bell hooks

Feminism & Men

For our final blog of the class I want to start a discussion about something I have spent a considerable portion of the semester thinking about and discussing with friends: How do men fit into feminism? One feminist in me wants to say, “Who cares? Feminism isn’t for men.” But another feminist in me knows that it would be negligent not to consider how it affects men, since as a “sex” they are the much-talked-about Oppressors, but also because, feminist or not, I have a father, a boyfriend, male friends, and classmates who I value despite the legacy they were born into. I know (as we all do) that it’s not a simple matter of men (as a class) doing bad things to women (as a class).

So, what do I mean by how men fit into feminism? Well, I mean a lot of things I guess. I mean:

(1) There’s no denying that patriarchy is harmful to women, but I think it can be easily argued that it is harmful for men, too. In what ways is patriarchy “bad” for men?
(2) How does feminism (to put it broadly) affect the modern man? Does it place added pressures on men? Is it liberating for men as well? Can it be argued that it is “bad” for men? Consider things in our culture that react to feminism (the commercials Kevin blogged about, for example).
(3) Is there room for men in feminism? Can men “be” feminists or “advocate feminism”?

I’m not asking, of course, that everyone answer every question, and I’m certainly not suggesting that there is a right or wrong answer to any one question, but in my experience these topics of discussion usually stir up a lot of opinions. After hearing from a lot of people in my life who don’t necessarily have a background in feminist theory, I’d like to hear what you all think.

Feminism in Architecture

So I was in Chicago over Thanksgiving break and saw this building. I asked my friend what building it was and she told me it was designed by a feminist architect who had wanted to design a sky scraper that incorporated a more feminine form because skyscrapers are considered phallic and masculine. Now I'm not sure if the intent of a skyscraper is to be a phallic representation or merely an efficient structure for big cities, but I thought this was applicable to class. It shows a concrete way in which to incorporate feminine characteristics to previously patriarchal (literal) structures. I thought this was a cool idea and it was something that I'd never even thought about before (maybe because I'm not an architect) but it does seem that there are a lot of masculine traits in architecture and it is definitely arguable that men have dictated a lot of our physical world as well as intellectual, political, and philosophical.

Patriarchalism in Advertising

In case you're interested in commenting on something other than poetry, there is never a lack of sexist content in the world of commercial advertising.  The two that have most recently caused a stir come from two of America's favorite brands, the Chrysler Group LLC, and Dr. Pepper/Seven Up Ind.

Dr. Pepper's ad is meant to promote their new Dr. Pepper 10 (with 10 calories) to men, with the thought that low calorie drinks are normally tailored to women.  The slogan "It's not for women" has received an ample amount of critique, though Dr. Pepper's CEO Larry Young is apparently thrilled with the product’s reception thus far, even saying that moms are picking up Dr. Pepper 10 for the kids. 

As for the commercial from our friends over at Dodge, well... just watch.  Apparently the time has come for men to break out of the matriarchal system or something like that.

Fortunately, Dodge's commercial has received quite a bit more critique than Dr. Pepper's, possibly because it more directly attacks gender equality and even goes as far as to say that men are the oppressed gender. There are many response videos made by feminist groups about this one, but I found the following clip to be most amusing.

THE TREES THE TREES Heather Christle

I think I'm a feminist in the fact that I truly believe that women are writing almost the best poetry today in America.  I believe that they're extraordinary. That for some reason, this has happened.  It has not been true forever.                                   
                                                                                               - Barbara Guest


One of the most exciting young woman poets of the day, Heather Christle, is the author of two full-length poetry collections: The Difficult Farm (2009), and The Trees The Trees (2011), as well as a chapbook, The Seaside! (2010) and a third forthcoming collection What Is Amazing (2012) from Wesleyan University Press.  She received her MFA from the Program for Poets and Writers at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and her BA from Tufts University.  Her poems been anthologized in The Best American Erotic Poems: 1800 to the Present, right between works from Edgar Allen Poe and Walt Whitman. 




from Octopus Books


THE TREES THE TREES, by Heather Christle

Christle's newest book, The Trees The Trees, is a wonderful collection of prose block poems, in which she addresses several socio-political themes, including feminism.  Poet Nick Sturm has to say of the book, "The Trees The Trees is a wrecking ball covered in flowers. These poems by Heather Christle make me feel, often simultaneously, all of the following things: that I am riding a fucked-up carousal in the middle of the woods, that I am an animal pulling out my own wires, that my skin is a new kind of candy, that my brain and my heart are in a tree and that, somewhere up in that tree, they are kissing, calling each other the wrong names."


Here are some of the most overtly feminist poems in the book:




                    YOU ARE MY GUEST


I will call you man      man man man man      it is a
recipe     it is not that expensive       I will have you 
over for dinner        and I will not take your clothes
off     you wear clothes like a man man    you are a
tightly wound bundle             when we think of the 
woods     the woods are the same       but the rabbit 
between them is different              eat up your soup
little man         little man man          there is no food
coming later




                             MY ENEMY


I have a new enemy    he is so good-looking    here
is a photograph     of him in the snow     he is in the 
snow     and so is the photo     I put it there because 
I hate him     and because it is always snowing    in
the photograph      my enemy is acting      like there 
are no neighbors      but there are always neighbors
they just might be far away             he is 100% evil
and good-looking     he looks good      in his parka
in the snow         if you asked        if would call it a 
helmet           all he ever does is lie       he does not 
breathe      or move    or glow     he is not that kind
of man     it is not that kind of snow




POEM CONSISTING ENTIRELY OF ADVICE


you must not look        at what may be a man     or
may be his empty car     what if he asks you   what
are you looking at    what if you still do not know

What I love about Christle's work is that it blends the theories of feminism with the realities of her own life in a way that is almost memoiric.  The bluntness and wittiness of her poetry is what makes it unique and exciting, and is certainly the quality of her writing that has led to the success of this book, despite being published by a small, independent publisher.  Christle confronts heterosexuality from within it, critiquing, but also embracing it, as in "My Enemy."  


To see more of the amazing Heather Christle, visit her on tumblr: http://heatherchristle.tumblr.com/ or buy one of her books at Innisfree Bookstore.

The Girl Effect

Hey everyone,

I stumbled upon this project in my research for our final paper (I'm not that connected to the internet so many of you may have seen this already...). But I thought just in case i'd go ahead and post it considering how much we've discussed the concept of girl and its effect in poetry and language in general. Enjoy

http://youtu.be/WIvmE4_KMNw

BRING RECYCLOPEDIA TO CLASS ON THURS.

If possible.

Thanks,

wdbo.

A hard argument to make...

I came across this article through GOOD magazine online, and thought you all might be interested. It is interesting to see what happens when science takes on matters of feminism--we have talked about this before with studies of genetics and procreation (discourse). The science here seems like a bit of a stretch. Testing mental and physical awareness in various states of undress...

http://www.good.is/post/the-upside-of-sexual-objectification/?utm_content=headline&utm_medium=hp_carousel&utm_source=slide_4

In my opinion, this is presenting old ideas in a new, "scientific" way. No matter how it is supported, I have a hard time believing that I am more moral if I am an object of sexual attention. Still, this is area of sexuality/gender that science is exploring, so I thought I'd throw it out there.

"Hell is a Teenage Girl."

So I also wanted to open the discussion about the Gurlesque, Tuesday's visit from Danielle Pafunda and what everyone else’s thoughts were.

(I apologize, I was not in class on Thursday so hopefully this isn’t just repeating what’s already been discussed)

I thought it was an interesting concept that was discussed, however, I questioned what it really means to place “girl” as the subject. I think what felt ambiguous was what defines a “girl” and in what context (for example, Arielle Greenberg’s idea of girl or the perspective of a white middle-class girl and how that differs). Also, what is the importance of “girl” as opposed to “woman”—what and where are the distinctions and why is this important to feminism?

What really struck me was when Danielle stated that: “A girl is the silliest thing you can be”.

I honestly had never thought about this in a feminist framework before, but when you separate girl into its own category, aside from feminism, there definitely is a stereotypical persona of what a teenage girl is and should be. This also goes back to that question about whether its socially constructed or its some biological factor that makes them erratic, dramatic, angry, stupid, shallow, slutty, etc. etc. etc. emotional messes from about 13-19 (obviously that’s arguable).Yet, every problem she faces seems to be a testament to her hormones. There is hardly any validity in what a teen girl feels or has to say, especially if she goes in say “like” and ‘whatever” every 3 words like Danielle mentioned in class ---you wouldn’t go try and bass a legislative bill talking like that. So what I’d really to ask is“why”? This is the question I keep asking myself and though it seems ridiculously obvious "like, of course being a girl is silly,duh", I just think it’d be really interesting to deconstruct why the subject of teenage girl is seen as so “silly” in society, and what does this genre of Gurlesque do as a response? What are the consequences of how teenage girls are perceived in society and literature to feminism?

Also, this is somewhat off topic but episode 4 of Parks and Recreation this season was a great discussion on gender conflict. If you don't already watch the show I'd definitely recommend watching this episode! But anyway, these clips are just for fun.

Quick recap: there is rivalry between a Pawnee Rangers (think boyscouts) that Ron Swanson leads and a troop called the Pawnee Goddesses that Lesley Knope has started because when she was young she wasn't allowed to be a ranger. She wants Ron to admit her group is better and more fun, but he won't. Until one of the boys decides that he would rather be in the goddesses than the rangers (uh oh, the gender line is bent), leslie says no at first that it should be just for girls, but then they of course have a "public forum" and the girls argue that isn't this the same reason she started the Goddesses, to be treated equally? So now, boys start joining the goddesses and declare themselves as strong self-empowered women. How do you deal with that scenario? I personally thought this was a great answer to the whole feminist dilemma. This episode really has great material for discussion on the issue of gender.

Watch these clips below:

The Pawnee Rangers:




The Pawnee Goddesses

Toddlers & Tiaras

Toddlers & Tiaras is an American reality series that debuted on TLC in 2009. The show is a sequence of narratives, which follows the stories of individual beauty pageant contestants without outside commentary. There are boys and girls on the show, but there are less appearances by boys. The boys are usually accompanied by their mothers. I believe the age of the contestants ranges from 2-6 years old.

I just watched this show today and the concept reminded me of Gurlesque because girl is the center of the show. The girl as a woman. The girl as a beauty queen. Since gender is what "we" perform, Toddlers & Tiaras seems to be the ultimate performance and is, due to the nature of beauty pageants. As Pafunda mentioned in class, the construct of girl is what is sold to girls--the image of the beauty queen.

In the Gurlesque introduction Glenum writes, "the Gurlesque describes an emerging field of female artists now in their 20s, 30s, and early 40s who, taking a page form the burlesque, perform their femininity in a campy or overtly mocking way. Their work assaults the norms of acceptable female behavior by irreverently deploying gender stereotypes to subversive ends." (11)

With that said, I wanted to start a discussion with a couple questions: do you think Toddlers & Tiaras is gurlesque? Is the center of Toddlers & Tiaras the girl's voice or the mom's voice? Pafunda said in class that the center of Gurlesque is the girl's voice.  These toddler pageants seem to be a parody of real pageants, yet the children's parents are completely serious about them.

Overall, is this show a positive or negative step in feminism?

Cuteness

In response to this week’s discussion on the Gurlesque, I think it is necessary to discuss the concept of “cuteness,” of being cute. I take issue a bit with the definition of “cuteness” that Glenum gives us in her introduction. I had questions about this when I read it and was surprised/interested when Danielle Pafunda chose to focus on this in class. Glenum writes:

“Cuteness, then, far from being a harmless aesthetic category, reveals a state of acute deformity.” (p 16)

Glenum and Pafunda seem to agree that cuteness reflects the deformity and (insecurity, incompletion, grotesque) of the girl. I think there is something more to cuteness. I am surprised how quickly Glenum dismisses cuteness—she makes it sound like something to shun, to be ashamed of—because to me, “cuteness” contains as much potential for feminist activism as the girl.

On one level, cuteness is a “harmless aesthetic category.” As defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, to be “cute” is to be:

“Attractive in a pretty or endearing way: a cute kitten.”

To me, this means that that cute means nothing at all, that it is entirely subjective. Like “girl, “cute” is that which is both extremely stereotyped—think baby animals, baby humans, dolls, pink things, little things—and completely undefined. Girls are cute. Boys are cute. Cupcakes are cute. Grandmothers are cute. Restaurants are cute.



Wikipedia defines cuteness as that which is associated with youth. I have heard this definition before: that people are naturally drawn toward the infantile—that we think puppies are cute because they remind us of babies. This definition may draw closer to Glenum’s definition of the deformity –or, at the very least, the helplessness and innocence—associated with cuteness.


My question: What is “cute”? Do you agree with Glenum and Pafunda that to be cute or to “love” cuteness is to reveal “a state of acute deformity” of the self? Are Glenum and Pafunda shunning the cute? Is the girlish love of cute things only a revelation of insecurity or, even, the grotesque. Is cuteness limited to the girl? Can cuteness be inverted and used to liberate women, to fight patriarchy? Or by trying to be cute or drawing towards cuteness, do we contribute to that which confirms our supposed or constructed subordination?

Performing Woman

Going along with the themes of performance and using the body as a source of liberation for women, I wanted to take a look at the role of performance art in feminism.

Feminist performance art came about in the 1970s because "it was personal, immediate, and highly effective in communicating an alternative vision of women and their power in the world."

Cheri Gualke, an L.A. performance artist said: "Performance is not a difficult concept to us [women]. We're on stage every moment of our lives. Acting like women. Performance is a declaration of self--of who one is...and in performance we found an art form that was young without the tradition of painting or sculpture. Without the traditions governed by men. The shoe fit, and so, like Cinderella, we ran with it."

Here are a few examples of what she means.

This piece done by Eleanor Antin is called "Carving: A Traditional Sculpture" (1972). Antin put herself on a strict diet and literally carved herself into a sculpture in order to critique "the social pressure women feel to make their bodies conform to an aesthetic or cultural ideal."

In "The Mythic Being," Adrian Piper put on a drag performance in the streets and subways of New York City. She meant to "incite public reaction to issues of race, gender and class."

How does performance art differ from poetry in conveying feminist theory? How do the two work together? If everything is a performance (according to Butler and the Gurlesque poets), what makes this art? Overall, is performance art successful--does using the female body in this way liberate women or exploit her and detract from the feminist agenda?

(Citations drawn from: http://www.walkerart.org/archive/C/B473811508113F0F6169.htm)

what is a self

As we have slid, quite reasonably, from questions of "women" and sexism to questions of subjectivity and struggles against all forms of oppression (especially those related to class), I post this. Not about the second matter, but about the first.

http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/this-extended-mind-again-we-dont-know-what-a-human-being-is/#more-5594

By the way, for those philosophically minded, the larval subjects blog is the next best thing to Lisa Robertson as far as joyous exploration of crucial matters goes (to me).

Keep your blogging up and unless there is a weather disaster, be ready to discuss and ask questions about the Gurlesque tomorrow.

J

ORLAN

in response to the below post, i thought i'd mention Sant-Orlan. certainly one of the most incredible performance artists ever. basically her art is getting plastic surgery so she looks like the 'ideal woman'. some people say that she is anti-feminist, some people say she's the perfect feminist for exposing the construction of beauty.

this brings the same kind of questions i posted about earlier: which is which?

http://www.orlan.net/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlan

http://www.english.ucsb.edu/faculty/ecook/courses/eng114em/whoisorlan.htm

I choose to share some of Cindy Sherman's photography, one of the artists listed as an influence to the visual artists included in the Gurlesque anthology. The website I've included gives a description of her life and work and provides dozens of her images. I enjoy the fact that she uses herself as a model throughout her work, and find this provokes questions concerning identity. Some of the images have a definite grotesque quality and it's easy to see how she's an influence on the artists in the anthology.

Toward the bottom of the webpage a commentator writes:

"Here is an artist who obsessively photographs herself yet does not celebrate herself. In fact, she goes out of her way to obliterate signs of herself and creates in her performances and her images women who reveal no sense of self, women who seem objectified and stereotypical.

It is the lack of narrative and the lack of the unique and particular that deadens empathy and objectifies the women. Sherman in each image uses herself as an object, like a chair or a room that is constantly reworked by aspiring decorators. In each image of her performances, she creates a still life - in which the major element is a distressed woman instead of the usual bowl of fruit or white porcelain water jog.

So much of Sherman's attitude is antiphotography. To begin with, there is the fact that she does not consider herself a photographer or her work photography. Secondly, she does not always take the photograph herself. Then there is the heroic scale of the larger pieces, 6 1/2 by 4 feet - more reminiscent of wall art than of art photography. Also, by purposely making her pictures visually uninteresting, she is telling us that the fact of her photographic documentation is more important than what is in the image. By calling each of her images "Untitled" and by divesting each woman of any characteristic details, Sherman keeps the information to a minimum, and dismisses photography as the art of the specific and unique. The same lack of detail restrains the viewer's memory and limits the nostalgia that the viewer typically brings to photography.

On the other hand, by creating performance pieces that only exist for the camera and only last as long as the exposure, she has appropriated one of the photography's oldest functions - documentation. Looking at the images of Cindy Sherman, one has to wonder if its author's phenomenal success has to do with the misogynistic objectification of women that this documentation embodies."

Her style, as the commentator suggests, does seem to emphasize the act of documentation over the specific content of the images. To me, all of the images have a strange placid quality, even when the scene may suggest a moment of distress. After looking through several of Sherman's portraits, I found myself paying less and less attention to the scenes she's portraying, trying, I suppose, to find Sherman herself--or at least to wonder at the who more than the what. In that regard, her work seems to use the traditional way images objectify women to prompt the viewer to consider the humanity that might be embedded in the objectified.

How about everyone else? Any thoughts, feelings, or impressions on Sherman's work? How it may relate to some of the visual artists in the anthology, or the poetry?

http://www.arthistoryarchive.com/arthistory/photography/Cindy-Sherman.html

horizontal/vertical.

first, some articles:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/nyregion/occupy-wall-street-protest-reaches-a-crossroads.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&hp

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/david-graeber-the-antileader-of-occupy-wall-street-10262011.html

the first link is for an nytimes article about the current state of occupy and its history. the second link is for a sort of bio of david graeber, who the times article refers to. he's an anarchist and is credited with initiating the horizontal structure of the protesters. don't read all of the article on him unless you really want to. skim it for stuff about occupy, etc. all you really need to get from these is the way horizonticality and verticality are contrasted.

i think we're at a point in theory similar to the state of the protests. we've undergone a sort of massive deconstruction (of the vertical) to the point where the theories are entirely horizontal. that is, feminist theory has gone from anti-gender to anti-hierarchy in general.

it's a postmodern paradigm. we are everywhere, we are nowhere, we are the 99%. an unorganized mob without specific goals, all of that. my question is: is the occupy movement (charged with being ineffective due to it's horizontality) really ineffective? is it actually the sort of rhizomatic, horizontal movement in a perfect state: spreading without a heart or a head, without an axiom, i.e. a weak spot. is it actually subsuming the structures that it opposes?

shameless self-promotion

Okay well, since Stephen used the blog to call for Walkabout submissions, I'm going to do it for Honors Journal.

I hate to yell here, but YOU SHOULD ALL SUBMIT TO HONORS JOURNAL.

We are a student-run interdisciplinary journal that publishes outstanding, original work done by undergrads at CU. ALL undergrads are eligible to submit work and we accept work from all disciplines. No really, if you are an undergrad, literally anything you do is eligible. In the past we have published poetry, fiction, research (natural & social sciences), creative nonfiction, architecture/engineering projects, essays (humanities, political science, economics), music, film, math proofs, etc. We even publish foreign-language pieces.

The deadline is next Friday, 11/11/11. (We may extend our deadline, but if we reach our goal for submissions we won't.)

Men Observing Men

"Yet is every man observed by any man"  - Lisa Robertson, The Men


I AM A VERY PRODUCTIVE ENTREPRENEUR - Mathias Svalina


I started this one business that hires out strong, rugged young men to watch other men do work.


I hire them out by the dozen & they are quiet but clearly appreciative of the work they watch.  The men are all strong with thick shoulders & coarse, attractive faces; They all have the kind of skin that when you see it in a photograph you touch your own face absentmindedly.  They all have a certain smell to them, of sweet tire rubber.  They all stand with their weight on one leg so that their hips angle.


The men all nod slightly when you pass by them in a way that assures you they understand how you feel & they have worked hard just as you are working hard & that as they watch you work they can feel the strength growing out of their forearms, like sleek seabirds.  The men all have scales growing on their legs like cold, smooth, black snakes.


The men all have wings & and ram's horns & long necks like giraffes and marsupial pouches & the ability to turn their heads 360 degrees & the ability to sign their parents' names perfectly on official forms from their elementary schools & retractable claws & nan instinct to hoard.


The men work 10-hour days & when they sleep they fold themselves up into small rectangles the size of carry-on luggage & a handle appears in order to easily move the men into storage.  The men require a 45-minute lunch break & two 10-minute breaks.  The men all have cute dimples and egg teeth.


The men attract everyone's attention when they walk into a room & for the remainder of their time in a room everyone else is unconsciously aware of where the men are.


The men have the bodies of horses.  The men have the heads of lions & the wings of gigantic dragonflies. There is nothing overtly homosexual about the men's behavior, yet both men & women find themselves ambiently aroused by them.


Men want to know that other men can see them working; They want each drop of sweat monitored.  Men like to have a dozen men transforming into animals behind them while they hand drywall.  Men like to close their eyes when they cross the streets & feel the wind of passing buses flap the cuffs of their pants (32-33).

Hello everyone!

I've talked to a couple of you about Walkabout, but for those of you that I haven't talked to here's this.

I know a lot of you guys do your own writing. If you do, you should submit to Walkabout. We're the undergraduate creative arts journal. We accept fiction, poetry and artwork. It's a great way to get some publishing experience and also have your writing featured for everyone to read.

Submit to: walkabout@colorado.edu

We also have a facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Walkabout-Creative-Arts-Journal/101556626619062

It will say the deadline is Oct. 31, but it's not anymore. The new deadline is NOV. 30.

We would love to have all of your submissions. I get the feeling that all of your writing is going to be great.

Thanks,

-Stephen

The SRY gene

Hey guys sorry to post late.

I have been giving the “sex is a construction” issue some thought and I think I may have a way of investigating this proposal. As Sara pointed out in thursday's class, it’s amazing how all of the seemingly random classes we take have overlap. In my general biology class we were just going over genetics and chromosomal inheritance. We talked about what it is that makes someone a male or a female.

As we already know, physical body parts are not necessary to make someone male or female. We wouldn’t call a man who suffered from testicular cancer and had to have something removed not a “male”. Similarly we wouldn’t call a woman with a prosthesis not an actual “woman”. It seems then, when we label someone a man or a woman, we are actually referring to something in relation to DNA and chromosomes. (or as Butler proposes we are only referring to a societal construction, but let's put that aside for now). I’m sure many of you have heard the often used XX or XY chromosomes when determining sex (XX for female, XY for male). But my biology teacher brought up the fact that that may not be a necessary condition for sex either.

I’ll do my best to explain this simply. When we create cells for the purpose of passing them down via sexual reproduction, they are without a pair, carrying half the usual number of chromosomes (haploid). In other words a female will produce two eggs one X and the other X, but not XX together. In males, two sperm will be separated into one X and one Y. As my teacher says, the Y haploid determines if the egg will be male or not. In reproduction, either the X from the father will combine with the from the X mother, making a daughter or the Y from the father will combine with the X from the mother to make a son. Where this becomes interesting is before the XX turns into X and X, and before XY turns into X and Y prior to reproduction. To promote variation, the XY, in males, will swap genetic material before separation. So before a cell becomes Y on its own, it has parts of the X gene inside of it.

Typically, there is a part of the Y chromosome that does not “swap” genetic information with the X. Geneticists call that area the “sex-determining region of the Y chromosome”. I said before that the “Y” cell is what will make the fetus a male or female, but what is it exactly that makes it so? And what if that part of the Y swapped with the X and made a XX male, or if the Y lost that part and made a XY female?

Geneticists call the specific gene that causes male genitalia the SRY. And usually the SRY will not cross over into the X before being passed down. Key word: usually. About one in ever 20,000 fetuses have this “genetic mutation”. Although very rare, this will cause the person to have either XX SRY+, some “female” traits with male genitalia or XY SRY-, some “male” traits with female genitalia. This is what is known as inter-sexed.

So it seems that XX and XY chromosomes are not necessary for sex-determination either. However it is extremely rare. What do you guys think of this? Are the occasional genetic variations enough to say that sex is a construction?

I asked what other genes are not usually “swapped” from the Y chromosome. My teacher said he wasn’t sure, but things we “usually associate with male traits”.

I’d love to know what those traits are. Do you think that if we were to know exactly the traits that are usually associated with only the Y chromosome, that would be helpful?

It might help us see which traits are tied to “biological reasons” and which traits are purely a product of the environment.

A wiki article on SRY: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRY

Topless Protesters at Occupy Wall Street

So, I meant to post this as a comment to Sosi's "Fashion/Feminism" post, but I am no good on the computer. Anyway, I felt this video was interesting in light of the earlier conversation about "slut walks," and also interesting along the lines of how clothing seems to unavoidably speak for women, in a much more pronounced way than for men. I have been attending the Occupy Denver meetings and rallies and trying via youtube to follow the occupy movements in other cities as well. Because of this class I have been viewing some of the events through a feminist lens. There have been no topless protesters that I have seen in Denver, but there are definitely women who use their dress (not necessarily in a feminine way) to draw attention and make themselves heard. They usually are successful in drawing attention. One of the topless women in this video is holding a sign that says "I didn't say look I said listen" (you can see it briefly if you pause the video at 1:41) Despite having stated that I do not entirely see the "slut walks" as advantaging the feminist movement's struggle, my initial impression during this video was very different. I think it had much to do with the fact that the Occupy movement is not specifically about women. Part of me feels that situationally speaking I don't have a problem with women exploiting the attention thats paid to their bodies for a larger cause. On some level, I feel I participate in this as well with my choice of dress when I go to the rallies and meetings (No, I don't go topless!). While dressing I'm invariably considering how my presentation will affect how people will perceive both me and whatever have to say. I think that's unavoidable, and if I dress more nicely I have found that my voice is more frequently solicited and subsequently heard. It's hard to think what might be the more ethical choice: dressing to make your voice heard or try be heard in another way (and can you even avoid this). I see the topless woman holding the "I didn't say look I said listen" sign as the logical extreme of exploiting the attention paid to women in order to be heard: at some point it looks ridiculous, but is there a gradient to this?

Fashion trends (to illustrate my comment on Sosi's post)

Boyfriend Jeans/Collared shirts

The Meat Dress

The Power Suit

Fashion/Feminism

Hello all,

Sorry for the delay on this post. I've been taking a class on fashion in literature, and lateley we've been reading a lot of theory that relates to fashion in gender. In particular, i've just read an essay by Eduard Fuchs on Bourgeois Dress, and was wondering how you all felt about a couple of things. Long story short, Fuchs has paralleled the change of our society from the ancien regime to a bourgeois functioning class with the oppression of women by pointing out that the "Bourgeois culture is an altogether male culture; its entire orientation is toward production and creative drive...The man sets the tone and indeed reigns supreme....Consequently, men's clothing had to become just as masculine as women's clothing had once been feminine". Thus, the culture we subscribe to has allowed the man to become a productive contributor to our society, while the more slowly evolving dress of the female has forced her to remain an object to be looked at. In order to be set apart from the rest of society, the woman must dress herself differently, whether that entails bringing more focus to the body, or simply being of a higher class that is ahead of the fashion curve. Additionally, Fuchs points out that originally the Bourgeois woman was, "foremost mother, housewife, and companion". This article made me think about the slut walk, and woman's choice to dress herself according to modern fashion, or by displaying her body in a sexual way. I was hoping we could continue the conversation of the woman's body in society today, and what you think it does to detract or contribute to a feminist struggle.

Women in Society

Hey guys!

I know I'm posting a little late so I wanted to give you guys a couple options to consider so that hopefully everyone feels like there's something to respond to:

1.) So below is an INCREDIBLE poem by June Jordan. She is an African-American poet that was featured in a documentary we watched in my ethnic studies class. I was hoping to find a video of the poem because I think it's such a powerful poem to hear (in the documentary she was reading it herself which was so cool) but I couldn't find one so instead I just posted it below. It's kinda long but if you can push through it, she has a very powerful message to share that I think ties in nicely with the class.

Poem About My Rights by June Jordan

Even tonight and I need to take a walk and clear

my head about this poem about why I can't

go out without changing my clothes my shoes

my body posture my gender identity my age

my status as a woman alone in the evening

alone on the streets

alone not being the point

the point being that I can't do what I want

to do with my own body because I am the wrong

sex the wrong age the wrong skin and

suppose it was not here in the city but down on the beach

or far into the woods and I wanted to go

there by myself thinking about God

or thinking

about children or thinking about the world

all of it

disclosed by the stars and the silence:

I could not go and I could not think and I could not

stay there

alone

as I need to be

alone because I can't do what I want to do with my own

body and

who in the hell set things up

like this

and in France they say if the guy penetrates

but does not ejaculate then he did not rape me

and if after stabbing him after screams if

after begging the bastard and if even after smashing

a hammer to his head if even after that if he

and his buddies fuck me after that

then I consented and there was

no rape because finally you understand finally

they fucked me over because I was wrong I was

wrong again to be me being me where I was

wrong

to be who I am

which is exactly like South Africa

penetrating into Namibia penetrating into

Angola and does that mean I mean how do you know if

Pretoria ejaculates what will the evidence look like the

proof of the monster jackboot ejaculation on Blackland

and if

after Namibia and if after Angola and if after Zimbabwe

and if after all of my kinsmen and women resist even to

self-immolation of the villages and if after that

we lose nevertheless what will the big boys say will they

claim my consent:

Do You Follow Me: We are the wrong people of

the wrong skin on the wrong continent and what

in the hell is everybody being reasonable about

and according to the Times this week

back in 1966 the C.I.A. decided that they had this problem

and the problem was a man named Nkrumah so they

killed him and before that it was Patrice Lumumba

and before that it was my father on the campus

of my Ivy League school and my father afraid

to walk into the cafeteria because he said he

was wrong the wrong age the wrong skin the wrong

gender identity and he was paying my tuition and

before that

it was my father saying I was wrong saying that

I should have been a boy because he wanted one

a boy and that I should have been lighter skinned and

that I should have had straighter hair and that

I should not be so boy crazy but instead I should

just be one

a boy and before that

it was my mother pleading plastic surgery for

my nose and braces for my teeth and telling me

to let the books loose to let them loose in other

words

I am very familiar with the problems of the C.I.A.

and the problems of South Africa and the problems

of Exxon Corporation and the problems of white

America in general and the problems of the teachers

and the preachers and the F.B.I. and the social

workers and my particular Mom and Dad

I am very

familiar with the problems because the problems

turn out to be

me

I am the history of rape

I am the history of the rejection of who I am

I am the history of the terrorized incarceration of my self

I am the history of battery assault and limitless

armies against whatever I want to do with my mind

and my body and my soul and

whether it's about walking out at night

or whether it's about the love that I feel or

whether it's about the sanctity of my vagina or

the sanctity of my national boundaries

or the sanctity of my leaders or the sanctity

of each and every desire

that I know from my personal and idiosyncratic

and disputably single and singular heart

I have been raped

because I have been wrong the wrong sex the wrong age

the wrong skin the wrong nose the wrong hair the

wrong need the wrong dream the wrong geographic

the wrong sartorial I

I have been the meaning of rape

I have been the problem everyone seeks to

eliminate by forced

penetration with or without the evidence of slime and

but let this be unmistakable this poem

is not consent I do not consent

to my mother to my father to the teachers to

the F.B.I. to South Africa to Bedford-Stuy

to Park Avenue to American Airlines to the hardon

idlers on the corners to the sneaky creeps in

cars

I am not wrong: Wrong is not my name

My name is my own my own my own

and I can't tell you who the hell set things up like this

but I can tell you that from now on my resistance

my simple and daily and nightly self-determination

may very well cost you your life

2.) I found this article somehow and I thought it also provided very interesting commentary regarding social "norms" and gender roles that are prevalent even in our society today. I wasn't sure how I felt about this author's colloquial tone though. I couldn't decide if it made the poem easier to read and connected the reader with the author of if it made the piece too unprofessional to be taken seriously and gave it more of a mocking tone. Thoughts? (the link is listed below)

http://thecurrentconscience.com/blog/2011/09/12/a-message-to-women-from-a-man-you-are-not-“crazy”/