Sunday, February 16, 2014

How Progressive is Our Campus and Others?

   In class, we touched upon our personal experiences on campus. We were asked whether we believe our campus is gay friendly. Given the distinction between tolerant and friendly, I believe that most students would conclude that it is only tolerant. While tolerance suggests that we are moving in the right direction, there are many things that hold this campus back from its potential.

   It is important that colleges become LGBT friendly. College is a time for self-expression and discovery. While that is such a cliché, it is more true than false. Now, LGBT friendly is a student recruitment selling point. While I am glad that it is becoming an important issue for school administrations, it is only a reflection of student views. This is really suggestive of how times are changing. A recent survey claims that 70% of Millennials support (more or less) gay rights. Here is the link:


   Upon that and other things in the survey, I am quick to wonder what is the reason for this really large generation gap. As well, I wonder how can we move the 70% from tolerant to friendly. When I mean friendly, I mean where there is no longer a need for a safe zone. Specifically, I think of Rhodes College. What at Rhodes can we add or eliminate to make our experiences and interactions more LGBT friendly? While I have some suggestions, what are some of yours?

Chris Cuomo believes that it is imperative to have laws and rules protecting the LGBT community. The initiatives that schools and governments make today will be important in the future. Therefore, some of the bills that we talked about in class are destructive to the progress that society has made. The progression is clear (refer to the link); however, it is our duty as Millennials to actively take part in the change.  

   

   




Friday, February 14, 2014

The Commodification of Feminism (or How Beyoncé Changed America’s Mind

 Lately, I have been overwhelmed with the “feminist” articles shared on my Newsfeed. Granted, a lot of my friends on Facebook lean left or are activist types, but feminism has never been more mainstream than it is now. Twenty years ago, a lot of female liberals would not have described themselves as “feminists”—even if they believed in equal rights, it was still a four letter word (and that’s not to say that there are not people who still believe it is today, but the amount is much smaller). My own mother, who talks openly about the inequality of women in the workplace and how ridiculous it was that some members of congress did not support birth control being covered by health insurance, never called herself a feminist. When I asked her about it, she would shy away from the question and dismiss it by saying it means something different to me than it did to her (which might be true if we are thinking in terms of third wave vs. second wave). And although I think she is beginning to change her mind due to many long phone conversations and pressing questions, I have still never heard her say those three words that everyone wants to hear, “I’m a feminist.” Personal stories aside, feminism has become trendy for our generation. People who I went to high school with who go to college in Middle-of-nowhere, Arkansas and are not studying anything remotely resembling Gender Studies post articles about male privilege from Upworthy or videos of slam poets speaking about the importance of pro-choice. Not to mention that most of these people were very socially conservative when we were 16.

The reason for this sudden surge of "girl power" can be attributed to many things, like the natural progression of society or the fact that social media does allow us to share ideas quickly and change our minds about issues just as fast. However, if I could point a finger at one person in particular, it would be everyone's favorite superstar, Beyoncé. Her new visual album has a feminist message, though it is very problematic at times (see my short post from two weeks ago). And because of Beyoncé’s openness, the backlash against female celebrities not claiming to be feminists has become more intense (I’m looking at you, Katy Perry and Lady Gaga). And, believe me, I am not saying that Beyoncé is the perfect feminist icon, but if the biggest celebrity in the world promotes an idea that has been taboo for years, I will definitely take it. But another question remains: is feminism becoming a commodity? This question is hard to answer (I mean, is it even wrong to make something a commodity if it’s promoting an important idea?), but Beyoncé is right in the center of it. Is her new album only “feminist” to appeal to her twenty-something audience? It’s also just as important to ask if her twenty-something audience is becoming more progressive because of her. It’s kind of like the chicken or the egg; the world may never know. But for now, I’m just glad the Queen is on our side. 

Hijras


A helpful way of understanding just how artificial gender performances are is to examine the way they manifest themselves cross-culturally.  The different ways in which we are each enculturated greatly impact the way we view our experience of our own bodies.

My experiences in India spoke greatly to this.  While I was on a train, a woman who was wearing a sari roughly tapped me.  She clapped her hands and stuck them out and forcefully beckoned to me, clearly waiting for me to give her money.  As I looked closer, I saw that her features were very traditionally masculine.  As I watched him/her continue on down the row of seats to each person and repeat the same clapping and demand, I was surprised to see many people reach in their pockets hand him/her some money.  Often, I had seen people wave beggars away, but these people were not as dismissive of this particular beggar.  I asked my neighbor about this phenomenon, and he explained to me that this person was a hijra: a man-woman who begged to make money.  It is inauspicious to refuse them.  The man seemed derisive, so I did not pursue the topic further with him. 

Later, in my psychological anthropology class, we were invited to examine a cultural phenomenon of our choice, and I decided to study hijras.  I discovered that they are born biologically male, and choose to remove their penis and testes in order to become sexless.  They often live in communities with other hijras, but some live alone or with partners.  Their origin is found in Hindu scriptures, in a creation story, and although they are sworn to be celibate, many become prostitutes to earn a living.  This is what fascinated me most about studying hijras is the idea that other religions than Christianity allow for much more fluid gender identities than simply “Adam and Eve” male and female binaries.  In Hindu stories, the gods switch between the genders, as they desire.  This leaves space for people like hijras, who consider themselves to be neither male nor female.  Often people are confused about this identification.  They wear women’s clothing; so many assume that they are attempting to become female.  In fact, this ambiguity allows them to behave in ways that Indian women would be punished for.  For example, some particularly mischievous hijras will flash their genital area to offending individuals.  This bodily exposure would not be tolerated from a female, but since they are not females, they often get away with it.  In this way, they make a commentary about the rigid sexual taboos that Indian women often face. This is not to say that they do not face their own persecution.  They are harassed and abused by other Indians for being different for the norm. 

I wanted to ask the class a few things: Why do you think that modern Indian society has such a strong dislike of hijras?  Why do you think they fear them so deeply?  Are there any passages of Christian text that support gender fluidity and reject binaries?  

Just wanted to cite my source for the information in the second paragraph:
Nanda, Serena. Neither Man nor Woman: The Hijras of India. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub., 1990. Print.

Let's Talk about the Vagina Monologues.

As most of you know, the Rhodes Vagina Monologues are currently going on at Rhodes (there's a show tonight and Saturday night at 7 pm in Hardie, so you should come out!). Despite my involvement with the Vagina Monologues, I have a lot of problems with Eve, her play, and her One Billion Rising campaign. This blog post will be spent laying out my issues with the Vagina Monologues which relate to gender and sexuality. (I have a lot of problems with Eve's white savior mindset, misappropriation of the experiences of indigenous women, carceral feminism, lack of diversity, focus on the body, inclusion of a monologue about rape as a positive experience [note that this is a somewhat misogynistic article, but his criticism about the monologue is decent], use of racist stereotypes, and the blatant existence of heteronormativity. But that's for another class.)

I mentioned my criticism of the monologues briefly in my last blog post, so I thought I'd explain myself here. My main issue with the monologues as it pertains to gender/sexuality comes down to cissexism. Not all women have vaginas, and not all people who have vaginas are women. Placing the emphasis of womanhood on anatomy is super problematic, especially when you claim to be about justice for women and your marketing is discriminatory toward transgender women. (Who just happen to be women!) You cannot claim to be about justice for women when you are truly only focusing on justice for cisgender women.

Equating vaginas with femaleness is what we call gender essentialism, the assumption that gender is a fixed category based on biological fact. As we talked about with the Butler reading, gender is performative, and therefore whether or not you have a vagina has little to do with your gender. And it is wrong to make the argument that this latter generalization is okay simply because most people who have vaginas are women. By doing this, you are erasing a large portion of women's experiences, and you are also calling non-female people women when they may not want to be called that.

After receiving these criticisms of her play, Eve Ensler added a monologue titled "They Beat the Girl Out of My Boy." This monologue is by three trans women, speaking about their experiences being trans. First off, having three women perform the monologue should give the monologue an opportunity to show that not all trans women are the same. Instead, all three women's experiences are almost exactly alike. Each woman decides to get surgery (when not all trans women do), each woman is feminine (not all trans women are), and each woman knew she was trans from a young age (not all trans women know right away). There is also a lot of problematic language in the monologue, as "beating the girl out of my boy" insinuates that there is some boy there in the first place. (Hint: There's not.) The monologue mentions the partner of a woman being murdered for being with her, but it does not mention the ENORMOUSLY high rates of violence against transgender women (especially transgender women of color). 53% of anti-LGBTQ murders in 2012 were committed against transgender women, when these women make up a small proportion of the LGBTQ community. 73% of all anti-LGBTQ murders in 2012 were committed against people of color. These statistics obviously overlap for trans women of color. [x] And including one token monologue about trans women (1) does not solve the cissexism issue and (2) is not even barely inclusive of the variety of experiences of trans women.

Lastly, as my friends are growing sick of hearing from me - Eve, you mean "vulva," not vagina.

Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin

      In class, we discussed the “love the sinner, hate the sin” ideology and why it is so painful to Chris Cuomo and other queer people. Although you can analytically distinguish being from doing, “sexual identities are inextricably connected” and “queer being is inextricable from queer doing” (246). The actions Cuomo speaks of are not limited to sex acts either – queer people should be allowed to freely express themselves in all facets of life. The next question we came to was whether everyone has to like what everyone else is doing, and the general conclusion was that not only would this be impossible, but it is not necessary for equality in society and under the law. Not everyone has to agree with the practices of every religious minority, which are linked to individuals’ identities as members of that religion, but religious minority members deserve respect on an interpersonal level and equal protection under the law.
      However, Ian asked in his précis if a religious person can respect gay people while maintaining their belief that homosexuality is sinful. I personally do not believe that any Mormon religious practices (that I know of) are correct, but I don’t believe they are morally wrong, and I therefore respect both the being and the doing. However, if someone did find baptism by immersion or endowment rituals morally reprehensible, I find it hard to believe they could fully respect a Mormon whose identity was tied to those practices. They could certainly tolerate them, but there would never be complete acceptance of the person whose actions are so closely linked to their identity. It’s one thing to not like the way a person expresses their gender identity, but to classify it at a sin because you think they’re “really” a different gender does not afford them dignity or respect. How they express themselves is an integral part of who they are and to disrespect one aspect of a person’s identity is disrespectful to their being in general. In this way, I agree with Cuomo that it is both painful and incorrect to suggest that one can love the sinner and hate the sin.

Sexuality as Dominance: Male Sex Folklore as Constitutive of Masculinity



Mackinnon’s “Sexuality” presents sexuality as a social construct of male power, defined by men, forced on women, and constitutive of the meaning of gender. Using male sex folklore, I want to examine this theory of how the sexual becomes continuous with the political as dominance (masculinity) and submission (femininity) become eroticized.
The Houdini. The Eiffel Tower. The Rainbow Game. Sex bracelets. Blumpkins -- Locker-room stories shared from one man to another. Growing up in an all-male grade, middle, and high school, I have heard my fair share of these (and to be sure, they don’t end there – one acquaintance apparently ‘Houdini’d a bitch’ last weekend). Two themes connecting these examples of male sex folklore include the absolutely ludicrous nature of the act and the purported utilization and domination of a woman’s body to achieve masculinity. Since the goal of these stories is to achieve masculinity and contemporary masculinity requires displaying heterosexual prowess, these are always heterosexual sex acts.
To elaborate on some specific sex folklore:
·         The Houdini: Before ejaculating during doggy-style intercourse, the man spits on his partner’s back to trick her into thinking he has come. When she turns around, he ejaculates on her face.
·         The Eiffel Tower:  During a two-male, one-female threesome in which one male has doggy-style vaginal intercourse and the other male has oral intercourse, the two men high-five when they both ejaculate.
·         The Rainbow Game: In a dark room, girls who have applied different colored lipstick wait to perform fellatio. Guys enter the room to receive fellatio. When everyone leaves, the guy with the most colors on his penis wins.
·         Sex Bracelets: Participants wear jelly bracelets along their arm. Each color is coded a different sex act (e.g., black is intercourse, blue is fellatio, green is cunnilingus, etc). The player should perform the corresponding sex act for the individual who snapped his or her bracelet.
·         The Blumpkin: A man receives fellatio while he defecates into a toilet.  
In these examples, the woman’s body becomes something to use, to degrade, to shame, and to dominate; furthermore, through this degradation and domination, the male seems to become more masculine.  The Houdini tricks the woman into turning around so that one can spray semen upon her face instead of simply into her vagina, an act is in no one more physically pleasing to the man, yet implies a sense of pleasure from shaming the woman. Furthermore, The Blumpkin demonstrates seeming control over the woman’s body, as one has convinced her to overcome the stench and degradation of having oral sex with him during defecation, a process that we typically euphemize (e.g., “I’m going to the restroom” instead of “I am going to poop”) due to our negative perception and association of defecation with animals. In the Rainbow game, the number of different women one has fellatio with determines the male victor, signifying that masculinity is associated with frequent, casual sex where women’s bodies serve as vehicles to gain virility in the masculinity project. Furthering this concept, the Eiffel Towel shows the two males who share a sex partner congratulating each other on a job well done (with homoerotic suggestions), validating their friendship and signifying their status as men. Male bonding in this sense happens through women's bodies. These paradigms of sexual activity inform and influence the way men think about sex, so that even consensual sex may have rape culture overtones.
That these stories began at approximately the same time that puberty onsets and men are urged to mature from boys to men is no coincidence. In seventh grade, my friend began selling sex bracelets. They were especially popular before dances with the all-female school down the road, and all the males talked about how well they worked. This is the most benign example included, yet the male-male discussion about them displays how a man’s bragging about sexual conquests relates to his status as a man, where male sexuality becomes a sort of series of sexual conquests of sexual objects. Furthermore, around eighth grade was the first time I had heard three peers play the Rainbow Game.  By ninth grade, I had heard of two classmates who had ‘Eiffel Tower’d a bitch’ and another who had ‘Houdini’d a bitch.’ Blumpkins were more of a junior and senior year thing, and I have heard it a few times in college. Sexuality, especially concerning the kind that dominates women, becomes integral into constituting masculinity.  
When one discussed these stories (always among a group of male peers), it was in a gloating manner. Everyone laughed and most envied the storyteller. One could occasionally challenge the veracity of the story, especially by attacking the individual’s knowledge of sex; however, the storyteller could always bring a number of details and names to attest to his story. No one mentioned that telling these stories indicated a problem of our views of women.
(That everyone believed the story teller seems remarkable; however, no adults talked about sex, honestly speaking with your parents seemed too awkward, and sex education focused on scare tactics of STDs. Most learned what they knew about sex from each other or from pornography).
Regardless if any of these stories actually occurred, it is important to understand that these stories were told with one goal in mind: homosociality. Guys were proving to other guys that they were men, and the methodology involved using women’s bodies. Male sex folklore thus portrays Mackinnon’s dehumanization continuum of sexuality, in which objectification occupies one pole and violence occupies the other, as constitutive of the meaning of masculinity.
 This also illuminates why men feel pressured men to live up to an expectation of frequent casual sex. According to Muehlenhard and Cook’s “Men’s Self Reports of Unwanted Sexual Activity” (1988) in which 507 men and 486 women were given a questionnaire, more men (62.7%) engaged in unwanted sexual intercourse than women (46.3%).  The questionnaire revealed the following: men are three times more likely to have unwanted intercourse to gain sexual experience, want something to talk about, or to build up their confidence and four times more likely to have unwanted intercourse because they did not want to appear to be shy, afraid, or unmasculine or unfeminine than women. Furthermore, peer pressure factored into 10.9% for men and only 0.6% for women.  (I can’t link to the pdf of this study, but Rhodes students can access it through JStor. It’s in the Journal of Sex Research). Men learn that being a man means having frequent casual sex, especially that kind that dominates women.
Male sex folklore and the rituals surrounding them exemplify Mackinnon’s insistence that our common understanding of sexuality depends upon an asymmetrical power where men dominate women. Furthermore, this illustrates Ms. Maxwell’s statement that unhealthy masculinity promotes rape culture (or as she framed it,  that we can help end rape culture by educating healthy masculinity) as it shows overt dehumanization of women and dominating sexual intercourse as constitutive of masculinity.

Me Change? We Change

After reading Chris Cuomo's piece this week in class, a briefly touched on discussion left me thinking after the class period was over. It has become an increasing pattern as we move toward a more tolerant and understanding society,  that those considered the norm, in this case, heterosexuals, are expected to undergo a sort of outlook transformation to find complete peace with the ideas and choices of an abnormal group or  movement, in this example, queers. While I completely agree with the idea that a queer individual should not be ostracized or belittled because of their sexual identity, I do not believe it right to say that one group must change their beliefs, given there is a mutual respect for chosen lifestyles. Freedom of choice and thought is not a one way road, in which one individual has the power to choose a certain way of life and another has no right to conclude for himself that they disagree. If the disagreement is also paired with genuine respect for others choices, it is inaccurate to say that those who have conviction in their beliefs are uneducated. While I do not feel negative feelings or judgment toward one set of choices versus another, I can't say that I could expect someone to change their beliefs when not stemmed from malice. While many would like to hope that we could all be friends and go beyond the step of tolerance to complete acceptance of all different choices, I think it more effective and valuable to move toward a goal of a better society starting with the word respect instead of tolerance.