The Paradox of Thin = Beautiful

So I read Susan Douglas' chapter "Lean and Mean" during my off time at a volleyball tournament today. When the other girls on my team saw me reading it, they assumed I was reading it for pleasure, or maybe even tips, but it never crossed their minds that I may be reading it for a class. It was interesting to me that she assumed this as if it were normal to be reading a book regarding being thin and I believe was really reflective of our society as a whole. As Douglas points out, there are an overwhelming increase in young adolescent girls who have an obsession with being thin and (for society's standards) beautiful, and the number gets higher every year.

When I was watching an episode of Beverly Hills 90210 at the gym on Saturday, there was a brief scene where Kelly was sitting at her mother's kitchen table with her 7-year-old sister. When her mom asked if either of them wanted ice cream, Kelly's sister responded that she only wanted it if it was low-fat vanilla because she was watching her weight. A seven-year-old!! That is unheard of to me, an that was filmed in the 90's. So obviously there has been a constant problem with girls being unsatisfied with the way they look.

And then came plastic surgery. To the unaware, this was a quick fix to improve your looks, but it doesn't come cheap. I think it is safe to say that plastic surgery, despite a boob job, is for the most part utilized to maintain a young look. Therefore, one would guess that women would start getting plastic surgery around 40, when their years start to wear on them. Douglas pointed out in this chapter that some M.D.'s are recommending women as young as 20 should start to get procedures done, because then by the time they are older, the results will look more natural (?!).

The obsession with plastic surgery took its course, as every good craze should, in the world of reality television with shows like Dr. 90210 and The Swan. The reality of these shows, however, is that plastic surgery is a phenomenon and many, many women are getting it done. But some women, for whatever reason, are not quick to admit it. Many housewives stay "hush, hush" about the work they've had done or get critical with what characterizes plastic surgery. For example, some women argue that botox, fillers, and lip injections do not count as plastic surgery because you have not gone under the knife. I leave you to be the judge of that. Below is a picture of a new member from the show Real Housewives of Miami who in the first episode, claimed "she didn't believe in plastic surgery".

I don't know, to me it seems like that face did not come to her naturally. And then, on a final note, I will leave you with a picture of her mother. A perfect example of why we should never, never get any work done on our face.

If that's not motivation ladies  then i don't know what is!

Women and Education

The reading from Susan Douglas’ “Lean and Mean” chapter led me to think about two experiences I had in elementary school (related to the “mean” part of the chapter). The first was near the beginning of second grade, when my teacher called the names of about twelve people in my class (about ten girls and two boys), told us that we had to go out in the hallway, and proceeded to ask us if we knew what the word “clique” meant (she explained that she was not talking about “the click of a switch”). My classmates and I had no idea what she was referring to. So she proceeded to ask us, “Who is friends with ‘Samantha’?” and those students stood by ‘Samantha.’ Then she asked, “Who is friends with ‘Kristin’?” and I and a few other students stood by ‘Kristin.’ Two students were left standing in the middle, unable to “choose” which girl they were closer friends with. The teacher explained that it isn’t nice to be friends with someone and not let other people join your friend group, or something to that effect.

I felt horrible after the experience (as evidenced by my memory of the experience at this point in my life) and felt guilty, even though I had no reason to be guilty. I had gone to nursery school with ‘Kristin‘ and we were in the same kindergarten class. I had never been in a class with ‘Samantha’ before and therefore hadn’t even had a chance to get to know her yet. I don’t know how my classmates felt about the experience but, reflecting on it now, I believe that the teacher imposed her own interpretation of what the dynamic was within this subgroup of students in the class, implying that we were purposefully excluding and hurting our classmates, when I would argue that this is rarely a goal for most seven-year-old girls. Instead, it is more related to upper-elementary and junior high school aged girls, which leads me to my second experience in sixth grade.

One evening, my parents asked me if I had heard anything about ‘Kristin’ receiving emails and phone calls from random girls in Long Island. I had not, and they explained that her mother called, saying that some girls from our class made arrangements with girls they knew outside of school in Long Island, who harassed ‘Kristin’ with rude comments (even though they didn’t know ‘Kristin’). The whole concept of “cyber/phone bullying” was unfamiliar to me and I thought it was ridiculous (I asked my mother, “Why should ‘Kristin’ care what they say? They don’t even know her,” when it was probably a horrible experience for ). I had distanced myself from most of these girls at this point in my schooling (which my parents and ‘Kristin’s’ mom were aware of; therefore, I was not associated in any way with the Long Island girl situation) and continued to distance myself, blissfully unaware, in some ways, of the drama that surely ensued in junior high and high school.

Media portrayals of “mean” girls certainly affect how pre-teen and teen girls act (or how people think teen girls act) and I found it interesting that my teacher did predict what would come in the future, but I don’t think she handled the situation well because (a) we were too young to fully understand what she meant and (b) she did not address what she perceived to be the “problem” in any other manner other than talking to us in the hallway for five minutes, which was accompanied by questions from other classmates about what happened in the hallway (I didn’t really know how to explain it to those who asked). Obviously being identified as participators in “clique-like” activity did not discourage some from engaging in exclusionary and harmful practices.

The quote from Douglas’ chapter that “Americans spend more money on dieting products than on education” (Douglas, 2010, p. 229) was disturbing to me. It is interesting to find out where priorities lie, but disappointing that more superficial concerns receive more attention and funding than more significant concerns. In the chapter by Fausto-Sterling, she mentions the early reasons why women and men received different levels of education. This topic was included in my American School class, in which we discussed that women were perceived to have a lower capacity to possess/retain knowledge, were inherently weak, nervous, and emotional, and would be limited in their reproductive capacities if they “endured” too much strenuous education. In the 1800s and early 1900s, women were traditionally educated in domestic tasks and did not engage with mathematical or scientific concepts, which would exceed the female capacity to understand.

I find it interesting to investigate what role schools and education can play in the lives of women, whether it be participating in the oppression of women, encouraging oppression and antagonism between women, or, in some cases (not mentioned much in these readings), empowering women and female intellectual abilities.

The Power of Language and Society When Defining What Sexuality Means

[The page numbers I cited are different from the class text; I used a copy of the article from the Summer 1980 publication of Signs, Vol. 5 No. 4]

Both Rupp and Rich discuss the power of language and social systems when defining sexuality and experiences between “same-sex” individuals.

Rupp chooses the term “same-sex sexuality” as a substitute for “queer,” “gay,” “lesbian,” or “homosexual” and proceeds to explain why this term is also inadequate, as many acts cannot be defined as same-sex and sexuality is a highly contested word which changes in meaning depending on context. She begins by contesting the “same” part of the term, arguing that many relationships, even if they are between two individuals who identified the same sexually (males in Athens or Japan, lesbians), often encompass some difference between the individuals, whether it be class, age, or gender identification (Rupp, 2001, p. 288). Using the term “same-sex” may be imposing a label on these relationships that was not previously associated with the specific actions in different cultural contexts. If the term “same-sex” is used, it should apply to relations in which all factors, including sex, gender, age, class, race, and others are actually the same.

Individuals who Westerners may identify as engaging in same-sex activities may actually be involved with “different-sex” activities, in which one person dresses or acts like a member of the other sex. Once again, language serves to confine how sexual relations are identified and limits the extent of their mean. Transgender and third-gender individuals within specific cultural groups, such as alyhas and hwames from Mohave Native American tribes in the western United States, mahus from Polynesian cultures, hijras from India, and transvestis from Brazil, complicate how sexual relationships can be defined with Western language, as these cultures have specific names for these individuals and acts which Westerners define as “sexual” (291-292).

Rupp introduces the concept of a “spectrum of transgendered relations” (293-294), which begins to complicate what different cultures define as “sex” or “sexuality” and what interactions are encompassed within these terms. Westerners may view an act involving the genitals of one person as sexual, while a different culture may view it as a social practice, spiritual tradition, rite of passage, or simply an action without sexual connotation. Sometimes these interactions involve the domination of one person over another; therefore, should they be defined as “same-sex domination” (295-296) or is that introducing potential violence into the interaction which may not exist or may not be politically correct? Rupp ultimately determines that language is imperfect to define these relations and finds that the term “same-sex sexuality,” which she has identified as flawed, is what she finds to be the best term, even though it does not encompass most relations.

Rich explores the problem and manifestations of compulsory heterosexuality in society and the invisibility and negative status of lesbians within this society. She expresses that lesbianism is often trivialized or merely tolerated, and that feminism does not always address the issues of lesbian women. She cites four recent “feminist” texts which did not address the problem of compulsory heterosexuality and therefore could not adequately encompass the experience of lesbianism. The book For Her Own Good: 150 Years of the Experts’ Advice to Women by Ehrenreich and English presents the idea that a male, capitalist, consumerist discourse has prevailed around issues in female medicine. While this may be a valid point, the authors do not write about the negative effect this has on lesbian individuals. The text Toward a New Psychology of Women by Miller ignores the experience of lesbians completely. Other authors mention the “sexual division of labor,” which leads to gender inequality, but neglect to investigate the effect of this on lesbians. Historically, heterosexuality has been affirmed, even by those who claim to identify its biases and pitfalls.

Rich then explores what Kathleen Gough has identified as the “eight characteristics of male power in archaic and contemporary societies [which] produc[e] sexual inequality” (Rich, 1980, p. 638). Rich writes that a counterforce must act against these forces of power, in some ways portraying men as the only perpetrators of oppression against females. Capitalist systems require that someone must be at the bottom; why must it be those who identify their sex as female? “Women live subject to men” (643) and males’ sexual advances are supposed to be accepted by women without resistance and women must sacrifice in the workplace to survive. Men are characterized by their rampant sex drive, which must be satisfied by women. Even the term “consent” seems to be constructed; do women actually get to choose or do they feel obligated. Rich, as Rupp does, identifies that language is a shortcoming to identifying oppression against women and therefore working to end that oppression. “Enforc[ing] heterosexuality [ ] assur[es] male right of physical, economical, and emotional access (647).

The third section of Rich’s text brings up a concept Prof. Meika Loe has spoken about at numerous times on campus: the idea of a lesbian continuum, which includes the experience of all women with other women, not only women who identify as lesbian. It is the sense of emotional closeness and intimacy (not necessarily sexual) that women may experience to varying degrees throughout their lives. This continuum can be a way to identify the strength and power existing between women as a unique and valuable experience separate from societal preferences for heterosexual relationships. Some works of literature, including The Girl by LeSueur and Sula by Toni Morrison (one of my favorite fiction writers), represent closeness between women and the true intentions of a lesbian continuum.

Problems result with the idea of a lesbian continuum when women experience closeness with other women because they hate men, not because they find that they derive power from their experiences with women. The ultimate solution would be an element of choice; a feeling that women are not obligated to live heterosexual lives but instead can choose who they are in relationship with without consequence or scorn.

Forced Heterosexuality

I too was intrigued by this weeks readings in regards to the notion of heterosexuality as a socio-political constraint which forces the image of a normal relationship being one of a man and a woman. I think i found this article particularly interesting because, not only do i agree with its general observations, but it is also something which i have complicity accepted my entire life. Without realizing it, i have been swept up in this culture where we separate nearly everything into one of two categories: "norms" and "outliers." This is true for nearly every aspect of our lives, there is normal gender, education, sexual orientation, hobbies, etc. And if anyone was to not follow the normal constraints, they are immediately categorized, and often times discriminated against.

I was surprised i had never really thought about the notion of "Compulsory Heterosexuality" until reading Rich's article. By categorizing lesbians as deviating against the norm of heterosexuality, they are immediately looked upon in a negative light. I think this is interesting when we consider what the world would be like if we never had instituted the notion of compulsory heterosexuality, and what our would could look like if we find a way to get rid of its restrictions.

One area of her writing which i was a little baffled by is her notion of the sexual continuum. The idea that "all erotic life is a continuum, one which therefore includes relations with with men" makes me wonder, while it seems reasonable enough, if it contradicts the messages of many other lesbian activists. I have constantly been hearing about the notion that a lesbian is a lesbian and a gay man is a gay man (and this idea excludes any sort of sexual attraction to the member of the opposite sex). This just makes me wonder which is the more advantageous analysis for the further advancement of women's, specifically lesbian, rights. I tend to agree with the idea of a complex continuum because it makes me think of people falling in love with people and personalities (rather than a person for their sex), but whether this idea of an all encompassing orientation is possible in the mass-mindset is a whole new debate.

Who's to say what's normal?

Rich brings up the point that, basically, it is standard to assume one is heterosexual until told otherwise. This reminded me of the discussion we had in class where we brought up that when reading, we most often assume the character in question is white upper-class (when we have not been given any type of description), until again told otherwise. For example, when we begin reading novels and the protagonist finally appears, it usually does not cross our minds that they could be black unless it is so firmly stated. Similarly, like one's race, one's sexuality follows this same standard. You are heterosexual until there is a claim to the opposite. Sadly, this shows just how closed minded our society is. By assuming one thing until told another we are posing a road block for acceptance.

I mean, no wonder it is so hard for people to come out of the closet. It is as if the option of homosexuality is something so foreign that its existence doesn't occur to us until we come up close and personal with it.

"Mommy, What's a Blow Job?

First I thought i would open my post with an anecdote that goes hand-in-hand with what Douglas states in her chapter "Sex R Us." At one point, she discusses the Clinton-Lewinsky sexcapade which launched the sexual proclivities of the President and his intern into prime-time news. By continuously discussing that matter on television spanning all hours of the day and evening, it was to be expected that younger children would inevitably be exposed to material and sexual acts which were inappropriate. One of my mother's most angry moments took place because of President Clinton's behavior. Apparently, as my family often retells, one day 7 year old Hillary returns from a day at school, everything is normal as I bounce off the bus and walk into my kitchen to greet my mother after a long day of extensive 1st-grade learning! My mother is used to hearing an immediate stream of questions which i feel immediately harass her with once i return home. She expects me to say something along the lines of "Billy told me that girls have cooties, is it true?" or "How come Kelsey gets to drink soda and I cant?" or something along those lines ... But on one fateful day I nearly gave my mother a stroke with the question that came out of my 7-year-old mouth: "Mommy, what's a Blow Job?"

I asked the question with an innocent look on my face not realizing the magnitude of the words which just escaped my mouth. My mother, now enraged, asked me where i heard about a "blow job." When i told her that my classmate told me that the president got them my mother could barely handle the news. It was as if she saw my childhood come to a close and i was now forced into the world of sex and all that comes with it.

If you ask my mother about it now, she embellishes (i hope!) when she adds to the story by saying she "damn near picked up the phone to call the White House and have that (*insert expletive here*) President of ours explain to my 7-year old what he did!"

While it is comical to look back on now, I can only imagine how my mother felt to hear her daughter come home from school and wondering about sex and blow jobs. It is a truly frightening realization when one considered the sheer mass of sexual references and innuendoes which constantly enter the lives of children. It seems that at a younger and younger age, our population is becoming highly sexualized to the point that young children are wearing makeup and exposing their midriffs and practicing catching the eyes of the boy heartthrob in the back row of the second grade classroom. I think that this is one of the more meaningful, and immediately pressing, issues which Douglas had brought up thus far in her book. If children are constantly inundated with sex, it is no surprise that children are becoming sexually active at a young age and derogatory practices are instilled earlier and earlier.

To sex or not to sex

Susan Douglas's "Sex 'R' Us" was nothing less than expected. In this chapter of her ever critical book, she discusses the 180 effect on our society and media as a result of the sexual revolution, especially the result on young women. Many mediums, "witnessed a revolution in the depiction of sexually suggestive and even explicit material." (Douglas, 167)

One of the first signs of tossing out any and all conservatism was in 1980 when the Calvin Klein began to release a series of underwear ads. That particular year, Brook Shields, a sexy 15-year-old, was the cover model and according to Douglas, screamed sex. In following years, Klein released many other ad campaigns which included print as well as TV media. They all crept a fine line bordering on "kiddie porn" which struck a nerve with right-wing religious groups, causing an uproar. These groups were disgusted with what they concluded were pedophilia marketing strategies and thought it had to be stopped. Funny how this was causing a scene nearly 30 years ago and we are still facing some of the same issues today. Just a couple of months ago GQ released an issue of their multi-million dollar magazine with stars from the hit show Glee  on its cover in scantely clad stereotypical high school attire. Now unlike the Klein campaigns, all parties were well over the legal age. The problem this time with certain parents groups was that the inappropriately dressed role models were playing roles of underage students on their television show and thus by ipso facto the magazine was again using the pedophilia marketing strategy. I personally don't understand the problem, since the character Finn (who appears on the cover) is 28 in real life, a good decade older than any age of controversy. If some guy in middle America is perverted enough to make up in his imagination that the cover models, who are all of age, by a technicality are underage somehow and gets off on it, well then America, I think we have bigger problems.

Next, Douglas touches on the topic of the (sadly) hit show Toddlers and Tiaras and how the show exploits these little girls', some still in diapers, implicit sexuality. We are shown girls, all under the age of ten, who beautify themselves with make up, hair spray, and even false teeth, to win the beauty pageant's top prize. Moving right along, we examine the generational phenomenon of Abercrombie & Fitch. Now we all know their message is loud and clear as we see it in all of the advertising campaigns, our clothes are great for the all American male/female. But what most of don't know or don't remember is their A&F Quarterly  which began production in 1997. This magazine was more than just a look book of the latest trends; "it promoted a lifestyle of Caucasian group sex, going down on your date at the movies, and mastering alcohol drink recipes" (Douglas 159), oh ya and Douglas forgot to mention that half the people in this magazine were naked (sort of ironic for a clothing magazine).

With all these notions of sex suddenly thrown into adolescents faces, its no wonder the presence of sexperts weren't far behind. Cosmo and Maxim gave sex education classes a run for their money as they progressively revealed rauchier and rauchier headlining titles trying to take advantage of the new sex revolution and tap into their reader's inner sex gods and goddesses.

Douglas appropriately includes a nod, while we're on the mention of sex, to the infamous show Sex and The City which undoubtedly changed, molded, created for all I know the sex lives of every women in America.

Now, Douglas briefly mentions the appearance of Pepsi ads as more evidence towards the influence of the sexual revolution on the media and how many commercials included drop dead gorgeous women being oogled at by unworthy male figures. I think Collins would agree that sex definitely sells. Then it is interesting, that just recently, Pepsi released a new campaign for its new 'skinny can' which features Sofia Vergara, the voluptuous Latina actress. What's ironic, however, is that it seems Pepsi did everything it could to hide it's model's curves and sex appeal (what the actress is best known for), an opposite approach from its ads in the past. I've included a link to the article I found for readers:
http://www.popeater.com/2011/02/14/sofia-vergara-pepsi-ad/
It leaves me thinking why Pepsi chose to do this? What there an ulterior motive? What could have caused the company to do a complete 180 back to the other direction?

Sexual Repression in Public School Sex Ed.

Both “Why Black Sexual Politics?” and “Sex ‘R’ Us” in Enlightened Sexism discuss the surprising sexual repression of our culture despite the obsession and commodification of sex and sexuality in the media. My public high school had (and still has) high teen pregnancy rates and many low-income students, but continues to teach abstinence-only sex-ed. in health class. I remember a particular assignment in which we were supposed to write a letter to our future children (because we would all definitely have children!) that they would read as a teenager, advising them in their sexual decision-making. I grew up in a conservative Christian household in which sex was rarely discussed and my exposure to media (television, etc.) was limited and closely monitored, so I wrote what I had heard at home and in school, which was to abstain until marriage. The four best essays (unsure if this was determined by content [abstinence-only or a more open conception of sexuality for young people] or quality of writing) in the class received an “Abstinence Works” t-shirt which listed reasons why abstinence is the safest choice, even though it was clear that many students in the school were not abstaining or writing letters that necessarily advocated for their future child to abstain.

A component of sexual repression, in my high school and in other venues, seems to also be sexual denial, a complete disregard of the actions and needs of those who are being educated. I did not need the school’s sex ed. message; I had already received it at home. The individuals in my class who were sexually active or were considering being sexually active needed to learn about safe methods. An interesting point that Patricia Hill Collins brings up in her chapter is the silence of African American politics “on issues of gender and sexuality” (Collins, 2004, 35). A lack of discourse allows stereotypes to prevail. A lack of discourse in school sex ed. classes allows another type of discourse to prevail, the discourse that teenagers are rampantly sexually active, unsafe, and must be controlled, when the reality is that they must be educated in order to make decisions that will ensure their own safety and health and will encourage better planning and less sexual abuse. Similar inaccurate discourses for women have emerged: that "women of African descent [are] associated with animalistic, 'wild' sexuality" (Collins 27), "that women's only value comes from their sex appeal" (Douglas, 2010, 167), that heterosexuality is "a hegemonic or taken-for-granted ideology" (Collins 37), and the list could go on. Serious conversations and discussion about sex and sexuality seem to be one of the few hopeful efforts to combat against these reinforced stereotypes.

NewsFlash: "VAGINA"

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

NewsFlash: John Jay High School Vagina Monologues Crisis

In the early 1990’s Eve Ensler collected and wrote a series of short episodic monologues which were all, in some way, related to the vagina. These soliloquies vary in their context. While some are humorous, others focus on harder subjects including rape and mutilation. But no matter when the monologue is about, a reoccurring theme is the importance of a woman’s individuality and the feminist that is within. The play, originally performed by Eve Ensler herself, has spread far and wide, even crossing national boundaries. Today, there have been thousands of performances, many of which feature celebrity readers, or groups of women speaking together. This week at Colgate, for example, many women joined together to raise awareness and gain empowerment through their performance of the Vagina Monologues. As one can imagine, performances of these often graphic, and often uncomfortable passages has raised controversy. One such example took place in March of 2007 at John Jay High School in Cross River, New York. As this paper will highlight, the rights of women to discuss their bodies and experiences openly is consistently denied, a problem which is a sign of continued female subjugation.

John Jay High School, my alma mater, is located in the small town of Cross River, which is a part of Westchester County. In March of 2007, the school was planning to host its third-annual “Open Mic Night.” Students in all four years of high school were invited to be a part of the performances. There were multiple bands, skits, poetry readings which were going to be performed. In order for the acts to be approved, each group or individual performer had to send in their poem, lyrics, etc. which were to be approved by the powers that be. Three girls in my grade, Megan, Elan, and Hannah, were planning on performing a skit from the aforementioned Vagina Monologues. Their performance was going to be a reading of the “My Short Skirt” monologue. The monologue, which is a particularly powerful section in which Ensler asserts lines such as my short skirt “is not an invitation/ a provocation/ an indication/ that I want it/ or give it/ or that I hook.” She also says “my short skirt/ is not a legal reason/ for raping me/ although it has been before/ it will not hold up/ in the new court.” The monologue is about female empowerment and liberation from abusive and unwanted advances. Unfortunately the three high school girls were called into the office of the administrative dean and told they would be unable to perform later than night.

The Dean told the girls that the Open Mic Night was open to everyone in the community and that younger children would be in attendance of the show. One of the monologues stanzas is as follows: “My short skirt is a liberation/ flag in the women’s army/ I declare these streets, any streets/ my vagina’s country.” Due to the use of the “graphic” word vagina, the girls were told they could not perform their piece as written. They were then given three options: they could forfeit performing in the show, they could choose another selection which didn’t contain the word vagina, or they could read their piece while not saying the “expletive.” The girls said they understood, and that they would figure out a way so they could still perform.

Amongst themselves, they decided that the word vagina was nothing vulgar nor expletive. They took the stage and performed “My Short Skirt” as they originally intended, Vagina and all. They immediately faced the consequences of their decisions. They were suspended (for insubordination). They were able to make their story heard: they were featured on all the news channels (nbc, abc, Fox, cw, etc.) later in the week, they were featured in a popular magazine, and Eve Ensler herself spoke for the girls, in fact, Ensler and the three girls were soon featured on the Today Show with Meredith Vieira. Luckily, the girls were able to spread their message that vaginas are nothing to be uncomforted by, they are nothing vulgar, and they wanted to spread the movement of women’s empowerment across the nation.

This incident threw my high school on to the map almost instantaneously. The entire student body, the parents and the community at large were all quick to make judgments and take sides. To me, it was surprising to see how many people were in favor of the school’s decision and were angered at the three girls in question. Most people seemed to be in agreement that the word “vagina” was something which the school had the right to ban from its performances. They cited the presence of younger children in the audience and asserted it would be uncomfortable and inappropriate for such innocent years to hear. However, the three girls (and Eve Ensler) strongly opposed this idea. They posed the question, what makes vaginas so inappropriate for audiences? Shouldn’t young girls feel comfortable discussing their body in its entirety?

I think the lack of open and blunt discussions about people’s bodies, and their specific body parts, is a serious issue. If people were able to be secure with their bodies, and more importantly, if members of the other sex were secure with discussing issues pertaining to women’s bodies, then perhaps there would be a lot less violence and disgust attributed to sexually related organs.

This performance could have been a very empowering experience not only for the three girls who were willing to stand up for their bodies in front of a large crowd, but also for those in the audience who could have been positively effected by their words. Instead, the bitter battle about which party was right, the girls or the administration, detracted from the beauty of the words spoken. Luckily, the girls were unable to sit back and passively accept their punishment of suspension. They instead reached out to spread their mission as far as they could. With the help of news agencies, and Ensler, the girls were able to spread their message that the vagina, like any other part of the body, should be talked about openly. Their assertion that there is nothing crude or vulgar about a vagina was heard by thousands.

While I would like to say that there was a happy ending and all was solved, I cannot. Eventually, the superintendent of the school district overturned the suspension of the girls, but the student body still was not entirely on board with the girls and their message. They were mocked for causing so much drama and many of their peers focused on the fact that they defied a rule, and thus they deserved to be punished (rather than looking at why they broke that rule in the first place). Luckily, I do think things have gotten better! What is important is that the girls were able to spread their world and publicly condemned all those who claimed there was something bad about discussing vaginas and women’s rights. At least I can say with total confidence that John Jay High School with think long and hard about ever trying to minimize the importance of talking about women, their bodies, and their rights.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/17535427/ns/today-today_people/

Newsflash: The “Leaking Pipeline” Phenomenon

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/world/europe/27iht-women27.html

The “Leaking Pipeline” Phenomenon

            The appearance of women who rise within the corporate world seems to be consistently lower than that of their male peers. In Nicola Clark’s article, For Women in the Workplace, an ‘Upgrade Problem’, we see that this is not due to a lack of qualified participants or a lack of caring and helpful executive boards willing to make a change, but rather to the obstacles females face in order to successfully climb the business ladder. Herein lays the ‘upgrade problem’. Through research of several European companies, Clark was able to identify conditions that limit women in the workplace from reaching the management positions within the varying work establishments. Although it is noted that certain corporations experienced an increase in the percentage of females holding executive level positions within the past couple of years, the presence of this so-called ‘upgrade problem’ remains an issue because of the inability to create a culture within the office which women want to be a part of and because of unequal opportunities for women to meet and be mentored by decision making executives.

            Veronika Bethke is one of two female women Clark interviewed who hold managerial positions. Bethke is a 36-year-old employee at Siemens, a German engineering corporation, who is in charge of administering the company’s management training program. As a mother of two, she works part time frequently and on occasion from home, but when she is in the office Siemens provides excellent in house child-care. Note, in the United States, I doubt company’s would be so accommodating to female mothers. It is therefore understandable how Bethke attained such a level of success in her career and not surprising that the Siemens company is gaining recognition “in just the past two or three years [for] trying to attract, retain and promote talented women.” (Clark) A leader in gender diversity, Siemens was the one of the first German companies to bring on a woman to the executive board and did so again in 2010. This increased the percentage of female participants on the company’s board to 25%, a figure substantially larger than the average percents in Germany and the EU as a whole, which helped create worldwide buzz.

Simone Siebeke, a vice president at Henkel, a company based in Dusseldorf, similarly holds a leader position. It is important to consider here that Siebeke attributes her achievement to getting exposure with senior-level figures within five years at Henkel. Both of these women have accomplished executive careers and are by no means the only ones. Why then are these women succeeding in attaining these executive roles while most of the remaining working female population is not? Clark identifies throughout her article that they are not the exception, but that their work environment allowed such paths to be taken. Bethke had a satisfying work culture which supported her motherhood allowing that aspect of her life not to hinder her career while Siebeke was given priceless contact with her company’s decision-making executives. These two circumstances yield a gateway to encouraged success within the workplace.

The most minute baby steps have been taken in the quest for corporate gender diversity, the first being companies understanding that female influences are necessary to remain competitive and modern. We see lead female roles in the media that support this theory such as Miranda Bailey on Grey’s Anatomy who develops, organizes and runs a free clinic as a separate entity of the main hospital to do medical work on patients who might otherwise not be able to afford it. This gave Seattle Grace a competitive edge against other neighboring hospitals because they were in the good graces of lower-income families and increased their number of patients, despite the possible suffering of some income loss. However, although this media example of Dr. Bailey portrays to the show’s audience that there are many women in high-level corporate society who have such a great effect on a company, this is not the case and instead is what Douglas would argue to be enlightened sexism. Society has been influenced to think that there are numerous amounts of women keeping the corporate world competitive when really statistics show, from real life in the European Union, that there are only 12% of women on executive boards with the drastic decision making power. How’s that for a slap in the face. Clark, aware of this disconnect, even points out that we are jumping the gun and should appreciate that women only gained the power of comprising now almost half of the work force within the past couple of decades. This doesn’t mean we should settle for only this accomplishment, but rather take into consideration the milestones we have previously made and be aware that more change will take time.

Another factor that stems from a more substantial number of men having a considerable lengthier amount of time in the work force means that for the most part, the rules created for the corporate “system” have been established by males. Thus, as a result, many women still do not feel completely comfortable or themselves in the work environment. This creates a problem because what many companies are beginning to realize, Clark recognizes, is that in order to solve issues of these intimidated women, it comes down to “changing the culture – and not just to one that is friendly to women, but to one that women would want to be a part of.” (Clark) These traditions set in place by men in the workplace create, as one survey points out, “a masculine or patriarchal corporate culture.” This is a form of male privilege that is often taken for granted. Clark points out that they will be hard to alter since regularity is inherently hard to change. This concept of changing the system parallels what Johnson talks about in his article about patriarchy. Johnson argues that the system, in his case society as a whole, has set rules that are hard to change. In fact, the only way to change them would be to do something completely against the rules of the system which we have socially learned to accept making change that much harder. As well, such rules which happened to be created and established by men continue to be the norm.  If we are going to move forward to change these rules to better accommodate women, the only solution, according to Johnson, will be to do something that goes against the rules of the work created system.

Despite the need for radical efforts to see effective change, some companies have taken the initiative to try and modify their respective work cultures. One way European companies are trying to promote more women to the top is through legal change. This method parallels the efforts of second wave liberal feminism. Betty Friedan acknowledges this group in her work The Feminine Mystique where the primary agenda for achieving gender equality was to work within the system by reforming laws and customs. “Norway, France, the Netherlands and Spain have all passed laws setting minimum quotas for women on supervisory boards of publicly listed companies.” (Clark) Many of these mandated quotas are as high as 30% which sheds a positive light on the hopes of seeing more women in executive positions in the near future. A few other companies that are not administering legal approaches, but are still interested in increasing the number of females in management, are instead voluntarily adopting these quotas. Deutsche Telekom in Germany is one business doing so and hopes to raise their current 13% of female managers to 30% within the next couple of years. Companies must be careful to not be too strict about such policies, however, because they do not want to make women feel like they are quota hires and to overlook qualified men because they have not reached their number of female targets. In this way, we begin to see a form of what Peggy McIntosh calls male privilege again. Men, I imagine, can get a job offer without questioning whether they got it based on merit or because the company had a goal of promoting a certain number of males. Women, on the other hand, cannot always say the same.

The second, and last, reason why gender diversity is being limited for female workers is because of their lack of exposure to high-ranking mentors. “A study performed by Catalyst in 2010 with … business school graduates…found that women who had mentors at the top of their organizations got promoted at a comparable rate – and faster than those who had no active mentoring relationship.” (Clark) This study concluded a major factor that must be recognized within companies who wish to strengthen their ratio of female executive members; they must offer the appropriate level of exposure. The Deutsche Bank staff in London tried to address both this and the previous problem of making women feel comfortable and wanted in the work place, by setting up cocktail hours after work. The idea was that this setting was more relaxing and approachable for their female employees and that invited, otherwise distant, executive-committee members would be able to mingle with the women. Unfortunately, these top-level people would often not stay longer than the opening greeting so the hopeful mingling rendered failed attempts at exposure for these potential women.

The underlying issue with women’s “upgrade problem” is the viscous cycle rooted in the corporate world. If a woman is not given access to a mentor and/or sponsor, someone who will vouch for her or nominate her for promotional worthy roles, then she will never gain exposure to higher-level executives and without such exposure the road to the top of a company will be much slower if not impossible. Many companies, such as Siemens, has implemented a management training program to help bypass the cycle a bit, but as Ms. Bethke pointed out, the cycle does indeed continue since everyone in the group must be nominated by their bosses, meaning that the need for a mentor is once again required.  Even in companies without such programs demonstrate the cycle of promoting women as attributed to their amount of exposure to top tier management. “Ms. Siebeke’s … role gave her daily contact with the C.E.O. and other in senior management, and a sweat at every top-level meeting. Two and a half years later, she said, she was approached to become the head of human resources.” (Clark) So getting to the top for women these days is really about who you know, not so much about what you know.

                Despite examples of a few women who have made it to executive positions within their companies, the resounding issue of few women “making it” is a problem for the corporate world spanning amongst many countries. In For Women in the Workplace, an “Upgrade Problem”, Clark highlights two main reasons for this uneven ratio among male and female in top-level positions; the dynamic of the bias work culture and lack of talented women getting high-level exposure. Office environments are inherently administered and catered to men and as a result are an obstacle to maneuver for women. Female employees feel as though they are navigating in a man’s world while working in a corporate atmosphere rather than as though there were an equal setting. Because of this, women are thrown into a system with rules established to benefit, for the majority of times, men and are silenced from promotions in the process. Women are further secluded from upgrading positions due to their ineffective ability to contact and establish relationships with senior management. With no exposure to people who have the power to make company related decisions, working women will have no reason to be promoted. And thus the cycle of the work system repeats itself. So it is clear, that those in power within companies are the C.E.O.’s, board of directors, etc. and that these people have the best chance at creating change. With extended efforts on their end to improve gender diversity either through mentoring or management training programs, I believe that a dynamic change in the corporate world can be just around the corner. See you at the top!

Lead Post: Sexing the Body

Of Gender and Genitals:

Fausto-Sterling opens this chapter by highlighting the roles of the doctors who treat intersex babies. By highlighting previous case studies, Fausto-Sterling illuminates the reader to the lack of guidelines/standards and the strong role that a doctor's personal values play. In many cases the decision rests solely in the hans of a obstetrician or pediatric surgeon who will ultimately decide which sex to promote and which to try to erase. Of course, this can have extraordinarily devastating effects. By trying to make the baby in question "normal" (i.e. fitting into only one category of either "male" or "female") and identifying the "true" sex, the child in question is automatically forced to abandon their natural anatomy and are forced to conform to a doctor's idea of normal. Obviously, this can lead to disaster. If the child in question does not feel connected to the sex which they were prescribed, serious emotional and biological issues can ensue. Fausto-Sterling sites the many different types of genital mutations and their prevalence in society. It is shocking to visualize how common intersex varieties are within the world. By doing so, i think she proves an excellent point that this issue may not be as contained and rare as some people think.

By discussing in depth the methods in which doctors attempt to categorize and "fix" these babies, Fausto-Sterling is inundating the reader with her rhetorical strategy. I myself, a somewhat medically literate person, to struggle with some of her explanations. I think that this is done on purpose. She may be intentionally muddying the medical waters to highlight the ambiguity of the process in its entirety. If the reader finds his/herself challenged just to understand this simplistic overview, they must then get a sense of just how complicated the issues of deciding one's "proper" sex must be. This can also be accomplished by discussing the actual medical procedures which are performed in attempt to make the child "normal." Clitoral reductions, recessions and removals are all examples of such surgeries. By describing them, i think Fausto-Sterling indicated to the readers the pain and suffering that these children are forced to bear (not just as infants, but also later in life) just so they can be categorized according to our dichotomous system.

I thought it was interesting that Fausto-Sterling claimed that the psychological upbringing/understanding of sex was almost as important, if not more so, for the parents not the child. She explains how doctors use "doublespeak" and often to dont fully inform parents of the scenario. I found this both intriguing and horrifying. While i understand the goal of the doctors is to have as "normal" and upbringing as possible, i think that this is atrocious and a very harmful practice. By concealing one's true nature I think it is impossible to have a healthy life. I imagine that as a child grows their body will tell them that they are somehow "different" and by not being open about their experiences i can only imagine that there can be devastating consequences. It also assumes that one is "malleable" to psychological change. Fausto-Sterling, and others, question this assumption.

Should There Only be Two Sexes?:

Fausto-Sterling begins this section by recalling her previous idea to expand the "male" or "female" notion of gender to including a total of five sexes. This idea was met with strong opposition, but as Fausto-Sterling proclaims, it was also a catalyst for future change and understanding. She then goes on to describe her methodology for the proper ways in which to treat a newborn intersex child. First, and probably foremost, she insists that there should be no surgery performed unless necessary for the survival or health of the baby. Here, she cites the story of a young woman who underwent the unnecessary surgery to which Fausto-Sterling protests. The woman, Chase, undergoes a series of doctor visits in her early 20s to try to find the truth about her past. She later suffered from depression and suicidal tendencies. Fausto-Sterling uses cases like Chase to prove that the current system is not beneficial, but rather, causes future hardship.

The second aspect of Fausto-Sterlings proposal is the right of an intersex patient (or h/her family) to refuse. Along with this idea is the set of guidelines proposed by H.E.L.P which include not taking surgical action in the first year, involving family members fully in medical consultations and decisions, etc. For me, one of the most powerful messages of the book thus far is found in this section. Fausto-Sterling debunks the myth that any hermaphrodite who goes without surgery is doomed for a life of misery. I think that once the medical profession, and society as a whole, is capable of grasping this idea the options for intersex children will become more numerous and hopefully more beneficial and accommodating.

The final section of her proposal is probably the most daunting task. Here, Fausto-Sterling proposes her new categorization of sex. She cites how the variability within ones gender is expansive, but with such a narrow focus, people can be ostracized because of their non-gender adherent traits or uncomfortable in their own skin because they feel a separation of sex and gender. She hopes that by extending the categories of sex, and maybe one day making any type of distinction obsolete, the stigma and struggles which are attached to those born of an intersex variety will one day live a life freely, without trying to conform to a category which may or may not apply to them.

Fausto-Sterling clearly states there are problems with the five-sex system she proposed. However, it is clearly a step in the right direction. Although there is no perfect solution offered, Fausto-Sterling encourages people to think about her ideas, and maybe formulate their own, in effort to limit the unnecessary actions and discrimination that is placed on the intersex.

An Open Conception of Sex

In Chapter 4, I really admired Fausto-Sterling because she presented her proposal for a five-sex system, one more encompassing for intersex individuals, while mentioning the controversy that surrounds her idea. She respects those who criticize her idea and accepts all of the comments she received in stride, pleasantly surprised by the conversations her proposal sparked, regardless of others agreed with her. She even writes on page 110 that she has changed her mind from discrete categories determined by genitals to a view closer to that of Suzanne Kessler, one which does not require specific “identification” and instead provides an all-encompassing and equitable sense of belonging to all humans. Fausto-Sterling is demonstrating flexibility both in her conception of how sex should exist in society and in her openness to considering other perspectives and reevaluating her own theories. I also find her idealistic reconceptions of society heartening. Instead of remaining confined by current social constructs, she is asking “What if the world/country worked in different way?”

I hadn’t heard of the International Bill of Gender Rights before reading Chapter 4 and when I looked at it, I found it comparable to Baumgardner and Richards’ Third Wave Manifesta. I have linked the IBGR to this post so you can check it out. The purpose and effect of the document states that “the ten rights enunciated below are not to be viewed as special rights applicable to a particular interest group . . . [rather] all ten sections of the IBGR are universal rights which can be claimed and exercised by every human being regardless of their sex or gender.” This corresponds well with Kessler’s, and now Fausto-Sterling’s, conceptions of unauthoratative and navigable (for individuals who are exploring how they identify sexually) conceptions of sex.

International Bill of Gender Rights