Virgin/Whore or Good Girl/Bad Girl:
First of all let me explain what this whole dualism term is, a dualism is the view that the world consists of or is explicable as two fundamental entities, such as Virgin/Whore or Good Girl/Bad Girl. The broader dualism as it is understood more generally is that good girls do not talk about sex and bad girls do talk about sex. Women are put in one of the two categories. A woman is either a “good girl/virgin” or “bad girl/whore.” The Virgin is the woman who is seen as pure in our society, it is someone who is not sexually active and who does not talk about sex. It is someone who does not experience pleasure. The Whore is the woman who is seen as the bad girl, it is someone who enjoys sex and makes sure she is also satisfied. This dualism is a common dilemma that women confront.
I am of Mexican decent and grew up in with a family that is strictly Catholic and never talks about sex period. I grew up in a household in were one cannot even say VAGINA. I feel that because I grew up in a home in were even the word sex was so bad you could not even say it, it just took a lot away from me. It always felt that I had to be in the “good girl/virgin” category. I remember my mother telling my sister and me “just remember if you have sex before marriage nobody is going to want to marry you!” Although yes this kind of thinking is too back in the days for many, my mother made sure that this kind of thinking would be engrained in us. I remember when I started my first year in school in this Country. I was introduced to what a Sex Ed Class was. I remember we all had to ask a question out loud, every single student had to ask something. I do not remember what particular question I asked, but I sure as hell remember that my sentence had the word “Vagina” in it and instead of saying it I said something else, the teacher immediately noticed and in front of the whole class she said, “Come on now you can do this, it is “V-A-G-I-N-A!” now say “P-E-N-I-S!” ok, now say “S-E-X!” I was humiliated, not because I heard those particular words but because I could not believe that I was so ignorant that I could not even say them. I feel that culture plays a huge role in how people view the world. In my culture or I should say in my family sex is completely prohibited before marriage and women well we aren’t ever suppose to talk about sex. I just think that this is a good example of how this dualism has maintained itself over time. Even some of our cultures hold this idea very closely. Good girls are not suppose to be having sex before marriage and bad girls are those who nobody wants to marry, and who is to blame? Who knows? I am sure that the reason why my sister and me could never talk about sex is because the way we grew up, and I am sure that my mother is the same way because of the way she grew up. However, I think that the more women speak up and get comfortable with this whole topic the easier it will be to eliminate this dualism and hopefully liberate our bodies. Although this might be a small example of why some people can be less comfortable with their bodies than others, it leads to this whole binary relationship that limits and oppresses women. It oppresses women in the mere sex act itself. It oppresses women in such that women cannot seem to know their own bodies when it comes to pleasure or cannot reach an orgasm, it oppresses women in such that women cannot even talk about sex without feeling “dirty” or feeling like they will be placed in the “bad girl/whore” category.
In “Talking Back,” Hooks reveals her childhood experience of having a “voice.” In class we discussed how Hooks was prohibited in some ways to claim her voice. For example, when her sister found her journal she laughed at her. Also, she was not allowed to speak unless spoken to. In the article Hooks states that if she had been a boy then maybe she would be punished differently. This reminds me of when I attended school in Mexico, Tepic Nayarit. Everyone wore uniforms even college students. I was in the second grade and I remember all the girls had to wear a pink dress/uniform and the boys wore kaki pants. I remember I wanted to play and run around but I was too uncomfortable doing all that running with a dress on. I just remember thinking “why do I have to wear a dress? Why do we all wear the dress?” but because no body ever seemed to question it, I felt a sense of prohibition, maybe I was not even suppose to talk about it. It is just interesting to me how something so little turns into feminism. In “Bringing Feminism a la Casa,” Daisy Hernandez reveals her experience as she tried to explain “feminism” to her community. I feel a great connection with this piece simply because I think that there is no way to interpret feminism to my mother. I feel that this is so because of our background/culture. In class we discussed what we think it means to be called a feminist by an outsider/or non identifier-feminist? I feel that for my mother this word is not recognized as what it actually is, it is a word that has become masculanized and as a result a lot of negativity is connected with it. Lorde’s piece was a very challenging one. The term erotic is exposed in a different kind of way. Lorde re-emissions the erotic. Although I had a great difficulty understanding the text, I can still see that Lord argues that the Erotic is something powerful and feminine although we have attached a different meaning to it. For example we see it at pornographic and sexual when it is something spiritual/powerful.
This week we read, “Jane Fonda, Barbara Bush, and Other Aging Bodies,” by Myra Dinnerstein and Rose Weitz. We are introduced to two women and how they have aged. Jane Fonda has surgically enhanced her face and breasts. Barbara Bush who exhibits a “resolutely natural” look. In the article Dinnerstein and Weitz mention how the women’s magazines talk about Fonda and how well and specifically, how young she looks. “Along with each book and tape comes convincing evidence that it’s possible…to remain beautiful and sexy in midlife,” (192) In other words the message that is being sent is that it’s possible to look like her but what makes me wonder is at what cost? even if women are not getting plastic surgery they are revolving or spending a great amount of time trying to look “Younger.” For example, dieting and exercising. Fonda states, “Exercise does a tremendous amount for emotional and mental stability…that is what satisfies me most,” (193) this according to Dinnerstein and Weitz is the reason why Fonda is now characterized as a feminist. Fonda is seen as someone who has empowered herself through her body. It opposes that view of “fragile womanhood.” (193) However, they also mention that only recently has she allowed herself to skip exercise. It makes one wonder how although she is taking the “natural” way it is an obsession. This just gets me thinking about how society has build an image of how a woman should look like and it does not necessarily matter how a woman chooses to approach that image (surgery or taking the natural way- ”self-abnegation,” it is still an image ingrainedin us. If we did not have a particular image then we would not have to strive or stress ourselves to become something else. If we did not have a “good body” image then we would be comfortable with our own bodies. Aging is a natural progression, we should not fight it. I do not think that it is right for some to “age-well,” what exactly does that mean? how does aging well look like? we have again created an image that people want to pursue, we again have created a category that will leave people out.
This week we read three articles, “Ending Violence,” by Hooks, “Word Warrior,” by DiMarco, and “History and the Politics of Violence Against Women,” by Castaiteda.
In “Ending Violence,” Hooks constructs a new term, “patriarchal violence.” According to Hooks, although “domestic violence” is the common term “patriarchal violence” is more useful. It includes everyone, even the children who are hurt by the mere observation of watching violent/abusive behavior. I think that this alone is something we leave out. When we think of domestic violence we think of it as the mother being abused by the father or the “dominant figure,” however we never consider how that also includes the children. From my personal experience I can say that this leads to others being victimized. Although it’s not direct it is an indirect form of abuse/violence. In-class we discussed how it then becomes an on-going cycle. The father abuses the mother, then the mother goes on and becomes abusive to the children, and then the children become abusive toward the family pet. Another example given in class was the Chris Brown and Rihanna case. Chris Brown is a victim of domestic or patriarchal violence, and committed something that could be due to the “on-going cycle.” But how do we deal with this? How do we prosecute if we think of these people as victims? If that were the case then most people that are convicted of crimes now would be also seen as victims. Rapists are usually those were sexually abused as children. How do we deal with this cycle?
In “Word Warrior,” by DiMarco, she tells us her sad and yet powerful childhood experience. DiMarco was able to empower herself through her voice. But she also admits that there were very powerful and role model figures that took part in her life. Her parents were what helped her become empowered. But what about those who do not have the necessary tools to over come such an obstacle? In-class we were asked whether we thought if everyone started breaking the silence on violent acts whether that would help it stop? I think that for those people who were not brought up in a household like DiMarco it is necessary to have others speak up. I do not think it will stop violent acts but it will help women empower themselves. Like DiMarco says, by empowering one can stop hatred.
In “History and the Politics of Violence Against Women,” Castaiteda reminds us of all the historical cases that have occurred over the years that are evidence that violent acts towards women is not something new. She also mentions the assumptions people make when a women gets raped. For example, “Women ask for it because the way they are dressed,” I feel that a woman should be able to dress as she likes whenever she likes without having to deal with this kind of thinking. Our bodies are our own and we do not need society to assume that dressing a certain way means/equals something. Having the fear put upon us as women that we have to be cautious of our surrounding because we are women does strip us of our rights. For example, if I’m on-campus late at night studying, it’s not right that I have to be more cautious than a guy. For many cases it all comes back to the woman, why was she walking alone at night? Why walking alone at 2:00AM knowing the consequences? I refuse to think that she brought it upon herself.
http://jezebel.com/5168837/comic-explains-how-not-to-talk-about-domestic-violence
http://hiphop.popcrunch.com/oprah-domestic-violence-show-march-12-2009/
This week we read “Stolen Bodies, Reclaimed Bodies: Disability and Queerness,” by Eli Clare. Clare writes about the body. Clare states, “The pernicious stereotypes, lies, and false images can haunt a body, stealing it away as surely as bullets do,” (414) In other words our bodies are stolen because of the stereotypes of society. Clare writes about disabeled bodies and how the moral model has transformed disability into a sign of moral weakness. This reminds me of the discussion we had in-class. We have labeled these bodies as broken/disabeled and that alone has categorized people and as a result you have people being treated differently. The question that was brought up in-class what whether we thought the British Top Model show was a good thing and whether it would change our views about disabeled bodies. I personally think that it is a good idea, ofcourse, looking at it from the media point of view. I think it is something people will watch and it might make other viewers hopefull. However, I think that our society has ingrained these “stereotypical views” and there is no way that it will change. It is unfortunate that this social construction can be done and constructed by us (society) but once placed it cannot be undone. Another article we read this week is “Women and Medicalization,” by Catherine Kohler Riessman. Riessman argues that “both physicians and women have contributed to the redefinding of women’s experience into medical categories.” (47) It is interesting to think about why certain human conditions are now being labeled as illnesses but were not ever viewed that way before (and vice versa). An example in the article is homosexuality which at one time was categorized as “bad” and then as “sick.” This reminds me of when we use to categorize those who had schizophrenia as “devilish,” as well as the mentally retarded. We now look at these conditions as conditions that need to be treated and taken care of. Article also mentions abortion and how that has also been redefined. I feel that now we are in a society in where we have to decide or label ourselves as one or the other. Are we pro-choice or pro-life? In-class classmates would say well I’m pro-choice but it also depends how many abortions one gets or I’m pro-life but if a woman gets rapped then it’s a different situtation. I feel that these two labels are like two extremes (should be more like a scale) and doesn’t fit us all. “Morality and Personhood,” by Rosalind Pollack Petchesky mentions how the labels we created are social constructs, also the guilt. “One antihumanist, “prolife” writer insists that the woman’s feelings have nothing to do with whether or not she is guilty, which is determine by her objective relation to the “moral law,” In class one student mentioned how the feeling of guiltyness is something we as a society have created because we have labeled abortion as morally wrong. It is interesting to me to find that we have created this label and now whether we are pro-choice or not we cannot help but feel like we might be morally wrong or selfish. www.friesian.com/abortion.htm
http://www.studiojmc.net/portfolio/images/fineart/abortion_main.jpg
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p244/kai2128/BONOBO.jpg
This week we read “What do women want?” an article by Daniel Bergner. The article is about Meredith Chivers and her research. Chivers is a psychology professor and creator of the “bonobo pornography.” An interesting part of her research is that using plethysmographs for the men and plastic probes for women she found that men respond in “category specific” ways. The subjective ratings on the keypad matched the reading of the plethysmograph, this meaning that men’s minds and genitals were in agreement. However, the results for women were different. Chivers explains that women’s results were all over the place, “No matter what their self-proclaimed sexual orientation, they showed, on the whole, strong and swift genital arousal when the screen offered men with men, women with women and women with men.”(2) This reminds me of the discussion we had in-class why is it that women do not experience an orgasm until later life as opposed to men? I find it very interesting that according to Chives research women’s blood flow rises more quickly than men and women get aroused faster, but yet women are not having orgasms. Chives states,”women reported less excitement than their vaginas indicated,” in other words out bodies do not seem to agree with our minds. This makes alot of sense when you look at rape cases and how even the victims report to have had an orgasm on the incident, one has to question how that is possible? This is an example of how we are still trying to understand the workings of women’s arousal and desire.
Another interesting point/theme is made in the article when Chivers states, “The horrible reality of psychological research is that you can’t pull apart the cultural from the biological.” In other words there is no way to know if something is purely nature or nurture. For example in-class we discussed how the subject of women and masturbation is not talked about whereas men and masturbation is a normal thing. A classmate made an interesting point that maybe the reason why women have a hard time reaching that level of excitement or orgasm is because we have been stigmatized as “nice girls do not touch themselves” and as a result women do not explore and find out what we like. Society sees it as pervasive. This is a perfect example of how you cannot pull apart the cultural from the biological.
This week we read, “Hottentot 2000,” “Selling Hot Pussy,” and “Why Black Sexual Politics.”
“Hottentot 2000,” discusses Jennifer Lopez and the reputation of her buttocks. At one point in the article she is compared to Saartje Baartman, better known as the “Hottentot Venus.” The reason why the comparison according to the author, is because no one needs to mention race, their butts are shorthand for “otherness.” In other words, that specific body part has becomed a representation of these two women and as a result it is racialized sexuality.
“Selling Hot Pussy,” also continues on with the topic of the representations of black female bodies and fascination with black “butts,” like J-lo’s. An interesting point in the article is when it mentions that there is prevailing representations of black female sexuality in white supremacy society. This reminds me of the discussion we had in-class, every actress in hollywood that is known is due to the oversexualized body part. In-class we mentioned, Scarlett Johanson and her mole, Pamela Anderson and her breasts, and so on… this is a clear example that I think answers the question, well is it due to nature or nurture that we oversexualize things like this. I belive that it is mostly society that oversexualizes body parts and not necessarily nature or biology, if people around you say this is what sexy/sexual is then you will start following along and belive that is sexy/sexual.
“Why Black Sexual Politics,” also discusses Sarah Bartmann and how she is a sign of racial difference used to justify the growing belief of white supremacy and inferiority of “primitive people.” This article also mentions that due to the story of Bartmann the label began for African American women “Freaks of nature,” and as a result adds in to racial difference.
This week we read, “Fantasies of femininity,” by Ussher.
The article starts off with the topic of “Make-up,” and how it is not necessary but a choice. Girls have the choice to wear it or not, however the pressure put upon many of us from society forces us to do so. This reminds me of the discussion we had in-class, does the media/magazines send false messages and does it have an impact on us? Well I do think that what is being portrayed is not a true message. For example, Victoria Secret commercials, the models are super thin and make one think “OK I will never look like that wearing lingerie,” it does send a false message which says that how they look wearing that is how everyone or “perfect” girls looklike. As a result whether it is conscious or unconscious we take that in and try to reach that level of “perfection.” It’s interesting to me that the level of “Perfection” when it comes to a woman is always super sexual. For example, Victoria’s Secret commercial (below)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qmt08cZ8S6A&eurl=http://search.msn.com/video/results.aspx?q=Victorias+secret+commercial&form=VIRE1&docid=299516559409&FORM=&feature=player_embedded
Another interesting point in this article is when it talks about fashion and how people determine what is in and what is out. “The clothes and body shapes change with the whims of designers, fashion editors and photographers, not with the desires of women or because of a genuine change in female physiognomy.” (pg.49) In other words, how a woman should look like is continuously changing, in the fifties the hour glass woman had the “perfect body” and now it is the “prepubescent anorexic” and it is silly to think of it as maybe our bodies evolving over time, it could be arguable. I think society continues to evolve and our views/beliefs follow along, and because we are part of society we adapt and conform to the changes.
File:Kinsey Scale.gif
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This week we watched the film , “Kinsey.” Kinsey is the one who developed a scale that attempts to describe a person’s sexual history or episodes of their sexual activity at a given time. This was the first time I had seen this film and I have to say that I did enjoy it. However, there were parts in the film that were hard to look at, in a way it made me a little uncomfortable but just realizing that the topic and the themes were nothing but real just holded me back and forced me to stay tuned. I could not help but wonder how hard it must have been for Professor Kinsey, the topic itself was unheard of at that particular time and I am sure that if it makes people uncomfortable now then one can just imagine how it must have been back then. The film itself I think wants to aware people of the themes it holds, however one of the questions becomes, Does it openly moralize for greater sexual freedom? I think that it takes more than a film to do this but most importantly it indirectly encourages people to examine their own beliefs.
This week we also read “Homophobia,” by Suzanne Pharr The article explains what homophobia is and how it affects people. According to Pharr “homophobia” is a weapon and it hurts people. An example is given that clearly states that homophobia is passed on, children learn this, reason being, because we have given them “clear messages that those who deviate from standard expectations are to be made to get back in line” (pg. 88) In other words children are not born with innate beliefs or with homophobia, we as a society teach what is “right” and “wrong” and it continues to be passed on.
Pharr also defines what “lesbian” means. According to Pharr “To be a lesbian is to be perceived as someone who has stepped out of line, who has moved out sexual/economic dependence on a male, who is woman-identified. A lesbian is perceived as someone who can live without a man and who is therefore against men,” (pg.88) In other words, according to Pharr to be a lesbian is more than just women liking other women but it is a women not being dependent on men. This just got be thinking on how much pressure a woman is put through simply because society has made it seem that a woman should get married and have children by a certain age (or depend on a man) and if this does not occur then it becomes a problem, in a way for some women this means settling for less and simply sticking with a man one meets for the pure pressure. Well what about those of us who want to pursue a Masters? or P.hds? we might have to hold back on having children until we pursue our careers but does that mean we will be faced with being called Lesbians? Is it fair to be worried simply because we have “women roles” we must meet in order to be defined as real women? This is something I think about on a daily basis, I want to pursue a PhD, and I am aware of the fact that starting a family might not be a good idea until I have acquired the degree, but I cannot help and worry about how that might affect me, I ask myself questions like “will I be too old to have children/get married once I’m done with school?Do I have to have children? when in reality does it matter? it should come down to what I want in life aside from what society wants from me. I want to pursue a Phd and if that means holding back on my “women-role” then so be it.
”Some Like Indians Endure” By: Paula Gunn Allen This poem compares Indians to “homosexuals.” It is an interesting comparison, it states that society has occupied/colonized everything even people’s beliefs. In other words, society has taken over the ideas people own. Society has left out homosexuals and in comparison, we also colonized the Indian’s and put upon beliefs we thought/think as right.
