Kira

A Galaxy Quest for Equality Portrayal

Posted by Kira on Sat, 11/19 at 11:03am ideas No Responses »

Nov 192016

So, usually I’m one of those people who are pretty skeptical of arguments that accuse fictitious works of enforcing a dichotomy of strength, intelligence, capability, etc between men and women, because most times it’s over very minor, subtle things that myself as a female didn’t identify to be offensive, and, once brought to my attention, I find it to be trivial.

Well, I found a movie that severely enforces that dichotomy to the point it’s actually really upsetting: Galaxy Quest. It’s a beloved classic to many Trekkies, and is basically a “spoof” movie about a cast of an old sci-fi TV show attending cons and not being able to escape their roles thirty years later. The plot is basically that an alien race discovered their TV show and modeled their society after the crew, and then beam them up into space to have them help fight their foe who wants to exterminate their race. No pressure. The cast includes Tim Allen, Alan Rickman (RIP) and Sigourney Weaver.

I’m going to make a list of kind of all the plot instances her character (Gwen DeMarco) fell flat and useless, and elaborate on why I was disappointed.

Her boobs. I’m not kidding. They were EVERYWHERE. She mentions in the beginning that the only reason she was famous was because of her boobs, and several times during the movie her peers are staring them. During the rising action/climax of the story, her shirt keeps getting ripped further and further, until basically her entire bra is out. Now, I don’t really care if she was a strong female character and this happened, because boobs get in the way, but her major characteristic was her boobs, and that upsets me because I have a lot of respect for Sigourney Weaver as an actress.
She was literally useless. She mentions in the exposition of the story that the only thing her character did was repeat whatever the computer said in the show. When they get on the actual spaceship, what does she do? Continue to repeat/rephrase whatever the computer says to relay it back to her crew. On the alien ship, her crew members were saying, “Okay, we get it,” annoyed at her repeating everything, and she replies literally, “Hey, I know it’s dumb, but it’s my job, and I’m going to do it.” That’s basically code word for conforming to societal expectations no matter how stupid! Like, I don’t think I could make this up. Her other job is to control calls to the deck, often saying “Hold, please,” reflecting nothing but an over-glorified secretary. Obviously, she’s an actress, and her role in the seventies limited her abilities, so I didn’t expect her to be kickass as soon as she got on the ship and start taking job. But I did expect some sort of character arc in which she’d acquire an important skill and be of actual use to the crew. But she was just a pair of boobs and the love interest to Tim Allen’s character the whole time.
She was obviously very emotional. She was either cooing at other crew members to have the courage to do things (not stepping up to do it herself), or freaking out about how doomed they were (and not in a comedic relief way, they had another guy for that). There was this one part when they were on a foreign planet to get a part for their ship, and she saw these alien creatures that looked like babies. Then she saw one that was limping, and obviously, “Awww’ed” and ALMOST CALLED TO IT because of how cute it was. And you know, I thought – here’s her big part, here’s how she’s going to be useful, because she’s going to befriend this baby alien as a pet, and in the end that baby alien and her are going to help save the day somehow. Nope. The crew had to clamp a hand on her mouth, and then the baby aliens started eating the wounded baby alien. So again, the fact she was a women meant that her emotions almost put the crew in danger.

I’m just really upset because the movie is soooo great, but I can’t like it all too much because of that flaw. Every other female in the movie (although there were technically only three recurring faces, and one appeared basically twice) had such a diminished role. I don’t want a super strong female character in every movie – I realize not all women are strong female characters, so that would be really unrealistic. But I like characters who are actually useful to the plot, not decorative, and Sigourney Weaver’s character was useless. They did not need her in any instance of the plot because she contributed no skill to the group. Someone like Marion from Indiana Jones, who wasn’t a super kickass woman but was important and could hold her own, is an example of a good female character in my mind – even if she has to get rescued by the male hero. I don’t care if the woman starts out completely incompetent and weak, but as long as she learns some kind of skill, or is even the “nurse” of the group, at least she’s useful. I’m just really disappointed that none of the (male) creators considered this.

Let’s just say, if Feminism was a corporation, the whole Marketing Team would need to go

Posted by Kira on Fri, 11/18 at 9:32am proposal 1 Response »

Nov 182016

Today, “Fourth Wave Feminism” seems to be riddled with fissures and obstacles that prevent academia, women, and, arguably, society itself from coalescing and ascribing to an ideology whose dictionary definition conveys a much more utopian equality than the actualization of it. As the awareness and acknowledgement of feminism both as a discipline and practice have increased over the past decades, dissident opinions, misconceptions, and divides within the community of those who self-identify as feminist, as well as between the feminists and society, have all grown. While in the modern digital age there is an excess availability of voices, opinions, research and current events that all revolve around feminism, there is also more opportunities for miscommunication, misinterpretation, and misinformation that often offsets the embracing of this ideology. The lack of feminism having a singular, streamlined message its advocates can all agree on and circulate has impeded its ability to gain further momentum as a movement and efficiently target and solve critical junctures of sexual inequality, whether to the detriment of women or men, exhibited globally.

What has stunted the flourishing of this movement has been those who advocate and self-identify with the feminist cause themselves. Each paradigm, sub-sect, or individual has been proclaiming and practicing their own flavor of feminism; the most problematic of which are those women labeled as “Feminazis,” who are perceived by both men and women alike as aggressive and adversely affecting public opinion with their outspoken opinions and behaviors. By studying the rhetoric of the feminism utilizing a Post-Modern lens, scholars can learn how language inscribes the movement, ideology, advocates, opposes, and, on a macro-scale, the sexes, and how the implications and connotations of specific words and phrases communicating these perspectives can render very different understandings and emotions regarding the cause. Specifically, by observing how the three fundamental modes of persuasive rhetoric, ethos, pathos, and logos function within feminist propaganda, feminists will be able to refine and improve their message so it can regain a universal appeal. The actualization of feminism is contingent on the number of people, both men and women, who adopt and enact these core principles to create healthier, more positive socialization between the sexes globally.

There’s a complication that ideals are not uniform, so some will need to be ignored for the sake of unity, and I want to address that towards the end of my paper, but should I address it in my proposal?

It’s not a competition, people

Posted by Kira on Sun, 11/13 at 10:35pm reading No Responses »

Nov 132016

So… I have taken this concept of “male privilege” for granted, that is, taken for granted that it does exist. I did some research, and it does exist…but, the “cons” of being males tend to outweigh the pros.

I found to elucidating videos on the Internet. One has a more factual approach of explaining the myth of “men’s privilege” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRsYwu8uD4I&list=PLytTJqkSQqtr7BqC1Jf4nv3g2yDfu7Xmd&index=7 and states that on average, boys tend to do worse in school than girls, earn less awards and, on average, are less likely to continue their education. They also make up 92% of workplace accidents, and are twice as likely to be victims of violent crimes (on campuses, at least). They also take the brunt of issues such as homelessness, suicide, and fighting wars.

The second video I found almost brought tears to my eyes. I don’t know why, it was factual, although definitely had a pathos element about it, but I had never stopped to consider how men suffered until now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPihPrNseAo. I strongly recommend people watch it, if for some reason you are reading these rants. It lists reasons such as women winning the high majority of custody cases – an obvious, sexist bias, but because it is in the favor of the minority, it’s not seen as adverse to society. While I admit that a majority of fathers do not fight for custody, there are plenty who do and lose, unable to do anything about it. There is also the fact that the amount of non-consensual sexual contact is almost equal among girls and boys, but boys’ experiences are far less reported because of social norms. There are virtually no rape victim shelters for boys or men, and very few for domestic abuse. There is a statistic that women are more likely to use a weapon on their spouse than the other way around, and men normally do not report domestic abuse because of, again, social norms. There are so many other instances of gender inequality, such as how breast cancer is the third leading killer, behind prostate cancer, yet receives twice as much funding as any cancer, whether gender-specific or not. Also, the ridicule and protests of International Men’s Day on November 19th appalls me. So many cultures have a “Day of the Woman,” but how can we expect men to support that if we won’t even allow their own day to celebrate? It just…it really appalls me all of this we have taken for granted. We (as society, not women, necessarily, but sometimes) thrust forward this concept of masculinity, of “taking it like a man,” rendering it virtually impossible to complain, and causing such high suicide rates. And there are very little women supporting these issues – they’re too focused on other issues. We have HeforShe, but where is SheforHe? I think we could really use that.

So I wouldn’t be biased, I googled instances of male privelege, because I was sure *something* had to exist. I found this: http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/02/160-examples-of-male-privilege/, but reading through it, I couldn’t help but laugh after watching the second link. These seem so trivial and basic compared to the hardships men are facing. Some of them are just absurd, like “it is socially acceptable for them to physically take up more space,” or that they “don’t have to step out of the way for the other gender.” I’ve had so many men step off of sidewalks to make room for me so I don’t have to walk in the dirt, or hold back their peers as they hold the door open for me so I can walk in first. Some of the sexual harassment ones are true, but men actually face a lot more than first realized. I think this “privilege” is very first-world problem-esque, and are used to displace real men’s issues.

I don’t want to engender “one sex has it worse than the other.” I think both sexes face issues constructed by society, but men face real problems that their “privelege” does not protect them from. I think feminists should get on board to being advocates for these issues as well – because we all know if a man should speak out about unfair treatment, he’d be crucified.

A Treatise on Appropriation

Posted by Kira on Sun, 11/13 at 9:35pm ideas No Responses »

Nov 132016

So, I’ve been having these discussions with my Dad lately about Feminism, and while he’s one of the most empowering and supporting people in my life, he doesn’t consider himself a feminist, and he’s half surprised, half amused I consider myself one. He’s explained to me that men and women aren’t equal – in fact, no two people are equal. And that’s true. Everyone is born with different intellectual, physical, spiritual, and emotional abilities. When I told him why is it fair that father’s have to tell their daughters to “be safe,” while they can tell their sons to “have fun,” he replied it’s because fathers want their daughters to go out and do the things boys can do, but they have to realize they have some physical disadvantages should it come down to a fight. And this is true too. My father respects me and loves me for being who I am, which happens to include my being female – not in spite of it, not for it, but regardless of it. Yet it baffles me why he’s so anti-feminist, because he’s created my notion of feminism as I know it.

And it’s because of the Feminazis. Women who slam men, who slam each other, who use the cause as a means to propagate hate and criticism and division instead of love and acceptance and unity. Women who will never be comfortable with letting “women’s issues” become simply “issues” as the gap of equality closes; women who are too insecure about their gender to never stop reminding people of it. These women are taking over the ideology and ousting others, true feminists, out – women who form anti-feminist groups, who are probably the truer feminists then the ones who claim the title.

When I was doing mass research for the first paper, I discovered something I wrote:

“I’m torn about whether or not to keep the label Feminism. I am so grateful to all those that have come before me and have fought tooth and nail for the rights I have today. But at the same time, I don’t want to tarnish it’s good name, and based on the path we’re moving on, with angry men and women from all sides pulling on it like a childhood toy, it’s going to be ripped to shreds.

“There’s a practice in Literature where certain schools of thought, for instance, Formalism, give birth to new schools of thought. And because these new schools of thought are so much so tailored to the specific time period and encompass/improve prior theories and practice, they retire the old title and operate under the newer paradigm, even though Formalism is evident within it.

“I think that just might be what feminism needs – a “facelift” if you will. I’m not sure what we should call it. I personally like humanism, or genderism, if you want to keep it specific. Let’s create another ism that’s actually positive! I know we can do it.”

But now I am putting my foot down.

I am NOT going to let people appropriate this word, whose literal definition is: “the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.” I am not going to concede, to let our ancestors’ hard work go to waste as women and men alike turn the word into an insult with their actions.

And when I told my Dad that’s why I identify as a feminist, he accepted it.

There needs to be change in the feminist community. I’m not daft enough to believe I’m the one who should lead it. But I think a lot of people who recognize the need for change are the ones who realize how hard it is to achieve change against such antagonistic forces.

Feminism is still a fractilized ideology – there are still so many sub-categories pertaining to different beliefs and opinions. But we should not retire this word for another one, like “equalism.” We can be both an equalist and a feminist without fear of being redundant. Feminism has done so much good, and it has the potential to do so much more.

I don’t want to come off as proud or haughty for pinning the feminist label to my shirt. I think that’s what went wrong in the first place. What I want is for men and women alike to reclaim that pride – those who have seen it going downhill have abandoned it. We need to reclaim it and redirect it. I’d like to hope it’s not a runaway train that can’t be stopped.

But I guess only time will tell.

Is it Self-Centered if we can’t see anything else?

Posted by Kira on Sat, 11/5 at 10:04pm reading No Responses »

Nov 052016

So, I watched another video by Factual Feminist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O47bXIznf-E&list=PLytTJqkSQqtr7BqC1Jf4nv3g2yDfu7Xmd&index=13 and it relates to some of the things I’ve been thinking about Feminism lately, and I hinted to in my last post. I think that Feminism in America, arguably it’s birth place of true social change (but then again maybe other countries like Canada and Britain were way liberated before us, I don’t know, that was kind of an ignorant statement to make without the necessary research, but this is an example of my next point, God this is a run on sentence), has become horribly ignorant of the outside world. Women in the Middle East, in India, in China, maybe even in parts of Europe, certainly in many regions of Africa, are facing horrible crises revolving around gender. Yet instead of focusing on aiding their struggle and lifting them up to our relative level of gender freedom, we’re focusing on our own, relatively petty issues. There are problems in America still, especially rape, child trafficking, domestic abuse, and the struggles of the working class woman, but focusing on nitpicky issues is extreme. I found an article to highlight this belief in a way I couldn’t put into words: http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/23/who-has-it-worse-women-in-america-or-elsewhere/. She lists the horrors of the world compared to our problems of gendered toys, boys attempts at flirting and objectification due to immaturity as damaging sexual harrassment (something all girls of all generations have to face, and will continue to do so, because most boys are immature, and a lot of girls are too), banning the word bossy, and other such trivial things compared to the mass kidnappings, rapes, back-alley abortions, and denial of basic human rights women have to face in other countries.

I think I realized this as I was finding pictures of rallies from the 60’s and 70’s. I don’t know about you, but to me there seemed to be a rally on everything – and very important issues too! Stopping the war in Vietnam, ending apartheid in Africa (although that was somewhat later), even some of the greatest women’s rights movement, that actually had tangible goals and meaning. But now I feel like we have a generation that doesn’t really stand for anything besides themselves. Yet, I want to go out on a limb and say that our ignorance isn’t our fault.

We have ALL this information we could ever ask for literally at our fingertips, yet very few seek it out. I know I haven’t until recently, and I’ve barely dipped my toe in the water. I’m just another cog in the machine. Instead American culture creates smoke and mirrors to focus our attention on other things, on lesser problems, to ignore the man behind the curtain, the other people suffering in Oz (no, not Australia).

I think about how back in the 60’s and 70’s the media grew as a more active component of informing the people and allowing them to make their own choices. But now I feel like media coverage is very select and nuanced nowadays, directing people’s vision, narrowing it, instead of expanding it.

I think this sort of siphoning of information has bred young feminists who are ignorant, narrow-minded, and short-sighted. While I believe first-world problems are real too, I don’t think that should be all that people focus on. Thinking things like, “Well, what happens overseas is out of my hands,” is wrong! If people start to care more, corresponding politicians start to care more, and change can happen.

Yet I think we’re blinded on purpose, focusing on minor problems compared to the real dangers women of the world face. And it’s really sad…

Fem-toric

Posted by Kira on Sat, 11/5 at 9:29pm ideas No Responses »

Nov 052016

So, after discussing visual rhetoric in class, I went to find some more examples that I could dissect.

Here’s the first one:

dictionary-definitions

I thought this one was very powerful because I think this was my problem with feminism before I started researching more conversations. Even though I knew the dictionary definition advocated for equality, the instances of which I have seen feminism preached did not really reflect that at all, making me feel like I did not want to associate myself with this. The dictionary represents an idea of a neutral, harmless idea that is perhaps a romanticized, utopian version that has not yet been reached, and may never be reached. I think the image in the top right corner is very effective, caption aside, because I know first hand girls are vicious and don’t do a very good job of “sticking together” and “supporting their sisters of womenhood.” A lot of women become very vocal about criticizing others to elevate your own status, which has been a habit that has sadly turned into a culture. The bottom right image is also effective for two reasons: 1) the megaphone is an effective symbol for overcompensating that women need to be heard 2) the man’s blank face, as if he has been stripped of all capability/agency once the woman has gained her own. I think these are very powerful, realistic, and identifiable images/themes, and that concerns me. I think a lot of the true feminists are soft-spoken and don’t really voice their opinions because they have surrounded themselves with people who respect them regardless of their gender. That leaves other rash women speaking on their behalf and blemishing the name of feminism. Does this mean that feminists have a right to put a muzzle on women giving the rest of them a bad name? Or does feminism mean they have to respect those views too, unable to stop that behavior? How would one revoke the right to preach feminism?

The relation back to the dictionary also makes me think of how the Bible and other holy scriptures are appropriated and taken out of context, and how the actions of a minority suddenly turn the entire concept sour. A friend of mine said religion is bad because it’s used as a shield to gain your own agendas, in the context of the Crusades, and it appalled me, because I happen to think religion is beautiful, peaceful, and spiritual (though I don’t belong to a sect of organized religion).

I feel like this graphic is really simple, but it struck a lot of deep questions that I was grappling with at the beginning (and perhaps still am).

Second Image:

have-fun-versus-be-safe

I grabbed this one mainly for the rhetoric. I found the dichotomy of what people tell their sons and daughters very interesting. I think another reason why I was never big on feminism is because my Dad raised me very similarly to how he would raise a boy – he picked on me, he teased me, he challenged me, he never let me win (easily, at least), he told me crude jokes. He’s also the one who taught me how to braid hair, paint my nails, sew by hand, crochet, or with a sewing machine, and bought me my first make-up set, because my Mom didn’t do anything remotely feminine like that. So I think having a parent who embraced both gender roles (I did mixed martial arts for five years and practiced with him, but he hated sports, unlike most stereotypical white fathers, and he watched Disney movies with me instead), and encouraged me to embrace both really made me a balanced individual who feels comfortable in both masculine and feminine environments. But I’ve noticed lately that he’s focusing more on me being safe and watching my surroundings, and buying me stealth weapons, training me on what to do in case I’m stopped, and I wonder if he would teach his son that. Of course, he grew up on Detroit, so he probably would to some extent, but perhaps he’d be less worried for a son. The saying on the picture breeds irresponsibility in sons, and has girls bearing the consequences. It’s also like that saying, “A father is someone who wants his son to grow up just like him, and fear his daughter will meet someone who has.” There’s this double standard that exists in parenting, much more important than what color your child wears (my parents dressed me in blue and red and I was confused for a boy the first year of my life, until they finally gave in to pink) or what toys they play with. It’s the rhetoric you raise your child with, and I think this picture highlights that. i-dont-need-feminism

I think the above post is both truthful and degrading. It’s truthful because I don’t see a lot of women of color saying they don’t need feminism, and I think your belief in feminism has to do with privilege. Those closer to the glass ceiling take it for granted, but I don’t think they’re necessarily saying other people don’t need it. Or maybe they are and they’re ignorant of what other women are going through. I think the historically short sighted part rings true because feminism has done so much for women in the past hundred years, and it’s sad we don’t acknowledge that. But I also think this post is degrading because of the following one: india-needs-feminsm

What first struck me about this post is that the woman isn’t saying SHE doesn’t need feminism, she’s saying other people need it more. And I think that’s what’s wrong with the Women Against Feminism rhetoric. 1) They’re speaking only about a small minority of loudmouth feminists who don’t preach actual principles of feminism 2) They don’t recognize other populations’ need for feminism. I also identify with this because I didn’t feel right calling myself a feminist when I wasn’t actively fighting for women’s rights, when I know there are so many women out there who need all types of aid. So I really liked how this subtly elucidated this concept of almost a relative feminism. Some people need it more than others, but all people need it.

this-is-what-a-feminist-looks-like

I love this last image so much. I think I like it mainly for it’s simplicity, but it’s also a great visual. I not only like that he’s a man of color, but that he’s flexing as well. It sends the message that being a feminist does not decrease your masculinity at all, which is a message that needs to be sent. Of course, it seems like it, when women mistreat men, but that frustrates me because people in general are jerks, both men and women, probably equally so, but in different ways. I don’t think there is ever going to be true equality because of all the hate that circulates the world, and the various perpetrators who fan the flames, but this picture warmed my heart more than all the other try-hard rhetoric I’ve found supporting women’s rights.

Heuristic…Here-is-(tic)….Here-is-tidbit

Posted by Kira on Sun, 10/30 at 10:30pm artifact networks & relationships No Responses »

Oct 302016

Yeah, I know, my title’s weak, sue me. The other one was so good, I wanted to keep that pattern.

So, I don’t know if I’m going to stick with this artifact (is that allowed?), but I’m going to use it to answer this to see if it’s a good one I would want to pursue.

So, my artifact is Birth Control.

1. How do you classify your artifact? In what groups can you place your artifact? What connections can you make to other artifacts in the group?

Classifications include: Medicine, contraception, hormone-control, Hysterectomy

Connections: Condoms, the “Morning-after Pill,” Pain-relief (such as Pamprin), Medicine

2. Identify points of similarity between your artifact and others. Then identify points of difference with other artifacts. How is it similar? How is it different?

Birth control is similar to condoms because it prevents the fertilization of an egg to create a baby. It’s different because it is the responsibility of the woman to maintain a state of no risk when taking birth control, and it does not protect against STDs.

Birth control is similar to the Morning-after Pill because it negates getting pregnant. However, the morning-after pill is a last resort, where birth control should be taken regularly.

Birth control is similar to other oral medication such as Pamprin that is take to relieve/subdue the side effects of the menstrual cycle. It is different because pain relievers such as Pamprin do not inhibit/prevent pregnancy.

Birth control is similar to a hysterectomy because it suspends the ability to get pregnant. However, birth control is temporary. Hysterectomies have adverse hormonal affects, while birth control regulates your hormones.

Birth control is similar to medicine because it comes with side effects. It’s different because medicine usually treats conditions/symptoms and is (usually) non-gendered, while birth control prevents a condition, and is only for women.

3. What metaphors or analogies suit your artifact? (Explain if needed)

Loaded die; there’s no more gambling on whether or not you’re going to get pregnant.

Life support machine; if the woman taking birth control is actively having sex, then her pills can be seen as a life support machine for her sexual affairs – if she forgets one pill, it’s like pulling the plug, and could end her life as she knows it if she gets pregnant

Flashing “Open” for business sign; people assume that if a girl is on birth control, it means she’s ready to have sex/wants to have sex/is having sex. Of course, they have to have knowledge of it – there is no way for a person to tell by looking at someone, so maybe flashing isn’t the best example….

Safety-net (obvious)

*more to come, might edit this post if I think of more*

4. How is your artifact characterized? (How do people/media/groups characterize it?)

Note: I try to represent many different perspectives under the different categories. Of course, I probably don’t cover all of them, but I cover at least the common ones.

Girls:

-Makes them feel mature and womanlike

-Can be used for practical reasons (regulating their period)

-Used as a means to have sex without parents finding out

-May be made more sexualized after taking it (ie labeled as “easy” or a “sure thing,” but usually more often than not it’s related to behavior)

-May make them less likely to stay abstinent, knowing there is a safety net

Boys:

-Increases their chances at having sex with girls their age

-Don’t have to worry about supplying their own protection

-May not affect their opinion of girls at all

Young Women (20s):

-Allows them to engage in sexual activities without the fear of getting pregnant

-Liberates them by enabling them to have “one-night stands”

-They can focus on their career or other priorities (means of reassurance)

Young Men (20s):

-Responsibility is out of their hands

-Have to trust that their partner is actually taking it, and won’t stop on purpose to try and get pregnant

-Perception of girls who are dating material vs girls who are good for one-night stands (not sure if birth control influences this as much as behavior, but it might)

Wives/Mothers:

-Allows them to mitigate the chances of them getting pregnant (if they don’t want any kids, maybe no more kids, or no kids during a certain portion of their career)

-Enables them to maintain sex lives with their husbands

-May be nervous about their daughter’s sexual activity once she goes on the pill

Fathers:

-Birth control benefits them by maintaining a sex life without fear of having more kids

-Has to trust that wife is taking it, and will not stop taking it if she wants more kids

-Can be supportive of daughter’s independence

-May become more strict on dating rules

Media: I think the media encourages such contraceptive methods and endorses these over others, such as abstinence.

Purveyors of Pop Culture (TV shows, Media, etc): From my experience, I think TV shows directed at teenagers romanticize the pill by emphasizing sexual freedom and the ability to have sex outside of parental knowledge of the act.

After re-reading, I’m not entirely sure if I answered the “characterized” questions right. I just outlined the assumptions/beliefs associated by each different stakeholder. May have to go back and edit.

5. What cultural narratives govern your artifact?

“One-night stands” – with such a trustworthy contraceptive method that women are in control of (instead of trusting that the partner has a condom), women are free to go out and sleep with a stranger, or perhaps a non-stranger, but not a monogamous partner, without being afraid of getting pregnant

“Friends with benefits” – may open other avenues of sexual engagement

Liberation of the female body – women are now free to choose how they want to use their bodies, since they do not have to worry about getting pregnant.

Liberation of women with careers – women do not have to worry about getting pregnant and needing to take maternity leave from their career, whether they are married or not

Risk of Stroke/Medical Precautions – there are many women who are cautious/wary of birth control and it’s side effects. While there is not enough statistical evidence to ward off women, there are those who prefer other contraceptive methods because they fear for their health/future ability to reproduce

“Decline of responsibility and sensibility” – There is a much quieter narrative regarding birth control that purveys the pill has allowed too much liberation in the sense that people aren’t making wise choices with who they have sex with anymore. They disdain the culture of one-night stands, and prefer monogamous relationships, or perhaps abstinence until marriage.

6. What assumptions, stereotypes, habits, social practices, and institutions frame your artifact?

Assumptions/Stereotypes (already referenced above, so I’ll denote them briefly):

Women have more sex/more non-monogamous sex
Men relinquish responsibility/control

Habits:

One night stands/casual sex

Social Practices:

More casual sex lives
If married, more control on how many children to have (more families are having fewer and fewer children because of the economy)
Women have the ability to maintain a longer career track if they so choose

Institutions: Health care, Public school (sex education), Planned Parenthood/other women health care institutions,

7. What doctrines or practices affect your artifact? (Or, what doctrines or practices you’re your artifact affect?) Political parties and platforms? Religious? Ideological? Which ones? Are there cultural “rules” and practices? Which?

The Catholic Church is against birth control of any types, although not all Catholics prescribe to that belief. There may be other religions who also frown on using birth control.

While the majority of Feminism supports birth control, not all feminists agree with it’s results/repercussions of an over-sexualized culture.

I feel that both political parties would support the use of birth control because it prevents abortions, although I feel that Democrats/Leftists may endorse it more than Republicans/Conservatives. But this is just an inference.

8. How does your artifact affect culture? How does culture affect your artifact?

Birth control affects culture because it opens up more opportunities for women, to say the least. Whether it directly affects their lives, through being able to have sex without fear of getting pregnant, or indirectly affects their lives, through being able to have more control over their career, how many kids they want (if any), the quality of their marriage, etc., birth control changes culture by enabling women to be more active players in society. Whether they are successful business women, or actresses, or simply following their passions, women are enabled to have more successful careers. This also changes their love/lust lives, because they can now engage in sexual activities as often as they want, and perhaps with a wider variety of people than one would if they were anxious about the possibility of getting pregnant.

I think culture affects the artifact through gender norms. It may inhibit the artifact, because although women have a means to stay in the workforce and not have kids if they desire, society pressures them into settling down and raising a family. I think the stereotypes and assumptions also shape birth control, because it labels women who do utilize it for whatever purpose, even if it has nothing to do with promiscuity.

After all of this, I’m not sure if I’m going to stick with birth control. It’s kind of boring, but maybe I’m just not looking at it right. I don’t know if I’d want to write a paper regurgitating all of that, and I can’t think of a unique spin. I’m just not sure what other interesting feminist artifacts there are that aren’t overdone…is alimony an artifact?

Alimony…All(i)money…All my money…

Posted by Kira on Sun, 10/30 at 6:30pm reading No Responses »

Oct 302016

So, I decided to tackle a topic that’s made me a bit uncomfortable and analyze it a little bit. I still don’t have my mind entirely made up, but after reading different perspectives, I do think I have identified what I agree with and disagree with.

First, here are the articles I have read to gain some perspective:

In favor:

In Defense Of Alimony, From A Feminist Economist

https://sites.duke.edu/develledish/2011/02/08/is-alimony-unfair-not-so-much-try-feminist/

Against (with some in favor views):

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/25/is-alimony-anti-feminist.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmajohnson/2014/10/29/an-end-to-alimony-is-good-for-women/#46b8b5d42b4f

The main argument for alimony is that women make a lot of sacrifices during a marriage that prevent them from pursuing their own economic stability in the case of divorce, such as raising children and maintaining a household. While alimony laws have experienced a lot of reform to make them more regularized and consistent, people claim (predominantly men, but some women too) that they are unfair.

The current rule of thumb is to provide payments to the ex-spouse so they can keep their standard of living that they had when married. Yet, I have a personal disagreement with this. My mother, before she met my father, was a flight attendant who lived in a very small apartment in an “eh” part of town with a room mate, barely affording to eat more than two meals a day, and had very little money to spend on anything else. After she married my father, she had it made. She promised to pursue a career after I started elementary school, but went back on her word, choosing to be a stay at home mother, willingly giving up career opportunities. She chose to use my father’s economic stability (and surplus) as a crutch, and should he choose to initiate a divorce, she’d be rewarded for doing nothing economically resourceful with her life by earning near half of what he has accumulated all on his own. And she’d take it, too. And that doesn’t sit well with me.

People talk how gender norms coerce women into abandoning their careers to prioritize their husband’s career track, and that it’s more accepted/natural for women to stay home and raise the children.

But I don’t necessarily blame gender norms. I blame expectations of the couple. Both the man and the woman should sit down and discuss the different variables and how to handle them (children, unemployment, moving for work, going back to school, etc etc). I think if a woman wants to focus on her career and wants to have children, but the husband doesn’t want to stay home either, they need to see if they can afford a nanny. There are other solutions besides the woman becoming subjugated by society, but I feel like many couples take the easy way out by not thinking about them.

A female economist makes an important argument, that she depended on her significant other to support her (out of love) while she pursued a higher level of education, quitting her job to focus on her schoolwork. When he divorced her, she literally had no money of her own to depend on, and she needed alimony to survive. And I respect her need, and I think she does deserve a stipend in that case.

Honestly, I think the only way to make this fair is for situations like these to be formalized in contracts. They could have signed an agreement that her spouse will promise to provide x amount of dollars per month for x months during the time she was getting her degree, whether or not they remained married. That would eliminate the need for emergency alimony to be presented to the wife at the crisis of a divorce. Same goes for if the wife needs to stay home and raise the kids out of necessity. The couple should sit down and evaluate how much pay that translates into beforehand, and the husband should promise to maintain this pay in the case of divorce. That way, no couple is disadvantaged by the system – instead, they create their own rules before going into marriage, and both know exactly what to expect in the case of divorce. And if they can’t agree on something like that, maybe they shouldn’t get married in the first place.

It’s a dismal way of looking at marriage by considering the worst case scenarios, but I think the people who don’t even want to consider them are the ones who end up in them. Interestingly enough, Bill and Melinda Gates had an agreement like this. He promised her in the event of getting divorced, she would get compensated what she would have earned if she had continued on her career path (which is why she said no to him the first time he asked her to marry him, because she knew being married to a computer mogul would extinguish her career). And they’re still happily married.

Another female journalist said that the removal of alimony is the necessary push women need to start becoming financially more aware. Women, on average, are less aware of how to manage finances, how to make investments, and manage their cash. By having women know there is no (or perhaps, just a limited) safety net, they will become more proactive in their marriage and their careers, learning skills that will help them whether they remain married or not. It’s a bit of a harsh perspective (a lot like dropping a kid into a pool and hoping they’ll learn how to swim), but I think some of the points she makes are valid. If we want women to be educated and maintain some level of independence, it has to start somewhere, and alimony may be a good starting point.

Here’s what I think (thought it may be subject to change as time progresses):

-Alimony should never be life-long. I think it should be x amount of years, and slowly tapering off, until a woman can either be trained in a new profession by going back to school or other means.

-I personally don’t think it should be at exactly the same amount to mimic the economic conditions the woman enjoyed when married. While she was married, she performed services for the household, but after the divorce, she’s no longer providing any services to the husband. I’m not saying she should get minimum wage in comparison, but I don’t think the payment plan needs to focus on being super “cushy,” a fair amount for her to pay for necessities and perhaps a little extra for her to invest or save for something larger.

-Receiving alimony may also discourage women from re-marrying, and instead keeping their significant other as a boyfriend, so they can continue to receive money. That being said, there are probably many other ways to cheat the system and milk all you can out of your former spouse. Or, women can suffer a certain amount of years before waging a divorce, sticking with a loveless marriage just for the alimony. That’s kind of messed up.

I need to fine-tune these ideas a little more, but as an Accounting Major and a (probably) feminist, I think women definitely do need to take more financial responsibility, and consider separating the love in their marriage from the legality of it. You can have plenty of contracts and still love someone with all your might – the same way you don’t have to be married to be in love. But women shouldn’t use marriage as a scapegoat to avoid taking financial responsibility for themselves (like my mother did).

List of Cultural Artifacts

Posted by Kira on Thu, 10/20 at 10:27am artifact ideas 6 Responses »

Oct 202016

Here is a list of cultural artifacts pertaining to Feminism (I wasn’t sure what to tag this assignment, so I’ll change it if you post a new tag).

Fashion Magazines (specifically Vogue) and magazines regarding home life, such as Martha Stewart Living and Good Housekeeping. This is because through the use of cultural icons, such as movie stars, models, and people with particular talents (cooking or decorating or parenting instructors) on television, these magazines are influencing how women dress, perceive themselves, and act in the role of a wife and mother in the stereotypical household. These artifacts tend to mostly affect the middle class.
I’m not sure if this counts per se because it’s not a physical artifact, but instead can be found in a multitude of different artifacts (music, images, dress, etc) but the concept of Riot Grrl. This is specific to the 90’s 3rd Wave Feminism, and inspires women to throw away the norms and pursue their own sexuality, however they define it. It also spurred a lot of concepts such as using “ze” instead of “she” (because he is in it) and herstory vs history.
Susan B. Anthony Coin. I would only argue that this is the misuse of a feminist artifact, because the poor reception of the coin had nothing to do with her being a woman, but instead that coins were becoming cumbersome, and they referred to it as the Carter coin because it was administered during his reign. I think the implications of how practicality refuted an attempt and feminism is interesting, although I wouldn’t necessarily consider it a full blown correlation.
The “Pill”/Birth Control. With the rise of contraceptive methods came a rise in women’s sexuality, because through these products they could have non-monogamous sex without the fear of getting pregnant. Also, if they were married, they could have sex without worrying about having more children, and they could lead a career.
Bras, which I did a whole blog post about.

CaliBRAting the EmBRAcement

Posted by Kira on Mon, 10/17 at 7:39pm ideas No Responses »

Oct 172016

Okay, so one cultural artifact I’ve been mulling over is the evolution of the bra. It’s introduced to every girl at the ripe of age of 8 or 9, with the concept of a “training bra.” There are so many different styles and options today, but I think looking at the evolution of the “artifact” and learning how we got here is important, because women in history didn’t have the “luxuries” we have.

Here are a couple of links I found on the subject:

https://www.bustle.com/articles/104975-the-history-of-the-bra-is-as-long-complicated-as-the-history-of-women-in

http://www.elle.com/fashion/news/a15269/history-of-the-bra/

http://www.alternet.org/story/59877/a_social_history_of_the_bra

Wearing a Bra Should Be a Personal Choice and Not a Social Norm – Here’s Why

I think there could be (of course, this can be confirmed or denied by further study) a direct correlation between the different types of bodices (handling boobs, for a lack of a better term) to the liberation that women experienced.

There’s different forms of bras as early as Ancient Times in Greek and Roman society, and of course in the Middle ages, but I’m more interested in the American 1900s for right now.

For instance, in the 1920’s, chests were almost binded so girls could attain a “boyish” look that was all the rage in the flapper-era. I’m not sure if this is coincidence or not, but the 1920’s was also the birth of women’s suffrage, and women starting to gain equal footing with men. Of course, women showed off their long legs in short dresses, so they weren’t trying to become masculine, but perhaps a “stowing away” of the boobs and emphasis on flat-chestedness represented a new ideal that women were approaching in this era.

During this time, corsets were not popular because they didn’t have metal to spare during the first and second World War. So instead, women started inventing their own versions of the bra, which quickly caught on and soon became mass produced. Bras also revolutionized fashion, because it radically altered what women could wear, and tons of new designs for evening gowns were produced.

Then there were the “bra-burning feminists,” who, turns out, didn’t actually burn bras. They simply threw them in a “Freedom Trash Can” along with other repressing objects, such as high heels and corsets. But yet someone made the analogy to the burning of anti-war propaganda books in Germany, and it stuck. These feminists have been bashed and are often used to support an “anti-feminist” sentiment, but the fact that the literal burning never took place raises questions. It also relates to today’s controversy of trying to abandon the bra, which I will touch upon at the end.

And then, in the late 1970’s was the invention of the Sports Bra. This opened a new branch for practicality and supported women engaging in athletic activities, once again taking another step close to equality and men. This also coincides with Second Wave Feminism, which had to do women’s reproductive rights as well as more women entering the work force and gaining the respect of their male peers. In fact, this almost echoes the “flapper” style binding of putting the breasts away to focus on other things.

The rhetoric in advertising bras is greatly diverse now. Some stress ultimate comfort for the women, other’s use words like “sexy” to make it sell. There’s almost a bra for every need/want now, in tons of colors and designs. It seems that through this apparel, women have received the maximum amount of liberation, not necessarily in equality to men, but having the freedom to pick how they want to make themselves appear.

However, there’s a lot of controversy with bras. One is the “Free the Nipple” movement, which is trying to make it socially acceptable for women to not wear bras in public and have their nipples exposed through their shirt. I think this is rather interesting, because in many countries in Europe, this is how women normally dress, and they don’t receive adverse judgement because of it. Somehow America has crafted this culture that is for sexual liberation, but one that refuses to acknowledge and embrace women’s natural bodies (wearing no bra, having thick leg hair, not shaving armpits, etc). Instead women feel coerced by social norms to wear a bra, even if they can go without one easily, or they don’t find them comfortable, or else they might receive dirty looks.

I think another thing that’s interesting (based on the girls I talk to) is that most girls are not afraid of what guys will think when they don’t shave their legs/put on makeup/wear a bra, but about what other girls would think. Girls tend to be a lot more judgmental than men, and if this is true on a larger scale, then it is women themselves purporting this imprisoning rhetoric on beauty, instead of be accepting on all different approaches to it, and embracing natural beauty.

I think, even with all the options we have now for bras, because they are such a large part of the culture, women are having a hard time cleaving themselves from the artifact. I’m not sure why, but I think it would be interesting to study it. Is the pendulum swinging back, where the bra is no longer liberating as in the progressing 1900’s, but instead a source of objectification, as in Greek times? And what’s next for it?

Older Entries