Duck Dynasty

I was watching a TV show called Duck Dynasty the other night and couldn't help but think of this class. The cast of the show live in Louisiana and live for duck hunting. They own a million dollar duck call company but choose to live as "rednecks." I love the show and think that it is hilarious but...they are so traditional that it's too obvious to miss. For instance, Miss Kay is only ever seen in the kitchen!..where the men wouldn't be caught dead. They preach that the way to a man's heart is through good cooking and that men should choose women based on cooking ability! If I would have watched this show prior to taking this course I probably wouldn't have thought much of their traditional values. Now it is all I see! It's not that they treat the women poorly by any means but the gender roles are so strictly defined. Even the women don't dare question their roles. I don't think any of them actually work; they're more or less trophy wives. There was even an episode where they had a sewing contest! Obviously the women predominantly partook in this contest (although the uncle did chip in). I love "country living" if you will but I also plan to have a career. I consider myself a strong woman and would never want to be "domestic." I can't cook myself easy mac as sad as that sounds..it's true. I have no desire to learn to cook or clean or sew. I want a husband who is outdoorsy, hunts, fishes but also who respects me as an equal not a cook. That may be near impossible but I won't settle. Maybe being domestic works for some women but not me. I don't think any woman should compromise herself in any way for a man. Women have too much to offer society to be cooped in the the house cooking or cleaning. Hopefully women realize this and push themselves to be more than housewives; I know I will.

Guest Speaker

Today's speaker was really interesting. I would never have thought that making plays of real abusive events would help heal peoples' relationships. The video of Sonia and Louis was very heartfelt and moving. Usually men do not admit that they are wrong in abusing women let alone want to change! Although they are probably in the minority, it is encouraging to see that people really want to change their abusive ways. I can't imagine being taught that abuse is okay and being abused myself. It is obvious to us that abuse is wrong and needs to be stopped but to people who are raised with abuse and taught that it is okay, how are they to know that it is wrong? To me it is very admirable that Sonia and Louis have the will power to change and "break the cycle." I hate to be the pessimist but it almost seems too good to be true. It is hard to believe that someone can change so completely, especially so late in life. I would like to see whether he is still abusive today and whether their family is as loving as it should be. Also, is Sonia staying really helping to break the cycle? It seems counter intuitive. Wouldn't leaving him and proving  that she does not have to live that way help to break the cycle? Her staying makes the behavior seem forgivable but it isn't. Someone who is beaten repeatedly has no obligation to the abuser! She should take her children and advocate for abused women not stay with him! Well..I take back wanting to watch the prison video. I don't feel bad for people who have killed people. The laws haven't changed. Everyone knows the repercussions of murdering another person. What else is society to do with murderers? You can't honestly expect an audience to feel remorse for these people! I can't help but think of the victims. What if it were me? A friend? Could I feel anything for the perpetrator? No I don't think I could. I have become a bit more sympathetic over the years but this is an area that is just too black and white, cut and dry, right and wrong. I appreciate the speaker's perspective but I can't say that I quite understand it.  

Gender..

Today's presentation was interesting..to say the least. It's not to say that I haven't thought about gender identity and what constitutes gender but I didn't realize the extent to which people have trouble with this issue. I've always known who I am and have never questioned the fact that my sex and gender match. It's difficult to understand the struggle if you have not personally experienced it. Seeing the presentation today, I think that I understand a little bit more. I do not know anyone personally who has struggled with gender and so while watching the presentation I tried to envision one of my friends or family members. I know that it would be hard for my family to accept if someone I knew or was close to was struggling with their gender but I know that they would come around and be supportive no matter what. I was honestly shocked by the short video clips of Nikki's niece and mother. I can't imagine living in a home where you are not accepted. As much as I hate to pass blame, the mother should take responsibility for pushing her daughter to the brink. I'm sure that other factors were at work but lack of support is HUGE for struggling teens. I feel for Nikki and her family having to go through something like that. However, I feel that it could have been prevented..like most teen suicides. People really need to work on being open-minded and accepting especially with their own children! Hopefully, people will take stories like Nikki's and learn from them...I know I have.

Sports!

It was really interesting to see the differences in representation and air time for men and women's sports. It is clear that men receive more attention in their athletic roles but I never realized how much more! Also, the comment about only the beautiful female athletes being recognized was an eye opener. When you watch women's athletic events, you don't even think about the people who do not look like them! I've never thought, hey where's the "butch" girl or the less attractive girl but really.. where are they? Because the media sexualizes female athletes, the less attractive ones have no appeal (no pun intended) and so are not mentioned. It is truly a shame that women can't be recognized apart from men. There are many female athletes that are just as good if not better than men at sports (but no one would EVER admit to that). Even little things..for instance, the boys at my high school being recognized for going to college and playing a sport while another girl and I were not even mentioned! Ironic that I am the only one who went to play a sport in college who is still playing!! HA. Oh and by the way, I also have a 3.75 GPA.. can't say the same for my male comrades. People seem to think that men are more physically AND mentally tough. FALSE. Clearly, none of the ultra athletic guys who went to play sports could handle both athletics and grades. So if I have to face a bit of discrimination along the way I can handle it..they'll recognize me when I'm educated and well off (and athletic). Muscle mass isn't everything. Maybe in high school they should have been learning how to be mentally tough not how to be physical brutes and mental tragedies. AH that felt good.

ABORTION

Today's conversation was interesting, as it should be. Abortion is a huge topic and everyone has an opinion about it. One thing that I was disappointed in was the lack of open discussion. I think that the conversation could have really taken off had there been more time! However, the presentation was informative and I think that it was an important aspect of the presentation. Abortion is something that is very very difficult to discuss thoroughly. The conversation always seems to go one way. I was really starting to think that no one was going to go against the grain and bring up the pro-life side of the argument. When it was finally mentioned, it was, for lack of a better term, shot down. That is no way to have a comprehensive discussion. Yea sure no one wants to be the bad guy but you know what just because you bring up the "offensive" side doesn't mean that you necessarily feel that way. A discussion is not a "this is what I believe" kind of conversation. I can honestly say that since coming to Juniata I have become a lot more open-minded than I used to be but even so it is hard to see the other side. This is why when we have these kinds of talks it is important to step back and allow others to talk and respect their opinions and views even if YOU personally don't agree. I have a pretty closed view on abortion, I'll admit, but I only question people on facts or definitions or maybe I'll bring up the alternative as a talking point. I would never say "you're wrong" or "I don't agree with that." That isn't the point of talking about it. Sorry if this blog sounds like I'm preaching but I think it's important to remain slightly impartial and objective throughout our future discussions!! If anything, to get the other side talking..

Women in Politics

I hope everyone enjoyed our presentation today. Unfortunately we did not get to cover everything that we wanted to cover but at least the conversation was good! One of the main points that we did not get to were the types of roles that first ladies play. Although we discussed stereotypes and how they are expected to act, how they actually behave was not discussed. There are three main roles of first ladies; namely, the ceremonial role, emerging spokeswoman, and independent advocate. Many first ladies, such as Grace Coolidge and Bess Truman were predominantly ceremonial first ladies. As the years progressed first ladies such as Jacqueline Kennedy and Lou Hoover began filling the emerging spokeswoman role. Further yet, women like Nancy Reagan, Lady Bird Johnson, and Hillary Clinton began filling the independent advocate role. Although first ladies have seemingly progressed through time, have they really? Is Lady Bird Johnson's Beautification project all that different from Michelle Obama's Let's Move project? Are these women making change or are they merely symbols of change? Furthermore, what are they promoting?? Motherly, "womanly" projects. They do not actually change policy, rather, they become the face of certain initiatives. While this may be true, we do believe that women in politics have made strides but they are no where near where they need to be.

Liberia

Today's presentation was definitely eye-opening. There are plenty of things that we hear about in the U.S. and think oh yeah that it so unfortunate but it is another thing entirely to hear first-hand accounts. It's analogous to soldiers dropping bombs miles out of view of the devastation; it is easy to dismiss something that you cannot see. It is also easy to avoid the feelings that accompany seeing these horrible things. No one wants to ruin their day or upset themselves by researching such topics so when people finally do, they are shocked by what they find. These issues cannot continue to be swept under the rug. On the other hand, how do we go about helping these people? These countries? As a people, we have not been very skilled at changing the ways of other communities (Native Americans, Missionaries who tried to convert). So before we go to these nations trying to "help" them, we need to evaluate what exactly needs changed. Obviously the treatment of women needs to be bettered but how can this happen? If the war issues are solved will this help women? The video made it seem like women were liberated after the fighting stopped (or at least slightly). So does that mean that this is a case of war-specific rape and sexual harassment? Or is it a problem regardless? If it is a problem regardless then something needs to be done to get at the core of sexual harassment; power! Hopefully, this question can be answered and Liberia and countries with similar issues can move forward to reconstruct the power balance and eliminate rape altogether.

CJ System

Just to clarify my argument in class today, I'm saying that it is not fair to blame the criminal justice system for a lack of prosecutions pertaining to rape. The system is not flawless I know but it is set up in a way that demands evidence or at least witnesses for prosecution. If it wasn't, anyone could accuse anyone of anything! I'm not comparing rape to a smashed windsheild either. I'm simply saying that a crime is a crime and they are all processed in a similar manner. If someone were to walk into the police station and say I was just mugged the police officer would say what was stolen? Do you know who the perpetrator was? What did he look like? Well if the victim does not have answers to these questions, then what are the police to do? Yeah sure they'll look into it briefly but there are plenty of other cases that have better leads that need to be followed. Unfortunately our system is one of priorities and cases with little or no evidence are pushed to the bottom. It's not fair to say that rape is treated this way as a result of no one believing women. If you looked at how far other crimes are pursued, you would see a similar pattern. It's unfortunate that these crimes do not usually yield much physical evidence and that victims are not so forthcoming but to blame the system for this is not right. Say this is a male on female rape. Why is the male any less credible than the female? If there is no evidence to point either way, how can anyone make that decision? They can't. For if they did, they would have to keep it consistent, so it's either always believe the alleged victim or never believe the alleged victim (in the absence of evidence that is). The fact that some women (albeit it not many) make false accusations, prevents the system from exclusively believing the victim. It does not matter if it is 5% or 45%, if people make false accusations, it diminishes everyone's credibility. Again, this is unfortunate but a fact of our system. I as well as anyone will advocate for change in our system, I recognize the mistakes and the unfairness of it but the fundamental principles are not in place to target any one particular gender. They are in place to ensure justice in the most efficient way possible. We have due process as the fundamental principle in order to give everyone a chance in our system but we cannot go around prosecuting people on the basis of hearsay! The Sandusky case is a rare example and we all know that the media played as much of a role in this case as anything. By blaming the system, women are buying into the rape culture. We read about "the blame game" well isn't that what we're doing if we blame the criminal justice system?? How about we look at the real issue..people who commit rape. If we can change the cultural view of rape and deter people from committing it, the criminal justice system will follow. For now we can educate women (and everyone for that matter) on what to do in the case of an assault and hopefully this will lead to more prosecutions and sebsequently, more justice.

Human Sexuality

Yesterday in class I noticed something that was very interesting to me. In human sexuality, we learned about the communication differences between men and women. So in class I started paying attention to these subtle differences. For example, one of the women answered a question in class and said "correct me if I'm wrong" but blah blah blah. None of the men who answered questions or participated used these speech disclaimers. Why is this?? In human sexuality we learned that women engage in more "rapport" talk while men engage in more "report" talk. Women use tag questions such as "that was really weird, wasn't it?" They use hedge words such as kind of and they use disclaimers such as "I may be wrong but.." Men don't use any of these speech tools! Why is it that women feel the need to diminish their own authority when they speak? Taking what I've learned from this class I am convinced that the need to act this way stems directly from male dominance. Men have made women feel that they can't possibly know more than men do. Taking it further, men have convinced women that they can't possibly be right! Why else would women feel the need to say things like "well I may be wrong?" We really need to take a closer look at little differences like this and realize that they are not so little after all.

Feminity in Action

Ever since taking this class I can't help but notice how females (and males) interact. Before it was something that I just didn't notice. Now it's all I pay attention to! For example, when I was at the Hartslog Festival this past weekend all of  the women were huddled together gossiping and oozing over the crafts while the men were engaging in "hearty" conversations full of archery talk and slaps on the back when one of them shared a story about shooting a deer. Don't get me wrong, I hunt, but looking at the population as a whole men are much more engaged in this activity. It's not only that I've noticed these differences but it's also deeper than that. What does it mean to be proud of killing? What does it mean to be content with knitting? (not that knitting is a bad thing) Until now I have never given these comments a second thought...until I realized that they mean something more. They mean something more about our society as a whole. Who dictates that killing is okay for men and knitting is okay for women? Initially it is our parents but who influences them? Their parents? Society as a whole? Where does it begin and more importantly where does it stop? Throughout this course we have contemplated this but I'm not sure I'm any closer to understanding it. Then again, it is one of those things that is so blatantly obvious that it had to be pointed out to me! Therefore, my thoughts on the subject are young..hopefully throughout this class I'll form more complex opinions about this subject.

Masculinity in Action

Although we have officially moved on to femininity, some things in court sparked my thoughts about masculinity. I intern part-time with an attorney in town and sometimes we attend criminal court. Today I spent a significant amount of time in court and noticed a lot of things. For one, there were a couple of men who were definitely the embodiment of "masculinity." One man literally looked like Steve Austin. I also noticed that there were many more men being adjudicated for DUI and boating under the influence than there were women. This could be because heavy drinking is considered a "masculine" thing to do. There was also a case involving a man who allegedly beat up his girlfriend. However, there were no cases in which the opposite was true. I know that the majority of criminals are men but it's interesting to see what general type of men. The ones who commit physical crimes are often the ones who look like Steve Austin. The ones who commit check fraud are much less buff and exhibit less of a "tough guise." It's neat to be aware of these differences and ponder why our society has forced these distinctions. If masculinity wasn't taught from a young age would there be such a thing as Stone Cold Steve Austin?? Would people commit crimes in the way that they do today?? Somehow I doubt it.

Gender Treachery

I never would have picked apart homophobia if I had not read this article. I know that it is a problem in our society but I never really contemplated the roots of it. I definitely agree with the author in that gender identities are the main cause of homophobia. Maybe if men weren't taught to be super masculine, they wouldn't feel so threatened by an alternative! We really do need to get rid of the binary system but there must be a simpler solution. We've been living with the same system for such a long time that I think it's unrealistic to propose such a change. As an end result, I like the idea but only baby steps will get us there. Maybe starting with parenting would be a good idea. The one major change that I would propose would be teaching boys to be more emotional and accepting. If we could change this one small aspect of parenting we would see significant changes in violence against others period! The reduction in homophobic violence would be a perk! Men learn their "tough guise" from their parents first and peers second so if it is taken care of inside the home, peers would not preach it like they do now. Hopefully someday soon we can make these changes and become that much closer to getting rid of the gender binary once and for all.

Boys Do Cry

This was an awesome article. I chose it because I generally enjoy Valenti's writing and I wasn't disappointed! She brings up a really good point; men are also affected by gender roles. Because feminism is usually seen as a woman-centered movement, we don't often think of men and how they are affected. Women are taught to act a certain way but so are men! Why don't men care that they are oppressed just as women are? Hmmm.. because men's roles are celebrated. The reason that there are feminist groups and not necessarily men's groups is because there is no social consequence of being a man. No one would dare dispute the idea of raising boys to be masculine. Although this is true, not all men grow up to accept these gender roles. What happens then? Well..they are penalized for not being masculine enough. No wonder men are scared of feminism. They only know one thing; MASCULINE. So when someone starts preaching feminist values, what are men to do? Change sides, or rebel? No man would risk the repercussions of changing sides so they rebel! I really do not know where this leaves us..getting men to respect and understand feminism is going to be tough.

Tong Chapter 3

This chapter offers a really interesting perspective on female oppression. Marxist's argue that class differences stem from economic differences and that capitalism fuels these differences. These differences are okay until both classes become conscious of themselves as classes. When this happens the system that created these classes collapses. So the question for Marxist feminists is, do women constitute a class? This is a difficult question. There is so much differentiation among women that it is hard to say they're a class. I would argue that they are not, however, in some respects they can act like a class. For example, they can come together and say that domestic work is productive work. This would allow females to be considered a class because this does not apply to anyone else. Also, Engels' view of marriage is notable. He considers marriage a purely economic arrangement and so for women to become "emancipated" from their husbands, they must first become economically independent. This relates to a class that I am currently in called Human Sexuality. The Professor makes this argument; marriage is a contract and is in turn oppressive. Because women are now technically "owned" by their husbands, they are restricted. I don't know much I agree with this. I think that this idea as well as that of Engels is a bit extreme. Hopefully in class other people will share their opinions!

Tuesday's Class

I thought that it was a really good idea to have Dr. Widman speak to our class. He brings a totally different perspective on the topic of gender. Seeing the other side of the spectrum was helpful to me. It really allowed me to decide what I think about gender differences and gender issues in general. I wish that he would have been able to stay on topic a bit more but a certain distraction was ever present. Although this is true, he was able to show us certain evolutionary and biological differences between the sexes. What I found most interesting was the actual brain differences. It was neat to learn about the spatial reasoning differences too but it is hard to say if these differences are a product of socialization and acculturation or if they are biological differences. The brain anatomy is simply indisputable. Even though scientists are not positive what the differences mean, they are positive that they are there. I would have to side with Dr. Widman on the fact that not everyone can be anything. There are clearly limits. However, I side with Professor Cook-Huffman on the idea that socialization is extremely important to our ideas about gender. A happy medium is ideal. We are certainly influenced biologically and we are also influenced sociologically and culturally.

Criticism 3

In the Clatterbaugh reading, I found the third criticism to be most appealing to me. I am a psychology POE and love sociology so it is interesting to read through all of these different critiques of sociobiology. Criticism 3 accuses sociobiology of making rather general statements or far-fetched correlations between certain human behaviors and biology. It is saying that because these behaviors are prevalent within the human race and within the animal kingdom, they must have some biological purpose. However, they do not offer a measurement for prevalence. Also, there is no way of knowing for sure that these behaviors stuck around because they serve a biological function. At best one could say that they are correlated but it is impossible to distinguish a direct relationship between the two. Therefore, it is not at all credible to make such a claim. Maybe someday a direct relationship will be found but for now it is not valid enough to use in any sort of argument. Also, reading this piece definitely helped me with my argument analysis paper. It is a good example of how to pick apart a certain topic and provide explanations and evidence that support the criticisms!

Men as Gendered Beings

I really enjoyed this reading. I had never put a lot of thought into how people view themselves and I certainly did not think that men viewed themselves so differently than women. Maybe it is because men want to fulfill their gender roles while women want nothing to do with them! When I look in the mirror I see a woman and I assumed that when a man looked in the mirror he saw a man. It's so weird to think that they see a just a human instead.. or is it? I mean if society preaches that masculinity is the way to go then I guess it would follow that men would link man and human together. On the other hand, women are constantly reminded of their roles and so they have no choice but to live their lives in light of them whether they agree with them or not! Men do not face this stigma and so they do not even consider their gender in everyday living. Thankfully things are changing for women and so we may not have to live with these pathetic roles forever.. maybe someday soon people will see us as merely human too.

Militarization

I thought that the Byrne reading made a really good point about militarization. Studies have shown that there is definitely more violence against women in times of conflict but why? Why are women raped during war? Why is it swept under the rug and ignored? Byrne answers this last question by pointing out that most women in these situations simply do not have the power to enact change. They are subordinate to men and are expected to respect the fact that men go off to war for their country. However, it can be argued that women suffer more in their passive, subordinate roles of war than men do on the front lines of battle. I have a couple of good friends who are going to Afghanistan this coming year to serve and this article really made me think hard about them. I know that people think it doesn't happen with American soldiers but who really knows? Did anyone expect the violence at Abu Ghraib? No. The military does something to its soldiers that dehumanizes them. I mean I guess you would have to be insensitive to an extent in order to be ready to kill people but where does it stop? Where do one's morals come back into play? When they get back? So doesn't it follow that rape would be "OK" if killing is? Someone needs to address these issues because there surely is no shortage of war in the world.

Bodily Harm

I found this reading..well awesome. I am very interested in serial killers, mass murders (there is a difference), and violence in general. This may sound a little sadistic and frankly, it's a weird thing to be interested in. Although this is true, I love the behavioral sciences and basically I love to dissect why people do what they do. Looking at how behaviors are shaped by the environment is what I am most interested in but then again I've never really looked at it from a gender perspective. Maybe the power that men feel entitled to plays a larger role that I thought. For instance, Martin Bryant was so enthralled by a sense of power that he failed to act properly. How many killers kill because of this sense of power? On the same note, how many kill women explicitly or kill because of women? There are many cases of mass murder as well as serial murder that revolve around women. Why did the Green River Killer only kill prostitutes? Why did BTK bind torture and kill his exclusively female victims? These questions are so interesting in and of themselves but they are even more interesting when trying to discern whether a sense of superiority or obsessive masculinity played a role. I think that this reading gives us a little insight into how masculinity plays a role but I would like to pursue this subject further.

Women's Rights are Human Rights

This reading was definitely an eye opener. I know that there is plenty of violence against women in our society but there were some things that I didn't know. For example, the fact that there is more violence against women in times of political turmoil was interesting to learn. It makes sense that this would be true but I had never really thought about it. Also, it is amazing that we have not made more progress in this area to date. With all of the progress that we have made in other areas, it's shocking that women's rights are still lagging behind. Why are women still penalized for others' faults? Why must women be kept "in check" by men through rape and other forms of humiliation and domination? I honestly had not realized how prevalent these things still were in our society until reading this article. Hopefully, women can continue to make strides toward equality and hopefully they can do it soon.

Making Gendered People
R.W. Connell

I really enjoyed this reading mainly because it uses examples to show gender differences and also similarities. It also lays out clearly the changing stereotypes surrounding gender and sex. There have been a lot of positive changes such as the increasing tolerance of homosexuality but there is still a long way to go. The mention of homosexuality brings me to my favorite part of this reading, namely, the discussion on foreign societies. I have learned a lot throughout my college career about how sex and gender are defined in Western culture but seeing how it is defined and ever changing in foreign societies is something new to me. It shows that we are not unique in this respect. It also begs the question, is homosexuality more natural than we would like to believe? If all of these other cultures are practicing forms of it, how can it be an inately "bad" thing? Why is it so demonized in our society whereas in others it is somewhat glorified?  

Chapter 6: Issues of Subjectivity and Identity

The topic of identity is a very interesting one. Everyone has an identity, both social and self, so everyone can readily relate to this idea. I really liked Gidden's idea of the identity project. Our identities are certainly changing and reshaping constantly depending on our situation. For example, I don't view myself now as I did when I was younger. Things change and therefore so does our self-identity. Our social identity changes also. As we go through different social situations, our social identity rightfully adjusts itself. If we were to have but one identity for our whole lives, it would have to be constructed at birth. We are social beings and so our identities are socially constructed. This follows the idea of the sociological subject which I obviously agree with. The postmodern subject is also a very intriguing idea. I believe that people have multiple identities. I am a softball player here at Juniata, a tour guide, and an intern. All of these activities require me to act like and essentially be different people; to have different identities.

First Blog!

I'm not positive whether I did this right or not but hopefully people can see this! I'm super excited to begin learning about gender and conflict. It should be interesting to see other peoples' points of view on this topic.