candidate for representation or, indeed, liberation, but there is very little agreement after all on what is it that constitutes, or ought to constitute, the category of women" (192). Words carry a great deal of power and feminists are working towards regulating gender relations.
Both of these authors have very stimulating views on representations of femininity. I think the biggest task at hand is equating men and women so that both sexes can have qualities of both-appreciate both femininity and masculinity.

romulus Irigaray

"Women is never anything more than the scene of more or less rival exchange between two men, even when they are competing for the possession of mother-earth?
Sex is the primary factor of categorization in which our society organizes itself. "Adam and Eve" is propaganda complied to control the populace. The narrative is supported by religious authority, whose influence has dominated western civilization for thousands of years. The text is untouchable because it is from above, people have to believe it.The text is a snapshot into the subjection of women by men at the time. Women were an afterthought not even made by god. The story established male superiority over women.
The 2 class system is still in place today. Irigaray speaks confusingly about female sexuality. Women are sexual beings who are being pleasured actively or passively at all times. I would assume that women are in control of their own pleasure. Penetration by a man is seen as a violation that disrupts the tranquility of virginity. Women are thus objects of men.
Sexuality is a powerful tool in which people can use to attain certain resources. Sex is everywhere, and people have the option to pursue as much or as little of it as possible. I believe that women can use their sexuality to their advantage. It's hard for me to comprehend ever treating any female as inferior. Homosexuality, and bisexuality disrupt the patriarchal system.
There are recognizable inequalities between men and women, especially with male privellege in place, however popular culture can change that. Adam and Eve was a snapshot of ancient beliefs, if one was taken of today it would be of Hillary Clinton as potentially the first female President of the United States of America.

Bella Cixous

Helene Cixous wrote, “…that is not a provocation, it means the woman admits there is an other. In her becoming woman, she has not erased the bisexuality latent in the girl as in the boy. Femininity and bisexuality go together, in a combination that varies according to the individual..” (Cixous 16). This quote had me thinking very hard. Had there been a time when I had no questioned the nature of my sexuality? Had there been a time when I had not known I had both a connection with men and women? I am not by any means what society has termed bisexual, in the sense that my sexual desires is strictly for the male sex, but perhaps, I am bisexual according to the definition provided by Helene Cixous. As a woman, I have always known that I connect deeper with women than I do with men. Granted, I have never been in a serious relationship, so perhaps that will change once I find a life-mate. Cixous’ theories about the nature of women and femininity and bisexuality truly provoked me to think about my behavior in society, the way I interact with my sex and the opposite, and they way I view my sexuality. She later wrote, “I am speaking here of femininity as keeping alive the other that is confided to her, that visits her, that she can love as other” (Cixous 160). Women are able to be both masculine and feminine; we are fluid, free to move within our bodies, minds, and spirits. We have a no borders between the two halves of ourselves, the masculine and feminine. She asks the question, “why do men fear being a woman?” (Cixous 159) , and how they refuse to come into contact with the Other within their own body. I found this article extremely provoking on the nature of sexuality and gender, and am very curious as to what will be said in our discussion tomorrow. I think a common idea is that men are socially trained to be masculine, to avoid and distrust anything that is feminine within them. Perhaps it is not so much social as it is biological, but the again, who’s to say?

BubbaNub : Cixous & Butler

   I found these two readings to tie together nicely in their search for the foundation of our societies hegemonic readings towards sex, gender, and desire.  Cixous' methods remind me of our first theorist De Saussure as it begins with a series of oppositional readings.  "Thought has always worked as opposition" reinforces Saussure's theory that in our language exists only differences (157).  Seeing as we cannot divide our thought from sound, we are only aware of subjects in relation to what they are not.  So when we couple the words man and woman, we have already set in motion a relation defined by opposites.  Then we attempt to relate the differences by saying man is masculine and woman is weak.  From there the basic infrastructure of what has become ingrained in our society today takes root, at least according to Cixous.

     Butler is a bit more hesitant in examining the root of the problem.  "The political assumption that there must be a universal basis for feminism, one which must be found in an identity assumed to exist cross-culturally, often accompanies the notion that the oppression of women has some singular form discernible in the universal or hegemonic structure of patriarchy or masculine domination" (193).  Although, she does not necessarily agree that there exists one such universal structure, she does go back to Cixous by observing the potential connotations and problems of the word 'women'.  Clearly the word carries with it numerous meanings and varying hegemonic readings developed over time, but Cixous asks is it a word that can be reclaimed or one that feminists should (and currently) steer clear of?  More importantly, is language itself capable of defining binary couples as equally opposite?

WouldntULike2Know Irigaray

"A woman's evolution, however radical it might seek to be, would not suffice ten to liberate woman's desire.  Neither political theory nor political practice have yet resolved nor sufficiently taken into account this historical problem, although Marxism has announced its importance.  But women are not, strictly speaking, a class and their dispersion in several classes makes their political struggle complex and their demands sometimes contradictory." (Irigaray 258).

The obvious issue of gender dominance as well as class dominance creates an difficult situation for those unfortunate souls belonging to the subordinate class, gender, not to mention race.  In the context of gender ideologies and hegemonic roles within them, gender limits women regardless of their merit in virtually every aspect of their lives.  

Within the corporate world, women are not taken very seriously because of the societal importance placed on their devotion to their family lives.  Women must sacrifice spending time with her family (or even choose not to have a family at all) if they wish to make strides in their careers.  If she tries to balance work and family, she is seen as not serious enough and is less likely to advance within her company.  Men, however, are more likely to excel in the business world if they are married with children because that means that they probably have a wife at home tending to the home, meaning that he can focus more on his job.   At home, women give up some of the power because, if they are not working, they are not gaining any income making them dependent on the husband.   Finally, in the bedroom, because of this loss of power brought on by societal constraints, she is, yet again, powerless.  Her thoughts and desires are not important because, socially she is less important too.  Women even contribute to our own self subordination because we buy into what we know to be false.  We adamantly believe that we are better suited to raise children and keep the home, thus, limiting our opportunities in life.  

Fixing this problem is no easy task.  Because men (what Marx could label as a class) control society, their objective is to reproduce status quo.  Secondly, the class difference among all women truly limits them from uniting as a whole to make a change.  The first step towards gaining footing in a society that sees you as nothing more than a baby maker and a "hole-envelope" (254), would be to reestablish the division of labor and broaden the strict definitions of gender and the summation of its parts.  

How to do this-- I have no idea.  However, strides are being made in that direction.  Oprah recently had The Pregnant Man on her show.  Google it.  You will be shocked. 

Bumble: Giroux // ACTIVE OR PASSIVE?

Education…
What is the purpose? My entire life I was told that going to school was about thinking critically, making informed decisions, and have evidence to be able to back up your point. Until going into the CMC major, honestly, I have not felt that those who preached actually followed through in teaching. My parents were the ones who taught me to think critically and meticulously. Even so, I sometimes do not feel the need to question my parents when they tell me something. This is because of the ideology of "older is wider..." NOT ALWAYS true, although many times it is!

Most of the students who you would talk to are so threatened by bad grades in as Althusser would say is an oppressive state apparatus, that they are not concerned with truly learning and challenging what we learn, but rather, just listening and following directions. They say to challenge what we hear, but many teachers will punish if this happens. I believe it is important to challenge always, not in an oppressive or negative way, but rather a quizzical way. When someone tells me something, I like to ask why they think that and where they heard that from. Much information that we hear is spoken without points to back it up, and so that is why it is important to ask the questions.

Also, people fear asking questions because of how they might appear in class.

One class which I took, really opened my eyes to the notion of our right to question and ponder information flung at us from all directions. My frontiers to physics class, was taught by president Duncan, and the most important thing he taught us was never to accept anything at face value. What we are taught growing up is that science is a hard truth that is testing and therefore must be correct. He made us challenge this conventional knowledge and look at how these scientific conclusions were made. You have to be even more critical about science given to you, because many of us are not experts in it, and tend to take the science as a given truth. Nothing can ever be proven true, you can only prove something else to be false. Theories are what make up our lives, not facts.

Rollins College does not excel in students challenging authority, think about how few protesters there are. But, for the most part I believe it has to do with the ideology of GRADES. While this article suggests to not have a clear cut curriculum, I thrive on structure and some sort of path, predetermined.

This article also remindined me of the class when we discusses opposing ideologies like active and passive. Both are seen as positive and both can be seen as negative. Particularly in the genre of education.

Bumble: Luce Irigaray

Females…sex….gender, this article proves what has been pointed out by every single theorist, there are hidden ideologies behind everything.

According to Marx, our lives are defined by the rule class, which this article points out is the male species.

Females are thrown into certain behavioral patterns, and act with certain emotions because of all of these external factors affecting our consciousness.

It is ironic that femininity is defined through a male lens, where everything in society is run by this ideology. It is only natural that we perceive ourselves in a certain way. Many things make sense if you look at the hierarchy of gender roles.

This article was very graphically descriptive, but only made the points stronger that women are defined by men.

There was a theorist who wrote something very interesting. Thomas Fitzgerald defined masculinity by a term called oppositional gender. Basically, it is acceptable (and normal according to this article) for women to possess or want to possess male qualities. Feminism is described as women who live in envy of the penis. However, men are distinctly defined as “NOT feminine.” Again, this feeds into the notion of the negative ideologies attached to being female. Feminism according to this definition is conflated with bad, or not a sociological norm.

Women’s right are interesting because essentially, it is the right to do what men do, which by it self is degrading and suppressing rights. It is a very unique and interesting cycle.

Women in the submissive sense, are simply (as the article says) somewhat like slaves to men. But, on the other hand are conforming to men.

Double Edge Sword?

Even the famous: WE CAN DO IT: female rights poster, implies that we can be as physically tough and strong as Men:

sawsaw Giroux

After reading this essay by Henry A. Giroux, I feel that I have gained a new understanding of the concept of postmodernism. The way Giroux breaks up the nine points into different ideas regarding postmodernism made it easy to comprehend. I found the first point, "education must be understood as producing not only knowledge but also political subjects" to be correct. The point he makes about linking public education to the imperatives of a critical democracy is something that our education system lacks greatly. Students are not taught about democracies and the importance of being a critic in our school systems. We need to try and link the practices of critical democracy and public education. The eighth point Giroux makes about: "Critical pedagogy needs to develop a theory of teachers as transformed intellectuals who occupy specifiable political and social locations" (387). He later goes on to say that a critical pedagogy needs to ascertain more carefully what the role of teachers might be as cultural workers engaged in the production of ideologies and social practices. (387) Giroux is encouraging teachers to undertake social criticism as a public intellect who addresses social and political issues in the world around them. I feel that this point is very true and accurate. It is the job of teaching professionals to be a critic of the world around them. To discuss political and social issues and to teach students to analyze the world around them.

sawsaw Irigaray

I found the read, "The Sex Which is Not One," by Luce Irigaray to be very inappropriate and vulgar. He goes into great detail about the women's body and gives more information then needed. I was very uncomfortable reading this essay because I feel that it exposed too much of the human body and shined light on things I feel are private. By exposing the women in this essay, Irigaray feels that he is defending the oppression of women's desires and pleasures and trying to show to the world that women are being taken advantage. Although, I do agree with sticking up for women's feeling and emotions and would never want women to be oppressed, I feel that the method Irigaray uses only further exploits women. By using detailed imagery and sexual language women's most private and intimate feelings are being revealed. Irigaray's main point is shown in the last sentence of the essay: "But, if their goal is to reverse the existing order even if that were possible-history would simply repeat itself and return to phallocratism, where neither women's sex. their imaginary, nor their language can exist" (258). This sentence is saying that women will never reach the point where they are free to be themselves and have liberty to express their feelings and desires. I do feel that it is important for women to be their true selves and to be free to express their feelings I feel that what Irigaray is trying to expose is private and should be kept secret. He wants women to be open with their sexuality and be able forward with their desires and yearnings. By doing this, women will only further be adhering to the desires of men. If women become free and open with themselves and their sexuality it will further entice men's sexual desires. I think that what Irigaray is defending should be sacred and something that should be kept private.

July 4-17-08

Like I mentioned in my previous blog, authority figures have the ability to start and stop whatever, whenever. Foucault’s quote represents this notion perfectly: “Everyone locked up in his cage, everyone at his window, answering to his name and showing himself when asked.” The word “everyone” stands for the populace within the United States, while the word “his” represents all Repressive Apparatuses. For example, the government set laws that society has to abide by, but it has become so rehearsed that society can’t distinguish between their individual rights and the rights forced by the government. When a police officer stops a man for no apparent reason or uses his suit to gain respect in wrongful ways often creates controversy among society and higher forces, but it’s dangerous to question authority, especially when they have the right to stabilize you.

This leads me into Foucault’s second quote, “Inspection functions ceaselessly.” Society functions as a mechanical device that is preprogrammed to act in a certain way. When authority figures bust in houses, pull over cars, harass people, or stage a crime, they don’t get arrested like the people caught in these stages do; instead they are brought into court and dragged out into they are clear of all charges or it eventually gets buried under other reports. We have to let authority figures take their course when claiming to benefit out environment, but it’s a time when they go to far.

July--> Foucault

Foucault introduces readers into the state of political force. There was an interesting quote that he discussed in the reading, which is “Our society is one not of spectacle, but of surveillance.” The class discussion that came about really struck a nerve because it reminded me about our campus. The quote basically means that our society likes to be watched. I believe that surveillance is needed for security reasons, but not when one’s privacy is invaded. Back to Rollins, in the apartment complex there has been vandalism occurring on a weekly base, but authority figures are not handling the situation in a sincere manner. Students who are affected by others insecurity believe that cameras are needed to overcome this dilemma. Surveillance is needed on a college campus, especially when campus security isn’t patrolling the building every hour. The political force in this situation is the president or the one who has the hold on cameras being installed within the apartment complex. The president holds everyone accountable for the vandalism that occurs on each floor. For example, if there are exit signs, holes in the walls, or minor damages made to the third floor, then all of the residents that live on that floor split the final bill and it is put on the student’s school account. “Cameras Cameras We Want Cameras”! This is the constant chant spoken by Rollins’ students who are victims of their peer’s behavior. Authority figures have the power to make rules, but only when it’s convenient for them. Rumors have arisen: “Authority figures don’t feel there is a need for cameras because students are afraid of getting caught doing multiple things or they don’t want to be held accountable for their guest’s actions. These are not valid reasons for not installing the cameras. As one can see, I agree with Foucault’s quote because I’ve been affected by it!

kMO 4/17

In today's world image is everything. From everything as simple as a young girl feeling pressure from the media to be a size 0 to an entire corporation's marketing tactics, image is VITAL. In class we discussed facebook and it's impact on society. Interestingly, today it is harder to find someone who doesn't have facebook as opposed to someone who does. Frighteningly, this explosion of private information being exposed to the public has happened in less than 2 years...

Sometimes when I read articles in which describe the effect websites such as myspace and facebook are having on the community I realize I don't want to be a part of the trend. The thought of any information (especially pictures) being permanently accessible on the internet is terrifying...What most people don't think about is the future. Do I really want my children to have unlimited access to pictures taken of me from college parties? Or do I really want a potential workplace to have pre-conceived notions about who I am and the lifestyle I live?

The idea of the Panopticon is one I have constantly thought about...The idea that one acts a certain way while under the surveillance of others in comparison to how they act while alone is a very fascinating topic...If you apply "organizations" such as religion and the government to this concept a whole new world of ideas is born. It is important to note the way we respond to the laws of the government in comparison to those of any "higher power." We know for sure that if we murder someone we will spend our lives in jail under the United States law, whereas we do not know for sure what will happen under the laws of a "higher power." In my opinion people feel they can get away with more when they feel they are not under strict ruling...

kaymac 4.17.08

I love how some of my classes always happen to overlap at the exact same time. In art history we're studying Romanticism and the concept of The Other came up in class when we looked at this extremely exoticized piece by Delacroix called Death of Sardanapolus. Based on a romanticized poem by Byron, the picture illustrates the story of Sardanapolus, an Assyrian king who, when he realized that he could not defend himself when he heard that his enemies were coming to attack him, killed and burn all of his possessions, including himself, his concubines, and horses, so that his enemies would not own his possessions. Despite the obvious materialistic message in this painting, it also correctly portrays Orientalism and the image of The Other. It's showing this foreign king as a savage, amoral, and materialistic, willing to kill women and horses for his own ego. This painting also exoticizes concepts like death and murder through the women and the setting they are in. Also, the women, despite the exotic setting they are in, are definitely not foreign with their pasty-white skin. However, because they are naked and in this exotic setting, they themselves become The Other as well.



I think the quote from bell hooks that completely illustrates this concept and that we received from class is:

“When race and ethnicity become commodified as resources for pleasure, the culture of specific groups, as well as the bodies of individuals, can be seen as constituting an alternative playground where members of dominating races, genders, sexual practices affirm their power-over in intimate relationships with the Other.” (367)

Going back to the women, you have Assyrian men murdering extremely pale and very naked women. Even in this gruesome act, these "exotic" women still offer sex appeal with their pale skin, hefty figures, and submissive body positions and they are still offered as a commodity.

sawsaw 4/20

I found Thursday's class discussion of bell hooks ideas to be very interesting. I had never really taken the time to consider what it would be like to be considered “exotic”. Being born in the US I never consider my self to be an “exotic woman” because everyone around me looks just like me. It was only until I traveled to Europe two summers ago that I realized what it felt like to be considered “Different” or “Exotic”. When I was in Norway, I went to the a farmer’s market in the middle of the small town. Everyone I came encounter with immediately knew I was American. They knew by the way I looked, how I talked and by what I was wearing. It was a very interesting feeling being considered “exotic” and being looked at in a different way.

The quote that stood out to me the most from bell hooks is: “Within commodity culture, ethnicity becomes spice, seasoning that can liven up the dull dish that is mainstream white cultures” (366). This quote really made me think how important “exotic” people are to the mainstream hegemonic culture. They liven up and add excitement to out society. I know that when I was in Norway people were constantly coming up to me to talk to me or look at me because I was so different. I made their small town more exciting. Just like people from other cultures or with different skin types make our society more interesting. I am going to Germany and Poland this summer on a missions trip and am excited to see how different and ”exotic” I will be to them!

Starfish 04/17

The panopticon is a very interesting concept to me, because I agree with Foucault when he says that we are all slaves to the panopticon. We do things and act certain ways because we believe that someone is watching us. There is this higher power that controls our every move. For some reason the first thing I thought about was the idea of religion. In all different types of religion, there is a higher being/beings or God/Gods who are always watching you. There are rules of how to live your life and punishments for those who do not do what they are supposed to. Religion works as its own panopticon. People who are religious cannot see this higher power, but they believe it to be there and powerful. They believe they are constantly under surveillance. I also wonder if we can be our own panopticons. I thought about my personal conscience. I would never steal or do something wrong because of the law, which is a panopticon, and because of how it would make me feel. It would not settle well with my conscience. Therefore, am I watching and surveying myself? Am I my own panopticon?

Another thing in class that I found interesting was Foucault’s quote, “Our society is one not of spectacle, but of surveillance.” (101) At first, I could not comprehend the appeal of being watched. I didn’t agree that we are a society of surveillance. Then, the minute when Dr. Casey put up facebook on the screen, it clicked. Why are we, myself being included, obsessed with facebook? I put pictures up on my profile, I update my status, and I change my profile picture frequently. The only answer I can come up with is I want to share these things with other people. I want to let them know what I am doing and I want them to see my pictures of my weekend. Thinking about it some more, I cannot understand WHY! This actually is a bit frightening but I figure I am not the only one who does not understand why they love facebook so much.