"Reality Check"

In reading Aisha Hakim-Dyce's essay, I found her argument way too familiar too the plight of many poor women. Dyce discusses her poor lifestyle as a college student and how it almost led her to a career in go-go dancing. While this is obviously a degrading business that Levy would heavily criticize and most women would like to avoid, Dyce was fortunate enough to be able to take a tutorial job instead. Unfortunately, many women do not have other options available to them and also must look at such a job as a career, whereas Dyce was going to accept the position presumably just while in college. I did enjoy Dyce's comparison of the exploitation in go-go dancing compared to other jobs in a capitalist and profit-driven economy. I have been studying Marx in another class and exploitation of workers is rooted in capitalism. For many women, however, this exploitation is one of their bodies and that is the unfortunate truth of modern times. While many people love to criticize such clubs and the women that work there, there is one positive: these jobs offer women with usually few credentials a chance to make a decent living. So, if women in this field are able to separate their exploitation at work from their personal life (a daunting task), then they can turn that exploitation into a positive gain in otherwise negative circumstances.

Ettelbrick & Same-Sex Marriage

I found Ettelbrick's argument to be poorly supported and some of her particular claims have no basis. Ettelbrick claims that same-sex couples naturally want marriage because it is a right, but that does not equal justice. Her example for such a claim is white firefighters in Alabama who want segregation so they can keep their jobs. This in no way compares to the situation with same-sex marriages. Same-sex marriages could be classified as justice because they offer equal rights across gender and racial lines. The firefighter example is asking for personal benefits of keeping their jobs but at the expense of discriminating against minorities and prohibiting them from those jobs.
I do agree with Ettelbrick, naturally, that marriage is a long-standing institution. Surely the institution represents certain stereotypes and provides equal rights in terms of government. However, her claim that same-sex marriage being legalized would remove their identity seems preposterous. Not all heterosexual married couples have the same relationship. Not all of them reflect male dominance over their wives, in fact I can think of several examples that reflect just the opposite. The existence of same-sex marriage would simply provide homosexual couples with equal taxing and other governmental rights. They, like heterosexual marriages, could develop whichever relationship suits them-whether rooted in dominance by one spouse or equality.
Understandably, homosexuals have the right to a distinct identity and culture, but I just do not follow Ettelbrick's argument that legalizing same-sex marriages would remove such. Rather, it will probably bring them closer to equality in terms of civil rights.

Same-Sex Marriage

Paula Ettelbrick poses a very intriguing argument in her essay. Basically, she contests that, “Until the constitution is interpreted to respect and encourage differences, pursuing the legalization of same-sex marriage would be leading our movement into a trap; we would be demanding access to the very institution which, in its current form, would undermine our movement to recognize many different kinds of relationships.” Marriage, as an institution, has historically served as a major patriarchal force. Wives have always been viewed as the inferior and subservient partner to the husbands, who have been characterized as the bread-winning foundations of families. As Ettelbrick explains, lobbying for same-sex marriage is an effort to emphasize the similarities between same-sex and heterosexual couples. And doing so inevitably reinforces the patriarchal system that is driving the institution of marriage.

While I understand Ettelbrick’s point, I feel that she is biting off more than the LBGTQ community can chew. She argues that having rights doesn’t automatically lead to justice. History has certainly shown the validity of this statement. However, I believe that Federal legalization of same-sex marriage would be a positive step in achieving the justice Ettelbrick yearns for. There have been many arguments against same-sex marriage, none of which are logically viable. Ettelbrick maintains that legalizing same-sex marriage would strip her community of its identity and culture. I believe that the same-sex population in America would be able to maintain and independent culture if that’s what they choose. Ettelbrick assumes that assimilation into the marriage culture is inherently bad, but it’s my opinion that same-sex couples could help weaken the patriarchal stranglehold on marriage.

Steinem

I found Steinem's argument intriguing because it provided a deeper analysis of the horrific mass murderings in American history. Steinem's main claim is that these violences are mainly committed by white, privileged men who engage in violence to feel a sort of power or supremacy. This relates to our discussions last class on rape and sexual violence. Unfortunately many rapes occur because offenders want to feel a sense of dominance or superiority over young women. While I understand how this is translated into murders at times as Steinem points out, I believe she makes too broad of a claim by asserting that these crimes result purely from males looking for a feeling of superiority. The case of the Columbine shootings fits her claim, although those attackers were fed up with their social status and were looking to target more than just blacks and women. Steinem also points to the Son of Sam case in New York under this theory but he was mentally unstable and believed a dog was telling him to commit these murders, as John points out. I do agree with Steinem's conclusion that sons and daughters should both be raised under values of strength as well as sensitivity. If we begin to raise all children across a more level playing field, perhaps there will be more cohesion in our society and subsequently less tragic murdering sprees.

Supremacy Crimes

Gloria Steinem’s article “Supremacy Crimes” makes a number of important and valid points, but it also has significant issues. I certainly agree that the “drug of superiority,” as Steinem describes it, is primarily consumed by white, middle-class, well-to-do males. As Steinem explains, this is due to the fact this is the group that has been conditioned by society, particularly by patriarchy, to feel that they are at the top of the social hierarchy in America. In many ways, the evidence most definitely supports this as a disproportionate amount of serial killings in history have been committed by members of the aforementioned group. The incidents at Columbine and other places were horrific and should have been prevented. Such violence is believed to be a result of hate and feelings of needing to prove assumed superiority. While this is probably true, I feel that Steinem has chosen to ignore crucial factors in some of the cases she mentions. The factors I am primarily speaking of are insanity and other extreme psychological disorders. David Berkowitz believed a dog told him to kill people; obviously nuts. Ted Bundy was a certifiable psycho-maniac. However, with these examples, I think Steinem was implying that these killers’ deep psychosis was brought on as a result of hate that stemmed from their addiction to superiority.

Steinem is right in that our society will continue to be subject to incidences of horrific violence unless we stop reinforcing the hierarchy that dictates that white, middle-class, non-poor men are naturally at the top. However, I disagree with Steinem’s claim that “we must begin to raise our sons more like our daughters.” In my opinion, this is over the line. Men are instinctually violent, and it is this instinct that protects our country from those who would do evil upon it. Orson Wells once said, “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”

Rape & Self-Defense

I was outraged when I read Emilie Morgan's account of all the sexual violence she has faced. We all often hear of how often rape/sexual violence occurs but too often it is quickly dismissed. I guess I often do not think that sexual violence is that prevalent because I have never encountered anyway discuss such a situation, but this essay showed that many girls feel ostracized by such occurrences so they do not speak up. The role of Morgan's parents and doctors is astounding, as we would think they would at least attempt to be sensitive to such issues. Therein lies the problem because too often sexual violence goes unreported because girls are worried about the repercussions. It is almost as though our society, and more specifically, teen culture of labeling girls as "sluts" unjustly has allowed these injustices to go unreported. Whitney Walker explains how she combatted her fear of sexual violence through learning self-defense. While I definitely think that is a great pre-caution to take, I believe it is the most helpful psychologically.
I think John provided a great example to Levy's chapter about the promiscuous girl who engaged in oral sex with his friend because she wanted the attention socially. This unfortunately seems to be another factor propelled by our teen social structure. Teenage girls often have low self-esteem because they are treated disrespectfully so they look for social acclaim. Behavior like the girl John references, however, only propels the idea that sexual violence is okay. This is a difficult scenario, but unfortunately it can presumably only be changed slowly by promoting openness in these conversations since altering an entire teen social environment is a lengthy endeavor.

Men, Women, and Rape

Susan Brownmiller’s article on Rape delves into the psychological realities of rape. The empirical evidence she sites shows that that our culture’s image of the rapist is far different than the reality. As she notes, most people associate rapists with social rejects with serious psychological problems who prowl on women, or men with insatiable urges who suddenly decide that they will forcefully get what they want. Yet the truth is that somewhere around 50% of rapes are in fact gang rapes. Furthermore, the goal of these rapes is clearly to demean the victim. Furthermore, most of these rapes are premeditated and planned, with specific women becoming targets. It is likely that these women are chosen because they have spurned the men’s advances or because they have slighted the men in some way. Thus, Susan reveals that our conception of rape is much different from the reality, as rape seems to be a sort of male group activity.
Susan concludes that there are some systematic forces at work which produce the urge to demean women among young men. After rapes occur, all women fear for their safety even among men they know, and thus are forced to live in constant fear of rape and men, which in turn harms their sexuality and relationships. I both agree and disagree with her point. I think it is clear that occurrences of rape do in fact cause women to fear for their safety, a kind of systematic oppression that does harm their sense of sexuality as rape, sex, and shame are so closely connected in society.
Yet I think she too closely links rape with some sense of a oppressive, sentient patriarchal system. It is important to note that men rape other men as well, and that women too are perpetrators of sexual assault on men. Thus, her depiction of rape as a solely male on female act is inherently flawed.
Furthermore, I agree with her that rape does cause all women to fear it, but I do not agree with her linking it to the patriarchal system. Is homosexual rape a systematic attempt by homosexuals to have all heterosexuals fear homosexuals and homosexual physical advances? Similarly murder or assault could be viewed as certain groups attempting to oppress others.