Whose Security?

In multiple ways, Charlotte Bunch is right. Unfortunately, the events of 9/11 and those that have followed have taken focus away from the human rights and women’s rights progress that had been made prior to the attacks. The atrocities committed against women in countries across the globe is horrible and must remain a priority for America, her allies, and the UN if these issues are ever going to have the chance at being solved. Women are not on an equal footing with men in any, way, shape or form in this country or virtually any other, plain and simple. While this fact is disheartening, it is certainly not dooming. Women both in America and other countries, are fighting each and every day to increase the civil rights that women wholly deserve. Women cannot be the only ones forced to carry the burden of obtaining these rights and the necessary environment equality. Men too must feel responsible for the state of women's affairs. As Lorde said, one cannot tear down the master's house with the master's tools. Only the master can tear down his house. The leadership in this area absolutely must come from the top. And it seems to me, that President Obama is passionately seeking to lead in this way. Not only do I support his efforts in this area, I applaud his candidness about his feelings. He must make it clear to people around the world that our national security priorities will be no longer be acceptable disguises for human rights violations. As Americans, being part of the most influential nation in the world, we must lead the way towards equality of the sexes, and this can only be done substantially through example.

However, I cannot sit idly by and not express my feelings towards Bunch’s point of view on 9/11, George Bush, and the events that have followed that day. In my opinion, Bunch has missed the point to an extent. I live in New York City, and I was in school as were most children the morning of the attacks. My parents picked me up from school shortly after the first plane hit the first tower. After a few hours, one could look towards downtown and see the smoke, as well as smell the odor of the pure carnage caused by the terrorists. I had to call my father and beg him to come home from the office because I feared that he too would fall victim to an attack. Not only as a New Yorker and an American, but also as a young Jew, I witnessed what our most vile of enemies had accomplished that day. The following is my paraphrasing and interpretation of a speech from the movie “A Few Good Men.” The original I have memorized by heart as a reminder for what this world is really like. I say this as a message to Bunch and all others who call into question the methods and steps taken by the military to ensure that we are safe each and every day.

We live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s going to do it? You? You, Charlotte Bunch? You weep for the enemy and you curse the military. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what people like General Petraeus, President Bush, and General Tommy Franks know. That there are thousands of people who plot to do evil and destroy America each and every day. The death of innocents in battle, while tragic probably saved lives. And the existence of the military, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you saves lives. You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want American soldiers on that wall. You need them at wall. The military uses words like “honor,” “code,” “loyalty.” They use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. Our military leaders have neither the time nor the inclination to explain themselves to a group of people who rise and sleep under the blanket of the very freedom they provide and then question the manner in which they provide it. They rather you just say “thank you,” and go on way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

People like Bunch treat our soldiers like they are somehow not American citizens, like they are worthy of chastisement for their efforts. A song entitled “Citizen/Soldier” reads:

“Beyond the boundaries of your city's lights/Stand the heroes waiting for your cries/So many times you did not bring this on yourself/When that moment finally comes/I'll be there to help/On that day when you need your brothers and sisters to care/I'll be right here/Citizen soldiers holding the light for the ones that we guide from the dark of despair/Standing on guard for the ones that we sheltered/We'll always be ready because we will always be there/When there are people crying in the streets/When they're starving for a meal to eat/When they simply need a place to make their beds/Right here underneath my wing/You can rest your head/On that day when you need your brothers and sisters to care/I'll be right here!/Citizen soldiers holding the light for the ones that we guide from the dark of despair/Standing on guard for the ones that we sheltered/We'll always be ready because we will always be there/Hope and pray that you'll never need me/But rest assured I will not let you down/I'll walk beside you but you may not see me/The strongest among you may not wear a crown./On that day when you need your brothers and sisters to care/I'll be right here!/On that day when you don't have the strength for the burden you bear/I'll be right here!/Citizen soldiers holding the light for the ones that we guide from the dark of despair/Standing on guard for the ones that we sheltered/We'll always be ready because we will always be there.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgV6VUinDEA

Hakim-Dyce, Rangel, and Placism

There are millions of women in America who are forced to live under the poverty line due to a variety of reasons. The Aisha Hakim-Dyce’s and the Maria Christina Rangel’s of the world are all too common to be deemed anomalies. These women are not only inherently disadvantaged because they are women, but also because they are members of minority groups. These are the women who possess the courage and depth of character necessary to take on the monumental, seemingly insurmountable financial burden that comes along with a college degree from a prestigious university. And how are these women rewarded for their ambition and hard work? Greedy creditors and loan officers punish them for decades. They are denied for welfare and other social programs, the assistance of which they desperately need to survive and, in Rangel’s case, provide for a family. As Jamie Foxx says in “Any Given Sunday,” “Maybe it’s not racism. Maybe it’s placism.” The people who work inside the oppressive social welfare system are often the very people who require its assistance. The system may not be inherently racist, but it certainly seems to be placist. Meaning, it does enough to keep these people alive, and in essence working for the system; all the while, it is effectively keeping them in the place Patriarchy has assigned them. These women work themselves nearly to death just so they can obtain a college degree and lift themselves out of the poverty that society has placed them in. But once they graduate, they are unable to begin the careers they deserve because they are stuck working dead-end jobs just to put food on the table and clothes on their back. It seems to me that the only people that welfare keeps “well” is those who don’t need it in the first place.

Cultural Relatavism and International Feminism

The role of cultural relativism and its effects on our views of a global feminist is important, especially as we begin to try and “help” women in other countries. The articles we have read so far on Muslim women point out a number of important things. First, there is a kind of cultural imperialism going on when feminists and well intentioned people from America target certain things in Muslim culture which they find “harmfull”. One of these is the burka, the head to toe traditional covering. Many Muslim women find this dress liberating and a sign of feminism, contrary to what the western observer sees. This point illustrates how we can’t just impose our own ideas on these cultures as that simply will not work. It is important to first gain some understanding of a culture before we go about trying to help people in need within these countries.
Yet, at the same time, there are clearly human rights issues in many of these countries that should be addressed. Honor killings, child brides, and the beating of women in Muslim countries are a serious issue. Yet we cannot use a western paradigm to solve these issues. Doing so only alienates our attempts to bring positive change to these cultures. This is especially important due to the historical ramifications of colonialism, which has led many third world countries to be very hostile towards any European or American influence within their communities. We must also acknowledge that many of these places are simply not ready for the kind of woman’s emancipation that we have in the western world.

Women's Rights Advocate on the Supreme Court

President Obama recently announced that he would be seeking a Supreme Court nominee who pays particular attention to Women's rights when interpreting the Constitution. Does this mean he is specifically searching for another female Justice. The politics, gender, and race of Supreme Court Justices are more intertwined in terms of their relevance to the public than ever before. On the heels of the appointment of the first Latina woman, Obama's upcoming nomination could prove very important in the next election. Especially considering that adding another female Justice would make the court 1/3 female. While Obama basically openly supports abortion rights..."I am somebody who believes that women should have the ability to make often very difficult decisions about their own bodies and issues of reproduction..." he claims that the nominee will not have to pass any sort of "litmus" test in relation to the highly contested issue of abortion. According to AP sources, it seems that 6 out of the 8 people being considered for the nomination are women. This fact, assuming it's true, all but guarantees that the next Justice will be a woman. Obama's decision about who he nominates could prove critical in terms of how voters react to him in the next election. Obama, like most Democrats, believes that the current Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roberts, is far too conservative and activist, and that the courts recent behavior is a reflection of an alleged partisan agenda. If Obama picks a Justice who is too far to the left, he might alienate the moderates in his party, and doing so could be the difference between winning and losing the presidency.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_supreme_court

News Flash: Math Scores Show No Gap For Girls, Study Find

In early 2005, Lawrence H Summers, the president of Harvard, created a media fiasco when he commented that he believed that women were “intrinsically” less adept at math and science than men. While Summers subsequently resigned, his comments reflected a commonly held belief among the male dominated math and science field. While there are more women going to college today than men, the nation’s top science and engineering schools are still dominated by males. Both Cal Tech and MIT have nearly two male students for every female student. Furthermore, the belief that male students are superior to female students at math and science is neither a new nor held by a small minority. Dr. Hyde, one of the researchers who conducted the research in New York Times article “Math Scores Show No Gap For Girls, Study Finds”, explains that this stereotype is commonly held even among educators.
The argument that women are naturally less able at math is not a new one. The medical, scientific and mathematical education programs in the western world were largely closed to women until the 20th century. Previously, women were believed to be inferior to men in mental capabilities. As educational opportunities for women increased, and they began to enter colleges, women began to break down the barriers and enter many male dominated fields. Yet even today, the upper levels of the math and scientific fields are still dominated by men- creating social and cultural beliefs which continue to discriminate against female mathematicians and scientists.
Today, these baseless judgments can still be found in the beliefs and decisions made by educators and researchers. A 1980 study found that male high school students scored higher than their female equivalents in standardized testing, “proving” male superiority in math. Today, guidance councilors still tell female students to avoid engineering programs, fearful that they will not be able to do the math required. Parents encourage their daughters down career paths which do not require high level math or science skill sets. Even teachers have a bias towards male students, as discovered by the National Science Foundation. In addition to these social pressures, western society has constructed an image of the scientist and mathematician which discourages young women from pursuing their interest in this field. The stereotypical image of a scientist in the west is a white male in a white lab coat, holding a beaker while working among complicated equipment. The stereotypical image of a mathematician is also a while male, with ruffled hair and unstylish clothes, writing complicated equations on a chalk board. If one were to type the word “scientist” or “mathematician” into the Google image search engine, they would find that all the results on the first few pages depict men. Despite all these stereotypes and cultural constructions, research has shown that women are just as adept at math and science as men.


After comparing the SAT scores of 7 million students in 10 states, the researchers found that there was no comparable difference between the math ability of male and female students. The same research was done for the ACT test as well, with the same result. Furthermore, 50% of the undergraduate students enrolled in engineering courses were women in 2007. 47% of students studying in doctoral programs for science and engineering were also women. These two findings show that women are not only as competent as men at math and science, but that they are just as interested in the subject as well. What, then, accounts for the low visibility of women in the mathematical and scientific fields? Why are they so under represented in the nations leading instutions? And where do these discriminatory biases, as expressed by Dr. Summers, arise from?
Richard Adhikari of TechNews believes that social pressures during middle school have an important impact on women who hope to enter the math and science fields. He says “By the eighth grade, girls are turned off enough that they constitute half the number of boys interested in science, technology, engineering and mathematics”. In this case, social programming begins to take its toll on many an enterprising young female scientist. Girls are not rewarded for being smart in math or science socially or academically. This has been noted by the Institute of Educational Sciences, which released a guide to encouraging female scientist. Among its suggestions were “Presenting positive female role models in the science field”. In America’s class rooms today, young women are done a serious disservice by teachers who, intentionally or not, fail to encourage their female students to pursue an interest in math or science.
This systematic shaping of female academic desires is clearly results of societies need to create images of male and female, boys and girls. In binary opposition, the male identity can only be understood in opposition to something else. Thus there must be skills and attributes which distinguish one identity from another. In this case, girls are told that they are better at social sciences such as language and English, but are inferior at math and science, while boys are told the opposite. These concepts of male and female are then reinforced socially, shaping what courses boys and girls take, and informing them what they are “good” at, regardless to whether there is any truth in these beliefs.
As Johnson argues in his essay about the patriarchal system, systematic forces are reinforced by individual action. Summers’s comment on female ability in the scientific field gives a clear picture as to the forces which push women towards mediocrity within the mathematic and scientific fields. These stereotypes not only discourage women from taking math and science courses, but also affect women’s ability to get into high level academic institutions. The lack of women in these institutions is then used as evidence to prove that women are not as capable as men. In this way a self reinforcing cycle is created.
This cycle is difficult to break as there are no easy ways to break the stereotype of the male scientist or male mathematician. While women have made large strides forward in such male dominated fields as the military, in many cases they have done so by shattering many stereotypes and proving their detractors wrong. However, the only way to break the stereotypes within the math and science fields will for large numbers of women to join the field and exhibit academic excellence. Yet, social pressures in America today program young women to be interested in other fields.
To combat this programming, educators and parents need to be educated to help remove the myth of male excellence in the classroom. Both boys and girls need to get the same amount of attention in the class room. Furthermore, girls need to be encouraged to take pursue careers in engineering and mathematics. This starts by pushing young women to take higher level math and science courses, as this encouragement will counter social pressures which tell young women otherwise. By fostering the sense that young women are capable at math and science, women will be more confident in their skills.
From a top down perspective, the example of Dr. Summers should show many institutions that they have a serious problem, even among their highly educated staff. Additionally, this is another area which the feminist movement has overlooked. Creating competitions and research grants for female scientists and mathematicians would be an excellent way to promote young women to continue to pursue mathematical and scientific educations and careers.



References
Adhikari, Richard. “Women: IT Needs You - Men: Get Over It”. Technology News, 02/02/2010 http://www.technewsworld.com/story/69247.html?wlc=1271288890&wlc=1271450109

Lewin, Tamar. “Math Scores Show No Gap For Girls, Study Find”. New York Times 25/07/2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/25/education/25math.html

News Flash: Male Prostitution

Prostitution is commonly known as the world’s oldest profession. As early as 18th century B.C. Mesopotamia, there is evidence of laws and civil codes relating to prostitution.[i] In Nevada, brothels have been tolerated since the 19th century, but the first ordnance that effectively legalized the profession was not passed until 1971. Since then, the brothel industry has flourished in the state with about thirty brothels currently in business. And until January 5, 2010, it was the exclusive domain of women. However, Nye County officials have cleared Bobbi Davis’ Shady Lady Ranch to hire male prostitutes. An ex-Marine, working under the pseudonym “Markus Bestin,” is America’s first legal gigolo; “I [Bobbi Davis] personally feel, as do the many other women who have made contact with me since I started this, that this is a service whose time has come.”[ii] Bestin brings an intriguing dimension to the highly controversial debate over the issue of legal prostitution. Until recently, the contest has revolved around the argument that prostitution is inherently degrading to women and the worst form of female objectification.[iii] Now, protesters of prostitution must also consider how the introduction of men into the profession affects their views, traditional gender roles, and societal norms. If men are legally able to be prostitutes in the same way that women are, is this industry still patriarchal in character and structure? No longer can it be argued that the brothel industry serves only to objectify and exploit women. Davis and Bestin are doing more than finding another way to make money in a poor economy; they are effectively challenging gender roles. Patriarchy dictates that women are, and should be, the only ones that can sell the act of sex in order to make money. Now that we have a female pimp in Davis and a male prostitute in Bestin, it seems that this aspect of traditional gender roles has become fluid and reversible. By attempting to tear down the established norms of the brothel industry, Bestin and Davis are striking a significant blow at one of the foundational pillars of patriarchy.

[iv]

Gender roles, as they exist in today’s America, are the product of a patriarchal system that stifles the ambitions and opportunities of millions of women. However, there are also places that society has designated as prohibited to men. Until recently, one of these areas has been that of the brothel industry. Bestin believes that, like many social activists before him, he has the chance to drastically alter the rigid gender roles, not only in his industry, but also in American culture as a whole…

It's just the same as when Rosa Parks decided to sit at the front instead of the back. She was proclaiming her rights as a disadvantaged, African-American older woman. And I'm doing the same. I'm actually standing up now, and hopefully I can be supported by the male community and be understood as a person. This actually isn't about selling my body. This is about changing social norms.[v]

While equal opportunity prostitution is obviously not nearly as gravely important of an issue as civil rights was in the 1960’s, the gender restrictions on the brothel industry are nonetheless an integral part of the patriarchal pyramid in America. Bestin is by no means a latter day Parks, but his intentions are benevolent nonetheless. His actions are less about money or fame, and more focused on breaking down societal norms and gender roles at their core; “I think it's the same situation as with anything that happens when you break apart a social institution…And it's more of a civil rights thing now. Basically this is the first time in the economy of the United States that a male has actually stood up and said, ‘I want to do this for a living.’ And be protected under law to do it.”[vi] Bestin’s crusade is clearly against patriarchy as he and Davis are seeking to forcefully remove the patriarchal stranglehold on the brothel industry. Their actions inherently rupture the legitimacy of traditional gender roles. While Bestin’s campaign may seem trivial on the surface, it may very well be a step towards tearing down oppressive societal and gender norms.

[vii]

Allan Johnson maintains throughout the second chapter of The Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy[viii] that patriarchy is a set of expectations for and constraining forces on men and women alike; “It’s [patriarchy] about how social life is and how it’s supposed to be, about what’s expected of people and about how they feel…It’s about defining women and men as opposites.”[ix] In terms of the prostitution business, women have always been relegated to positions of servitude as employees, while men have traditionally been the employers who do little work and take a large cut of the profits. The opening of the profession of prostitution to men is significant because it also enables and even encourages women to take the initiative on the business side of the brothel industry. Given Davis’ example, women will now see that they can make money in this business without shedding a shred of clothing, and instead use their financial acumen to sell men for a change. Johnson goes on to illiterate 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’—the ability to control others.”[x] Bestin’s actions begin to erode patriarchy’s absolute degradation of only women by morphing what roles men and women respectively play in the brothel industry. Moreover, the induction of male prostitutes creates the foundation for even more progressive alterations of gender roles.

[xi]

The system of patriarchy that controls this country hinges on the acceptance of traditional gender roles as a societal norm. Without this willingness to submit to an inherently oppressive ideology, the patriarchal pyramid collapses. Therefore, to drastically alter expected representations of gender is to deconstruct patriarchy at its foundation. This goal is exactly what Bestin has set out to achieve; “I'm basically trying to reset social norms.”[xii] The authorization of male prostitutes is critically important because it lays the groundwork for a complete overhaul of gender roles. As Johnson explains, “Because people make systems happen, then people can also make systems happen differently…In other words, when people step off the path of least resistance, they have the potential not simply to change other people, but to alter the way the system itself happens.”[xiii] In the brothel industry, Davis and Bestin are prototypical examples of people who are willing to travel on the path of most resistance. And in doing so, this duo is making strides to change the rules of the patriarchal game. Their example encourages other men to become gigolos, and more importantly, it urges other women to take the position of power that had traditionally been reserved for men. By becoming pimps, women have the rare opportunity to be the ones controlling the men. Against all odds, it seems that the introduction of male prostitutes is in fact a prominent example of true gender equality, as well as fluid gender roles. Patriarchy, by definition, is incapable of dealing with such an eventuality, and as such must be forced to change. The reversal of gender roles on an institutional basis is a major blow to the black heart of patriarchy.

---

[i]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_prostitution

[ii]Ashley Powers, “Male prostitution is Nevada’s newest legal profession,” LATimes.com 6 Jan. 2010. (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/06/nation/la-na-male-prostitutes6-2010jan06)

[iii]http://prostitution.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001315

[iv]http://dailypostal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/markus-bestin2.jpg

[v]Ian Daly, “Meet America’s First Legal Male Prostitute,” Details.com 13 Jan. 2010. (http://www.details.com/sex-relationships/sex-and-other-releases/201001/americas-first-legal-male-prostitute)

[vi]Daly.

[vii]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mhrar7lF4Zo

[viii]Allan G. Johnson, The Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy.

[ix]Johnson 39.

[x]Johnson 39.

[xi]https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjn3kL6BjVUHw9FkwhR6R-rWWuYXYVwNspUyB4DPWI47IPHVw3VSOcLv1NYD-iRT5gslDCYZ-yQiIMNjAtd4fvVWH-eXss_aXhe1Vzx0myw_k86OcIqdw-7r4TByOfvKN69ShML0TSQTt2f/s320/MarkusBestin.jpg

[xii]Andrea Canning and Cole Kazdin, “Just a Gigolo? Or the Rosa Parks of Sex Work?” ABCNews.com 1 Feb. 2010. (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/legal-male-prostitute-talks-shop/story?id=9718157)

[xiii]Johnson 32.

Other Resources:

http://prostitution.procon.org/

http://www.newser.com/story/76088/men-win-right-to-be-hookers-in-nevada.html

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/my_night_with_prosti_dude_LxwFH9NnMM0Mdo1KfHRdpK

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/14/americas-first-legal-male_n_423072.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/shady-lady-ranch-cleared-legal-male-prostitutes/story?id=9493257

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Nevada

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glA0R8OfHrk

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-6097855-504083.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/legal-male-prostitute-talks-shop/story?id=9718157

http://dailypostal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/markus-bestin2.jpg

http://www.shadyladyranch.com/main.html

Newsflash: Female Athletes

The month of March is mostly closely associated in sports with college basketball and the NCAA tournament, aptly named “March Madness.” Sports fans across the country fill out mock brackets and the college games dominate ESPN headlines. Almost all of this media attention is usually paid to the men’s tournament, however the back to back undefeated seasons of the University of Connecticut women’s team, as well as the arrival of six-foot eight-inch Baylor freshmen Britney Griner, has brought added publicity to the women’s tournament. Women’s basketball garners far less attention than the men’s game presumably because female players are usually of “normal” stature and are not considered to be in the same athletic stratosphere as male players. Fans love to awe over six-foot eight-inch players such as LeBron James who can not only dunk from the free-throw line but can also handle the basketball with uncanny strength and speed for his size. This used to be far more appealing to the casual basketball fan than a five-foot six-inch girl who dominates women’s basketball with a nice three-point shot. The recent arrival of Griner has not only changed that mindset, but also brings us to a discussion of perceived beauty in sports across the genders. Britney Griner and Tina Charles (the six-foot four-inch center on Connecticut) question traditional female attractiveness and are forcing people to recognize a new type of women.

            The ESPN article on Tina Charles outlines her early childhood and the realization of her unusual height. The article describes Charles’ mother, Angella Holgate, taking her four-year-old daughter to the doctor and being told that she was going to grow to be six-foot five-inches tall. Holgate admits that she immediately beginning weeping and was concerned with the social consequences of Tina being such a tall girl. At the time, she did not even think of the possibility of her daughter becoming a professional athlete.

            What would Holgate’s reaction be if she were hearing this news about her son? It’s probably safe to say that it would have been quite the contrary. Many parents from urban neighborhoods (Charles is from Jamaica, NY) probably would have geared their sons directly into sports and would have little concern over ensuing social problems.

Holgate’s concerns, however, are definitely legitimate in our current society. Our culture places an extreme emphasis on normality, and women above six-feet certainly qualify outside of those norms. Britney Griner has had to deal with these gender stereotypes her whole life as a six-foot eight-inch girl. Aside from her height, Griner is also knowledgeable in automotive mechanics and has an affinity for military strategy. These traits naturally ostracized Griner and gave her the label of being a “tomboy.” For girls such as Charles and Griner, athletics is a natural realm because women who break traditional stereotypes of muscularity and size are embraced and celebrated in such an environment. This gives them a sense of belonging and chance for notable achievement; however, gender stereotypes on sexual attractiveness portray these women in a much less positive light.

Ariel Levy points out that American culture pair’s female attractiveness with thin, dainty, and feminine women. Our class discussions on the fashion industry have certainly supported such stereotypes. Athletics, however, promote strength and competiveness, which is considered highly masculine. Levy explains that for male athletes, their competitions and athletic prowess match up with their perceived attractiveness, so they do not have to deal with such issues in their personal life. Also, male athletes are praised for their performances on the court, but there is minimal concern or potential backlash over their appearance. This is far from the case with female athletes. Levy asserts that for male athletes, sexiness and athletics are mutually inclusive, but for female athletes they are mutually exclusive. Rather, female athletes often feel compelled to assert their sexiness so that they are not stereotyped as unattractive women. Levy points out, “the [female] athletes had to be taken out of context, the purposeful eyes-on-the-prize stare you see on the field had to be replaced with coquettish lash-batting, the fast-moving legs had to be splayed apart” (page 44). She exemplifies this position by referring to Olympic swimming champions Amanda Beard and Haley Clark, who posed in Playboy in 2004.

In a similar nature, Serena Williams was often criticized for her masculine muscles and forceful style of play until she posed scantily, thus showing her “feminine” side. Fellow tennis player Anna Kournikova, however, has achieved much notoriety and acclaim for her looks, which has increased her fan base and gives her matches’ heightened attendance, despite the fact that Kournikova has achieved minimal success in professional tennis. Clearly, our society (rooted in Levy’s notion of raunch culture) places sexiness at the apex of female success and pressures many female athletes to portray themselves in a more “feminine” and provocative manner. The fact that top models earn significantly more money than top WNBA players eludes to our society’s preference for sexy women over athletic ones.

While our society unfortunately forces female athletes to display a sense of attractiveness that male athletes are not subject to, the acceptance of Serena Williams as an attractive women, despite her “manly” figure, shows a loosening of the closely defined gender stereotypes. The acceptance and portrayal of Williams’ figure has led to an acceptance of women who are not thin and dainty to be considered beautiful as well. The New York Times article contains claims by model casting agents that Britney Griner is conventionally beautiful in ordinary women’s clothing but that it is difficult to notice when Griner is in a Baylor jersey and basketball shorts. This type of claim is unfortunately why female athletes feel they need to show their feminine side off the court. However, it is also a commentary on the restrictiveness of female sexual stereotypes and proves why they should be expanded. If people feel athletes like Griner, Williams, Beard, and Clark are attractive off the court, why are they so criticized for their appearance on the court? The answer is reflected in Levy’s claim that female athleticism and sexiness is mutually exclusive. Levy blames these athletes for playing into American raunch culture, but the blame should really be placed on society as a whole. Surely, athletes like Beard and Clark relented into Levy’s notion of raunch culture, but the after effect of their decision should not have been their mere acceptance as sexy women, but also expanded society’s perception of female athletes in general. If those cases broke the stereotype that female athletes can be sexy, why do we continue to perceive female athletes as “manly” until they prove otherwise? We would like to hope that such contradictions to female stereotypes would have expanded or changed those stereotypes but that has yet to be seen on a large scale.

Britney Griner “long ago embraced the role of being the one who took an expectation and flipped it.” Maybe she will lead our society to widen its perceptions of female beauty. If that happens, mothers like Angella Holgate will embrace the news of their daughter growing to be over six feet, rather than worrying about the social repercussions. 

ESPN article on Griner

"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.