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.

Lev's Middle School Sluts

I grew up in the New York City Private School social circle that Levy graphically illustrates in the beginning of her chapter “Pigs in Training”. I have heard about and seen many of the sexually charged scenarios that these teenagers surround themselves with. About 3 months after “Swiffergate,” I was in my best friend’s house watching TV at about 1 in the morning after his parents were asleep. We were just hanging out, and my friend turns to me and says that a girl named Danielle was coming over to give him a blowjob. Being only 15 or 16, and still a virgin, I picked my jaw off the floor and asked him who this girl was. He told me that she was the girl the entire island of Manhattan had been buzzing about due to her explicit activities on the Internet. Soon after, she came over and introduced herself to me before her and my friend went into his room. I had to stay in order to stand guard for his parents. I left shortly after Danielle did as it was late. As I walked back to my apartment, I couldn’t help but wonder why this girl would continue to allow herself to be taken advantage of and exploited again and again.

Levy hit the nail on the head with her assessment of teen culture. At the time, I was too immature to understand that this girl continued to act in such a manner because she had become a virtual celebrity among teens in the tri-state area. As Levy points out, “These are not stories about girls getting what they want sexually, they are stories about girls gaining acclaim socially, for which their sexuality is a tool.” (p.146) Herein lies the main issue; and worst of all it is a chicken and egg dilemma. Who’s to blame here: the boys who give loose girls more attention, or the girls who willingly play into the patriarchy? Regardless of the correct answer, the fact remains here that there are serious issues with the teen culture in America. However, Levy makes the claim that, “Adolescents are not inventing this culture of exhibitionism and conformity with their own fledgling creative powers. Teens are reflecting back our slobbering culture in miniature.” (p. 146) The necessary changes must come from the top-down, in so much that teens will contain to serve as a microcosm of adult raunch culture unless mainstream society alters its ways, preferences, and overall sexuality.

Re: The Industrialization of Childbirth

On February 15^th, 1989 at about 7pm, my mother went into labor. As it was 5 weeks early than the predicted date, my parents were both astonished and immediately headed to the hospital. About 4 hours later, the doctor told my mother that the umbilical cord was wrapped around my neck, effectively cutting off the flow of air. He performed an emergency cesarean section on my mother, and after two long weeks (for my parents) in the neonatal unit at Lenox Hill Hospital, I went home a healthy baby boy. Had the doctor intervened, I certainly would have suffocated to death in the womb.

Granted I am biased on this topic, but I must disagree with Goer’s sweeping generalization that obstetric intervention is inherently a bad idea. Such techniques as cesarean sections have been shown to save the lives of children whose mothers experience labor complications. Yes, there are definitely times when doctors unnecessarily intervene for a variety of insufficient causes; but, often times, doctors intervene because they need to save the child and/or mother’s life or because they simply aren’t sure and would rather be safe than sorry (obviously operating under the assumption that intervention is reliably safer). While Goer highlights numerous sources of statistics that indicate that intervention is far riskier, I feel that she is oversimplifying the gravity and pressure of a birthing situation. When a doctor is in the operating, he/she must do what he/she believes will result in the best outcome for both the child and the mother. If intervention means saving the child, but risking the life of the mother, I think every mother would choose intervention. The health of the child must be viewed as paramount to all other possible outcomes.

The Industrialization of Childbirth

Gawande begins by describing the birthing process of Elizabeth Rourke and then provides a background on pre-natal care and childbirth in general. I agree that childbirth has become industrial but I do not believe that is a bad trend in modern society. Gawande explains the many problems and ensuing deaths caused from childbirth in previous centuries due to a lack of knowledge and technology. Understandably, the birthing process is very personal and thus many mothers want their delivery to be exactly as they wish. However, the pregnancy classes and widespread information about pregnancy, such as when to arrive at the hospital and want medicines are used, have helped make pregnancies a more routine process. In Allison Crews' article, she concludes by explaining that if women have the right to abortion and parenting methods, they should be able to design the birthing process as well or even deliver the baby themselves. While this may sound justifiable in theory, the main importance of birthing is for the safety of both the mother and the child. Thus, have a structured system and well-educated doctors overseeing deliveries is the best way to ensure such necessary safeties. The birthing process may have become industrialized, but the success of deliveries in modern times and the relative safety of mothers and newborns has steadily increased with such industrialization. That practically speaks for itself. To relate this issue to an economic standpoint, many scholars (such as Marx) believe that a capitalist society may be the most productive system but that it eliminates personal emotions. In terms of childbirth, production (in terms of success and safety) should outweigh concerns over personal desires for a unique birthing process.

Crews' Essay on Abortion

I found many faults in Allison Crews' personal reflections on abortion. While I sympathize with her personal battle over teenage pregnancy and its' impact on her decision to become pro-choice, I believe Crews' makes unfounded generalizations about gender equality. Crews begins the essay by describing how much progress has been made since the lack of women's' rights and contraception before Roe v. Wade. However, she later reflects on a young mother who choose abortion, saying she had no rights because of her age, her gender, and her decision, respectively. Similarly, Crews criticizes the fact that she was not allowed to birth alone (even though that was presumably for safety reasons) and even blames men for believing they deserve the right to assist in childbirth. This is a complete generalization with no evidence and support (in fact there are many female doctors who help deliver babies).
My other issues with Crews' essay is that she makes personal claims which cannot be refuted but she gives no background information or convincing evidence to support her reasoning. Crews highly critiques her mother for being pro-life and supporting the potential adoptive mother over her own daughter, but then says her mother was there for her all along. Her mother's support is a great thing but she does not explain how her mother went from supporting others to supporting her daughter's decision. Crews makes a similar leap when discussing the birth of her son. She explains her decision to keep the baby and that it has made her pro-choice in terms of abortion. However, Crews then concludes the article by claiming women should have every choose they want, even contradicting the possible safety of their child. She explains they should be able to birth alone (even if they do not know how to), and that they can raise their child against the advice of the general public (which is only partially true).
I enjoyed reading Crews transformation from pro-life to pro-choice from an insiders and personal respective, but her argument would carry much more merit and influence if she avoided generalizations and provided more support for her claims.

Abortion Vacuums

Abortion is one of, if not the most, challenging, divisive, and controversial issue facing modern society. One aspect of the actual abortion process that has been seemingly ignored by both sides of the debate is the agony, trauma, and even depression that women face prior to and following an abortion. As Inga Muscio testifies, “For two weeks, there was a gaping wound in my body. I could hardly walk for five days.” (Listen Up, p.114) This wound Muscio speaks of is both a literal and figurative one. Some assume that women are hasty or even reckless in their decision to have an abortion, but Judith Arcana argues that such is rarely the case…“Not one of them—even those who were themselves children—took her decision lightly or carelessly. Every woman who chooses to abort a pregnancy is justified in her decision. Every woman who has an abortion knows what it means, and lives in that meaning the best way she can.” (Abortion is a Motherhood Issue, p.226) Most women choose abortion because they realize that they are not in a position to be a suitable mother, and therefore the child would be worse off being brought into world by an unfit mother. Muscio tells us that “Abortion Sucks,” (Listen Up, p.112) so why else would a woman choose to participate in a process characterized as, “willingly and voluntarily submit[ting] to excruciating torture.” (Listen Up, p. 114) The technology used in abortions is a product of western medicine, an institution created and controlled by patriarchy. The vacuum that Muscio tells us about is merely one of the master’s tools. And even though abortion was legalized by the Supreme Court, arguably the master’s strongest tool, this alleged victory was only a veiled triumph for women’s rights. Women will never be truly empowered and free until society’s perception of abortion, as well as the means and general atmosphere of abortion is drastically altered.

News Flash 2: Patriarchy and David Letterman

Patriarchy is the system in which most of us are unknowingly forced to live our lives. It is a set of ideas that a cultic, ever persistent ideology has programmed us to believe. This ideology is a set of values about how the world should be. People take it to be the natural order because patriarchy is constant and has dominated for ages. Everyone perpetuates patriarchy, most of us without even realizing it. Allan Johnson claims that, “Patriarchy’s defining elements are its male-dominated, male-identified, male-centered, and control-obsessed character.”[i] Nowhere is such a system more evident than in the modern workplace. Professional women are all too often forced, although subtly, to choose between submitting sexually to the will of their male superiors or losing their opportunity for a successful career. This choice, if it can even truly labeled as one, represents sexual favoritism, which is arguably the most oppressive force of patriarchy. David Letterman has been revealed to be one of the most notorious oppressors of women in recent history. Letterman’s weapon of choice is the overpowering might of sexual favoritism. The definition of oppression that must be understood in the context of the “Late Show” is that of “the double bind — situations in which options are reduced to a very few and all of them expose one to penalty, censure or deprivation.”[ii] As Frye illiterates here, women are continuously compelled to march to the tune of the all-male authority or they will be promptly ejected from the impossibly exclusive band. Such has been divulged to be the frightening truth on the staff of Letterman’s inexplicably successful late-night show. Patriarchy, as it has evolved into what we see today, may never be able to be totally and completely eradicated. But, a great stride toward this goal could certainly be made by the elimination of sexual favoritism as a seemingly acceptable practice.

About six months ago, Robert Joel Halderman, a former senior producer at CBS, came forward with evidence that Letterman sexually harassed numerous women on the staff of the late-night show. Since Halderman’s accusations, women have come out of the proverbial woodwork with testimony from over the last decade that Letterman, and other high-ranking staff members, basically forced them into sexual activity. These women have all maintained that they were made to feel that their careers would be severely impeded, or they would even lose their jobs, if they did not consent to sex with their superiors, and often Letterman himself. Nell Scovell, who worked on Letterman’s

[iii]

staff for a number of months had the following to say about the toxic environment she experienced…

Did Dave hit on me? No. Did he pay me enough extra attention that it was noted by another writer? Yes. Was I aware of rumors that Dave was having sexual relationships with female staffers? Yes. Was I aware that other high-level male employees were having sexual relationships with female staffers?...Did that create a hostile work environment? Yes. Did I believe these female staffers were benefiting professionally from their personal relationships? Yes. Did that make me feel demeaned? Completely…I’d seen enough to know that I was not going to thrive professionally in that workplace. And although there were various reasons for that, sexual politics did play a major part.[iv]

Scovell’s testimonial is a prototypical example of Frye’s birdcage. Scovell was impelled by her ambitions and economic necessities to remain employed by Letterman, but unlike most women in a similar position, she decided to throw off the yoke of sexual favoritism, potentially dooming her career. These other women, however, cannot be blamed for their failure to rebel. As Frye explains, “It is only when you step back…and take a macroscopic view of the whole cage, that you can understand why the bird does not go anywhere…It is perfectly obvious that the bird is surrounded by a network of systematically related barriers…confining as the walls of a dungeon.”[v] Even though Scovell took the path of most resistance, there have been countless others who have been vigorously coerced into playing the patriarchal master’s game to get ahead.

Letterman’s conduct serves as a symbol of the complete and utter debasement of the American workplace. Sexual favoritism is a cancerous plight that viciously affects the professional woman in our society. As Mai Shiozaki, spokeswoman for the National Organization for Women, explains, “The real issue in these situations is not about sex. It is about power and inequality. It is about “a toxic environment.”[vi]

[vii]

Through their numerous sexual conquests, Letterman and his colleagues created such an environment…“[Letterman] wields the ultimate authority as to who gets hired, who gets fired, who gets raises, who advances and who does entry-level tasks…As the boss, he is responsible for setting the tone for his entire workplace, and he did that with sex.”[viii] Even after decades of documented sexual harassment, Letterman has yet to be reprimanded by CBS. Worse is the fact that even though the American public has been bombarded with substantiated evidence of Letterman’s sexual favoritism, there has been minimal outcry for his immediate expulsion from the airwaves. This result sends a very disheartening message to young women in America…“it was ‘O.K. to objectify women as long as the man in power is famous,’ Ms. O’Neill said. ‘He can crack a few jokes, and publicly apologize for his mistakes. It is this kind of hypocrisy that perpetuates the image of men in power preying on women while many look the other way.’”[ix] Celebrity status cannot be permitted by society to serve as some sort cloak of invincibility that protects celebrities from the ramifications of their actions. Letterman and others who implement sexual favoritism in the workplace will never change their behavior on their own. They must be forced to by every single person in society who recognizes the inherent evil in their actions. Much as Letterman coerced female members of his staff, so must he be forced to submit to the righteous will of those who strive for equality.

Contemporary American society is an oppressive construct of patriarchy. Johnson tells us that, “patriarchal culture is about the core value of control and domination in almost every area of human existence…Because of this, the concept of power takes on a narrow definition in terms of ‘power over’.”[x] This power often manifests itself as sexual favoritism in the workplace. As with those who worked for Letterman, many women are left feeling helpless and unavoidably constrained…“It is the experience of being caged in: all avenues, in every direction, are blocked or booby trapped.”[xi] Unfortunately, there are many women who feel that by submitting to their male superiors, they are attaining some form of power. However, this is a false power; women think they are achieving success, when they are in fact getting ahead by reinforcing the very stereotypes that forced them to submit in the first place. As Frye explains, there is “a network of forces and barriers which are systematically related and which conspire to the immobilization, reduction and molding of women and the lives we live.”[xii] The aforementioned network is an integral part of the ruling patriarchy. The issue is not that such forces exist, but rather they have been instituted systematically as a part of the accepted reality. As with the origin, it is only fitting that the solution come from within the system itself. However, getting the hegemonic, male-dominated hierarchy to voluntarily relinquish its absolute power is no easy task. For now we must focus on the issues as they appear before us. Sexual harassment, specifically sexual favoritism, in the workplace is a seemingly impenetrable wire of Frye’s birdcage. It must be wholly annihilated for an atmosphere of true equality to begin take hold. Women will never been seen as equivalent to their male coworkers until people like Letterman are made an example of. As long as such behavior goes unpunished, the status quo will remain intact, and the vicious cycle of sexual favoritism will continue to be perpetuated.

---

[i] Allan G. Johnson, “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, A Them, or an Us,” 38.

[ii] Marilyn Frye, “Oppression,” 1.

[iii] Nell Scovell, “Letterman and Me,” VanityFair.com 27 Oct. 2009. (http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/features/2009/10/david-letterman-200910?currentPage=2)

[iv] Scovell.

[v] Frye 3.

[vi] Clyde Haberman, “If Extortion Is Bad, So Is Predation,” The New York Times 11 Mar. 2010. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/nyregion/12nyc.html?ref=nyregion)

[vii] Andrea Peyser, “Dump depraved Dave now, CBS!,” New York Post 5 Oct. 2009. (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/item_uBqwrz2d0rBl6BRmAamE1M/0)

[viii] Haberman

[ix] Haberman

[x] Johnson 39.

[xi] Frye 2.

[xii] Frye 4.

Other Resources:

http://www.care2.com/causes/womens-rights/blog/sexual-harassment-not-a-joke/

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2009/10/halderman-lawyer-says-he-will-show-david-letterman-committed-sexual-harassment.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RVpd9GJmtE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbqkFu4UG5s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwluXKTSgP8

Soldiers, Women

Historically, masculine and feminine identities in America have been associated with specific gender performances and stereotypes. Specifically, women were supposed to be fragile, nurturing and emotional while men were supposed to be strong, aggressive and unemotional. Yet many of these traditional stereotypes and expectations regarding femininity and women are being transformed literally on the battle field. The New York Times article “Living and Fighting Alongside Men, and Fitting In” describes the increasing importance of women in the Army, and how their experiences in such environments have challenged many gender performance stereotypes. Women today are now fighting and killing on America’s battlefields, and women now hold many high rank front line officer positions. These experiences will do doubt lead to new ideas of femininity and womanhood in America in the future.
In the article, Steven Myers explains how America’s most recent wars have created “a new generation of women with a warrior’s ethos — and combat experience — that for millennia was almost exclusively the preserve of men”. The most obvious challenge facing women in the Army is America’s stereotypes regarding women and femininity. This is encapsulated by Sgt. Theresa Flannery’s retelling of her first combat experience.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/08/16/us/20090816_women_feature.html

Sgt. Flannery recalls a superior asking her “do you know how to use that [her weapon]”. Theresa explains how she was at first shocked by this question because she was a woman, and didn’t expect the men to accept her in a combat situation. Theresa said she thought “Is he serious? Because I am a girl. But he just saw a soldier”. Theresa later killed an enemy soldier during a heated 10 hours gun battle. Experiences like these challenge every aspect of traditional American gender roles. Soldiers are expected to be aggressive, to be unemotional in battle, and to kill. These values are in contradiction with the traditional view of women. Furthermore, with more and more women experiencing combat and earning medals, the belief that women do not belong in the battlefield is quickly fading.
Other fears regarding women’s role in the Army have also been allayed in the last decade. The traditional army rhetoric claimed that if units were to be fully integrated, the functionality of the unit would be compromised not only by relationships among soldiers in a unit, but also because sexual relationships between soldiers would result in pregnancies and general disorder. Yet this has not proven to be a serious problem during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as “good leadership and mentorship” (pg. 2) has been shown to be more than adequate to keep such issues from becoming a problem. While few women have had to be evacuated from war zones due to unwanted pregnancies, sexual harassment and sexual assault are still concerns on American bases. Yet women who have fought in integrated units report that they feel safe with their fellow soldiers. Thus, perhaps by separating women from front line combat units and keeping them in rear echelon bases, the military was inadvertently making them an “other” in military facilities, creating conditions that may lead to sexual harassment that would otherwise be absent if women were active members of front line combat units and thus more integral parts of the Army community.



Another important development is the rising number of women in leadership positions within the army. In “Hormonal Hurricanes: Menstruation, Menopause, and Female Behavior”, Anna Fausto-Sterling notes a huge array of quotes and research which indicating that many men believe that the emotional effects of the menstrual cycle prove that women should not be given important positions of power. Fausto-Sterling says that these prejudices result in the belief that women are “by nature emotionally erratic, [and] cannot be trusted in positions of power” (pg 91). These sentiments are clearly a reflection of the patriarchal system which seeks to keep women out of important positions. Yet there are few positions more stressful and important than that of an officer leading soldiers in battle, and women have been proving their mettle as officers and as soldiers. As one male retired army colonel noted, “They [women] have earned the confidence and respect of male colleagues” (pg 1). In fact they have been so successful that over the past decade the number of women in high ranking positions in the Army and Navy has doubled. Once again women have proved under the most stressful conditions imaginable that yet another bias against their gender has been proven to be completely unsubstantial given the outstanding record of female commanders during the past decade.
Johnson’s essay on the patriarchal system notes that a foundation of the patriarchal system is men’s sense of masculinity, which is bounded by a certain set of behaviors and activities which “make” a man masculine. This sense of “male” identity in opposition to “feminine” traits makes the woman an “other”. Through this men distance themselves from women and create a power structure which inherently favors males exhibiting traditional masculine qualities. War making is the pinnacle of “masculine” activities, a place where men feel they can prove their manhood. Yet with hundreds of thousands women in the Army, and with thousands coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan today with combat experience, war making is no longer only the job of men. Furthermore, the women who have fought in these wars have proven themselves to be just as strong, decisive, and brave as their male peers. Their exploits in war mark them as equals or in some cases superior to men in war, which for thousands of years has been fought exclusively by men. These female soldiers are eroding the masculine identity which men use to differentiate themselves from women, and are doing so in a highly visible manner. A male identity which prides its self on being the stronger of the two sexes is severely undermined as women continue to prove that they are, in fact, just as capable as men at performing “masculine” activities and exhibiting “masculine” qualities. These women are showing that these qualities are not inherently male and that social programming has more to do with how we act than any biological effects. Thus, these qualities are only “masculine” because American’s say they are, not because they are inherently so.
As these women take their experiences home, they will help deconstruct other parts of the patriarchal system as well. Johnson explains the important of socially reinforcing actions, and the link between the individual and the system. People tend to act in a way that will gain them acceptance with their peers. Behaviors which do not result in negative reception ensure that such behavior will continue. Furthermore, when others view behavior that is not received negatively, they are informed that such behavior is acceptable. Yet it seems clear that female war veterans are much different woman than those described in Ariel Levy’s chapter in which she describes the behavior and mentality of women on Girls Gone Wild. Instead of asserting their equality by attempting to match men in a sexual sense, they have done so by excelling in an important culturally male activity. They challenge the idea of “masculine” not because they are trying to emulate their male peers, but because the nature of their work has made them cultivate those qualities out of necessity. The battlefield seems to be a great equalizer. It would be hypocrisy for men to view women as weak and inferior if those same women are fighting along side men and saving their lives. Furthermore, the respect women have gained among their male peers in the Army will likely affect the way their male peers view and respond to negative comments about women in both the military and civilian world. The intense and highly stressful situations which occur in war naturally engender strong feelings. There is no doubt that a man who has served with women in war and maybe had his life saved by one would respond negatively to social interactions which belittle women. In this way, the war has affected both men and women in way that will affect social norms and expectations regarding gender, which in turn will result in system wide changes as individuals interact with one another.
Finally, feminists may have overlooked the Army as a place where they need to focus on creating reform. By campaigning for front line combat roles for women and perhaps even participation in the draft, women may further break down gender roles and expectations, especially among conservative citizens whose views on gender would clearly be challenged by female soldiers. Additionally, by participating in war, an activity which has had such a strong link to men and western concepts of masculinity for thousands of years, women may have found the best way to fundamentally challenge the patriarchal system.

Newsflash: Enlightened Sexism

Enlightened Sexism By Susan Douglas (Newsweek Book Review)

The progress of the women’s rights movement in the twentieth century has certainly produced more gender equality than ever before in American history. Women have gained the right to vote, have become the majority at many colleges and universities, and have united under groups such as the National Organization for Women, founded by Betty Friedan. These developments can be largely attributed to second wave feminists and would seem to set the stage for gender equality in current society. Many people view the sexual freedom and open discussion of sex in modern society as a significant step forward towards gender equality and treating gender related issues with open dialogue.

This openness is undoubtedly reflected in the transition in American pop culture. 1950s pop culture showed June Cleaver dressing up to do housework, taping a lovely note to her children’s lunch, and sleeping in a separate bed than her husband. This “Pleasantville-like” portrayal has given way to modern women, who attend college so they can get a high-powered job and run the corporate world as well as maintaining a family life. This transformation of women in half a century would seem to be a positive shift in gender roles. People believe that these advancements signify equality, but women still earn significantly less than men in similar jobs, are promoted to the top of companies much less often, and so forth. However, Susan Douglas points out that such advancements have created a culture where sexism is now allowed. Douglas coins this term “enlightened sexism” (the same title as her book) and explains that because women have advanced to a perceived state of gender equality, stereotypes and discrimination that used to be considered sexist, now goes unnoticed. Enlightened sexism underlies the belief that, “full equality has been achieved-so now it’s okay, even amusing, to resurrect sexist stereotypes of girls and women” (Douglas 9). Douglas uses examples in reality TV and pop culture to make this claim, in a similar way that Ariel Levy does. I agree with Douglas’ overall point, but I believe the fact that we allow such sexism and discrimination to go unnoticed is indicative to the actual lack of gender inequality. If we truly had gender equality, discrimination could not theoretically exist because it serves a way to suppress a minority.

Ariel Levy and Susan Douglas agree that women have made important strides towards equality and breaking down barriers. The institution of collegiate women’s sports, equality or even majority of women in colleges, and the access of women to jobs that were previously exclusively male, are testaments to this progress. Levy claims that these strides, however, have not prevented women from being judged by their appearance. She references Playboy spreads with women seen in provocative poses, and Girls Gone Wild tapes where women expose themselves merely for a free t-shirt and a moment of fame. Levy believes that the success of women and the progression towards a closer level of gender equality should prevent women from engaging in such raunch culture and she criticizes them for doing so. Douglas differs by blaming society for giving women a mixed opinion on what it means to be empowered and equal.

To explain Douglas’ point, I believe the notion of gender equality has led our society to believe that power no longer comes from gender or race, but social status. Thus, women do not care whether it is their mind, their intellect, or both which contribute to their success-they merely see the achievement of success and social standing as the embodiment of being empowered. This governs over reality television, which is where Douglas roots her argument. She claims that shows such as the “Hills” or “The Bachelor” portray women as being obsessed with relationships and willing to backstab one another to win a guy. Since women believe they are equal, they do not mine playing out gender stereotypes in reality TV shows in exchange for fame. Similarly, Douglas references the LPGA’s decision to hire hair and makeup artists to increase the sexual appeal of female golfers. This would seem like a justified business move to increase the LPGA’s popularity if there truly was gender equality, but rather it furthers the stereotype that women need to be attractive to be successful. Danica Patrick is not referenced by Douglas, but perfectly suits the implications of “enlightened sexism.” Danica Patrick is a skilled racecar driver who has broken the gender gap into Nascar. However, Patrick is much more known for her appearance, having appeared in provocative magazine covers and as the main sponsor of GoDaddy.com. Following Douglas’ definition of enlightened sexism, since people perceive there to be gender equality, it lessens the significance of Patrick’s racing accomplishments. Thus, there is little criticism of Patrick being discussed primarily for her looks.

The pitfalls of enlightened sexism go beyond the entertainment and pop culture world, but also to difficulties for teenage girls who are trapped between society’s rules and their own desires. Douglas claims that teenage girls are confused because they are supposed to act feminine and be obedient, but they are also adolescents who are supposed to be rebellious. I believe, however, that the difficulty for teenage girls lies in our modern raunch culture and the fact that teenage girls are supposed to be enticing to guys, but not promiscuous. This creates a difficult disconnect as girls do not know where to draw the line. They get attention and self-esteem boosts when dressing “sexy,” but is labeled as sluts if they actually act on the urges there supposed to invoke. Teenage girls are a top-consuming group for magazines like Cosmo, which have articles on “how to please your man,” but are delegated as social outcasts if they follow the article’s suggestion. Rebecca Walker (in Listen Up) advocates the knowledge and positive life lessons she learned from having sex at a young age, yet society and teenage peers criticize the girls who do. Even though Walker claims to be proud of her young sexual encounters, she admits that she is shy in divulging what age she lost her virginity for fear of how people might judge her.

As Douglas points out, magazines like Cosmo teach girls to get their self-esteem from their sexual desirability and that attractiveness is associated with success. However, a study shows that a woman who dresses “provocatively” in the workplace is considered less intelligent than their peers (Douglas 185). This confirms Douglas’ main point that society is giving women mixed signals about how they can behave in modern society.

Enlightened sexism, according to Susan Douglas, is when the perceived new gender equality in society allows stereotypes and discrimination to no longer be considered sexist. Hillary Clinton serves as the premier example for this, as her campaign for the highest position in the United States lends to the notion of gender equality. However, Clinton was critiqued on both spectrums of female stereotypes. She was disparaged for always wearing suits and thus exuding manliness as opposed to femininity. Clinton, however, was also criticized when she cried while meeting supporters. This incident reflected her supposed femininity by showing her sensitive side, thus bringing up concerns about her being too weak and issues with her menstrual cycle and how it might impact her decision-making. This epitomizes Douglas’ definition of enlightened sexism, as people presumed they could critique Clinton based on gender stereotypes because her legitimacy as a female presidential candidate proved that there is complete gender equality. While presidential candidates are often criticized from all different angles, Clinton was caught in a winless situation-she was condemned for being too feminine and for being anti-feminine. If we are truly in a society with gender equality, why should it matter if she were one or the other?