Short Post 4/27/11

These two chapters by Enloe really helped me to understand my own definition of feminism. At the beginning of the semester we were asked if we thought that we could be considered feminist. Even though I knew that by the definition of feminism I probably was one, the connotations that go along with it made me hesitant to claim my feminism. Throughout the course of the year we discussed how there is a debate whether the word feminism should change in order to leave behind its long history and establish something new. At the time I believed that it should be changed so that more people are willing to embrace the actual ideas without being intimidated by the implications. After spending the semester in this class I have switched to the opposing side of this argument. If the feminist movement is willing to give into pressure to change something as simple as its name because of outside pressure then aren’t we yet again giving into the cycle of oppression? My journey through grappling with this and changing sides of the argument reflects my general relationship with Women’s studies and feminism.
There are times when I get fed up and think we are arguing in circle over pointless things and there is no resolution (aka Enlightened Feminism by Douglas) then next thing I know I am learning about abortion rights and female genital mutilation. These topics are perhaps the social issues that have the most impact on my conscious and I want to devote my time to preventing them. In times of frustration I feel like we are wasting our time critiquing the media and designer vaginas, but then I begin to think that perhaps even the small battles matter. Sexism and oppression affect us all differently based on aspects like identity politics. Even if my struggles with oppression pale in comparison to those of others, if I stop fighting what would happen to them. Without daily questioning and challenging patriarchy it would not be impossible for our world to regress and lose all the hard work of women before us. Enloe inspired me in this thought process because I felt as though her chapters were about defining feminism for herself. She discusses the need for curiosity and questioning patriarchy rather than settling for the fact that it is normal. It is so easy to say well it is not affecting me that much because I am generally happy with my life. To take a step back and see how accepting this lot in life may affect others by perpetuating the cycle is eye opening. My favorite point that Enloe makes is how when a student brings up an analysis that dispute her thought that it is tempting to manipulate to in the end support her point. She says rather twist it around it is important to use that analysis to further question and shape the original idea. This shows the idea that feminism and its issue are perhaps so frustrating to be because there is usually not one right answer. It is a problem with such a long history and so ingrained in our society that it affects so many aspects. Rather than get frustrated and give up it is important to take the time to understand how every action has so many potential reactions. In order to stop the cycle the beginning stage to define feminism as what it means to you and then stand up for that belief.

Short Post 4/28

Enloe’s introduction talks about the importance of being curious and understanding what, how and why certain groups are oppressed.  I felt that her introduction correlated strongly to the goals of this women’s studies course.  Before taking women’s studies, I had thought I was completely equal to men and society knew it.  But after taking the course, my curiosity has grown and I am able to see how I play into the patriarchal system we live in.  It was interesting to connect this introduction to Johnson’s essay on patriarchy.  Johnson and Enloe both point out that both women and men play a role in maintaining the patriarchal system we live in.  This class and Enloe’s reading has made me curios of my role in the system.  I can now see how I contribute to the system and how hard it will be to change it because for centuries we have allowed it.  Enloe discusses tradition and how we typically considering tradition as something permanent and therefore are not curious about it.  It is crazy to think that we still have the patriarchal tradition of marriage implemented in our society.  Johnson uses the example of Monopoly.  Nobody questions the rules because that is just the way the game is played.  Many people do not question the written and unwritten rules that make up or patriarchal society.  This course and all the readings we have read have stimulated me to respond to my role within this system.  In order to change the system, we must first acknowledge the system in place and understand how it is oppressive.  Like I said above, before taking this course I did not feel the least bit that I was oppressed by society.  Now, I can see everything through a different lens and understand who is oppressing, why and how.  It is important to answer these three questions to understand how we can stop and fix these issues.  Enloe discusses the issues of globalization and women being subjected to sweatshops working in horrible conditions.  She brings up the questions of who is oppressing these women, why and how.  Enloe makes a strong point when changing the term “cheap labor” to “labor made cheap”.  She realizes how lazy she had been which sparks her discover that, “the moment one becomes newly curious about something is also a good time to think about what created one’s previous lack of curiosity” (3).  I thought about the topic of sexual assault and why I had never really been too curious about the issue.  I realized it was due to the fact that I always felt safe growing up and could not grasp the fact that something like that could happen to me.  However, I have been enlightened to understand more issues that do pertain to me as a women.  I have become curious in finding ways to change our patriarchal society.  It is really difficult imaging a new “set of rules”, but after seeing all the issues women face mostly caused by the system, change needs to occur.

Final Long Post 2/28

Enloe

Introduction: Being Curious about our Lack of Feminist Curiosity

Enloe’s introduction talks about the concept of being curious about things and taking the opportunity to investigate them. She says that it is easy to be complacent because being curious require energy. Other terms like “tradtition,” “natural,” “always,” and “oldest” are words we use to justify our complacency. We don’t challenge the ideas that fit into those categories because it takes too much effort and its uncomfortable to challenge the ideas we grew up with. Enloe says, “uncuriousity is dangerously comfortable if it can be dressed up with the sophisticated attire of reasonableness and intellectual efficiency” (3). I liked when she brings up the questions of “where women are and where men are, about who put women there and men here, about who benefits from women being there and not someplace else…” (4). I always wonder how institutions like patriarchy came to be. How did ideologies form? How quickly? How long will they last? She says that patriarchial systems “make many women overlook their own marginal positions and feel instead secure, protected, valued” (6). I see what she is saying but I still don’t know how we fell into that system. Why do women need men in order to feel safe? Why do young women feel more valuable when they have a boyfriend? She also brings up the point that patriarchy is constantly being modernized. It’s a necessary process in order for patriarchy to survive. But will other societal systems out-evolve patriarchy and lead to its demise?

The Surprised Feminist

She starts this chapter by explaining how we are all “socialized to deny surprise.” We are, but why? Is it because we look foolish when something surprises us because it means we didn’t realize or know something beforehand? Isn’t surprise a good thing sometimes because it means you learn something new and you are forced to see something in a different way than what you expected? Enloe is starting her book by urging people to be open to the idea of being surprised by things. Its unavoidable, so why not embrace the things that surprise you? We all need to admit that sometimes we are wrong in our preconceived notions and assumptions. I think she wants her readers to have an open mind while reading this book because otherwise certain issues will just pass right over them. I really liked these chapters and I wish we had read them at the beginning of the semester instead of at the end. There are definitely some issues we talked about in class that I had to open my mind to in order to fully understand. For example, I learned a lot about abortion and abortion providers from class and the brown bag that I attended. And I was surprised by many of the things that I learned.

I meant to post this when we read Enloe's "Militia men and women", but completely forgot. This video shows a Libyan woman at a restaurant where American journalists are eating speaking out about the rape the experienced by Gadhafi's regime. This video is so frightening because they do not let her speak and just take her away and put a bag over head...so terrifying.

Long Post 4/26

Allison Attenello’s “Navigating Identity Politics in Activism” defines leadership and what the best role is to play when dealing with activism that is not necessarily your identity’s activism.  Attenello starts off her passage by informing the reader about the serial rapes occurring in the New Brunswick area.  Right away she made the distinction between the two very different communities occupying New Brunswick.  There were Rutgers students and then lots of Mexican immigrants.  Attenello discusses how the Rutgers students received more media coverage for these rapes then Mexican women.  In July 2003, Mexican women march to City Hall in demand of adequate protection and rights.  While attending, Attenello was introduced to Lupe who was the leader of these Mexican woman.  Lupe invited her to attend their meetings to offer her skills of activism.  Attenello came to the first meeting making many assumptions, including this was an organized group, the members identified as feminists and activists, and trying to combat rape.  She soon found that she was dealing with many more Mexican immigrant issues that she had no knowledge about and could not identify with.  Her experience with Unidad de New Brunswick made her ask the question: “if activists do not belong to a particular community, should they play a leadership role in an organization that represents that population?” (102).  Attenello decided it would be inappropriate for her to take on a leadership role in Unidad de New Brunswick.  She felt as if she was enabling these members as oppose to her goal of empowering them.  However, Lupe disagreed that her leaving the group would be beneficial to the members striving for their goals.  Attenello struggled with the concept of leadership in a group that she did not identify with.  She came to the conclusion that she was actually benefiting the group by having time, resources and language skills that could move Unidad de New Brunswick forward.  Although, she says, “I could contribute to the body’s mission by sharing organizing and leadership skills” (105).

Shira Lynn Pruce’s “Blurring the Lines That Divide” was really inspirational to me.  She starts off by talking about living in Jerusalem in 2000 and having a front row seat to the violence and suicide bombers between Israel and Palestine.  She brought her experience back to Douglass College where there was a lot of anti-Semitism towards Jews in the aftermath of 9/11, blaming the bombings on Israel’s existence.  Pruce started to take action by founding an unaffiliated Jewish Zionist group on campus to give Zionism and Judaism a local presence.  Pruce took her first women’s and gender studies course where she was enlightened on life through a gendered lens.  She discusses how she recognized the system that has been so oppressive to women: “patriarchy, a system of male normativity and control that systemically oppresses women” (187).  Like Pruce, I did not realize the patriarchal system we live in until taking this course and reading essays such as Johnson’s.  Pruce started to realize that she felt excluded and marginalized by the patriarchal system reining in on our world.  She says, “I started seeing the glass ceiling and walls everywhere; I felt I had the power to produce real social change” (187).  This statement made me think of Frye’s birdcage where it seems as if women are not constraint by society, yet there are so many factors that make them this “other” than the “norm” and are trapped in the cage.  Pruce explains how attending IWL has transformed her into a stronger, more focused, more confident and more articulate woman and leader.  Pruce found herself torn between grassroots activism and formal political participation, which she originally thought were two distinct spheres.  However, she came to the conclusion that these two lines of work were very much connected to one another.  I like really like when she says, “Society portrays one group as professionals in suits, as the others as troublemakers in jeans and sometimes handcuffs” (188).  While at Rutgers, an international anti-Zionist organization planned on hosting its annual conference at Rutgers.  To combat this organization, Pruce and friends organized events under Israel Inspires to “support the transformation and education of Rutgers University’s Jewish campus life” (189).  7,000 people, including New Jersey senators and governor attended their rally to promote positive change for the Jewish community at Rutgers.  She continues her activism by organizing campus events that attracted NOW and shed light on women’s issues for Rutgers students to be educated on.  The most interesting part of her essay is when she worked with Palestinian women who she had once worked against.  Her work with these Palestinian women has taught her how important it is to “not necessarily to overcome difference but rather to blur the differences in the face of a common cause” (190).  While interning in Israel, Pruce discovers that grassroots activism and formal political participation intersect much more than she could have imagined.  Pruce has found a balance between her fights for Jewish and Women’s right and as been able to blur the lines between these causes for the bigger cause.

Short Post 4/26

“Learning the Meaning of One”: This article by Greenstone was effective because it draws attention to the difficulties of activism amongst minorities. For some reason it seems that so often minority groups turn against each other. This drains a movement of power that could be greatly amplified if only different identity groups would come together and support each other. When Greenstone looks back at her interaction with the girl in sixth grade I think it is important that she wishes she had acted in a more mature fashion. Every degrading comment that someone makes can be an opportunity to spread education and tolerance. If one is willing to lower themselves to the level of the person who first made the comment then there will never be a chance for progress. The ability to maintain composure and also speak one’s mind can be difficult as well as intimidating, but it is essential. The worst that can happen is that the message does not get through and the person still believes they are right in their prejudice. This risk is clearly worth it if one can inspire even a small amount of questioning of prejudice.

“Navigating Identity Politics”: Attenello clearly points out that it is important to see the ways in which one can be both a perpetrator and a victim of identity politics. Often people seem to see this as black and white, where there are people in power and those who are oppressed. In reality we all often belong to so many different groups each of us is both a mixture of power and oppression. When she starts to discuss the Rutgers rapist it really reminded me of how many groups make up each of our identities. I feel like often when considering ones identity people are likely to list their gender, religion, ethnicity and socio-economic status. I would be much less likely to immediately consider my status as a college student. In my world most people I interact with have a college education and therefore it does not help to greatly further my identity. One only needs to take a step back and observe the town of Hamilton to understand how being a Colgate student shapes my everyday interactions.

Short Post 4/26

Antenello's essay brought up the conflict she experienced of not identifying with the group she was supporting. This led her to feel like an enabler rather than contributing to a solution. The only experience I can think of that I have to identify with this was when I went on three mission trips to Appalachia to help fix up houses for poor families. I always felt the strong disconnect between myself and the people I was helping, especially in terms of our education and overall life experiences. I was there to help them, but there was always a question of whether fixing up their house will help them improve other areas of their life, like finding a job, or if they will just accept the help and continue the same as always. Did they feel embarrassed that teenagers were more capable than they were? I never came to a solid conclusion of how our work affected people in the long run.

Greenstone's essay highlighted the fact that discrimination starts very early. Children learn to discriminate against other people implicitly from their parents, peers, and the media. The fact that a sixth grade girl had such strong feelings towards jews shows that she learned that from someone else, she likely did not have any life experience that caused her to feel that way. The rest of Greenstone's essay just discussed her activist activities, which I thought was wonderful but I didn't personally get a lot out of reading about it. I think that her own experience is unique but by seeing an example of someone who is all about activism, it shows the type of path one can take to pursue those activities.

Pruce's essay was a great example of someone who was passionately devoted to a cause on a college campus and actually had an impact. I was shocked to read about the discrimination against Jews that was present at Rutgers. Its hard to image what it would be like to be a Jewish student at Rutgers during that time. I can't imagine that taking place at Colgate. Pruce showed that she could use her experience from one activist project and apply it to another and stay committed to a cause in order to see the results she wanted. If she hadn't done that, there is no way she would have ended up living in Israel.

News Flash #3

News Flash #3 College campuses must do more to prevent sexual assault    

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2065849-2,00.html       

            Sexual assault is an extant concern on many college campuses.  There are many stories of sexual assault taking place on college campuses that convey the message that universities are not taking the adequate measures to prevent sexual assault. Statistics show that one in five college women will be the victims of a sexual assault.  However, less than 5% of those assaults will be reported to campus authorities or the police (Webley 1). Last October, Yale University became overwhelmed with the pledging incident involving the fraternity Delta Kappa Epsilon.  Members of this fraternity were caught on camera chanting, “No means yes! Yes means anal! No means yes! Yes means anal!” across campus.  Obviously, the message being sent was to make light of the serious issue of rape/sexual assault.  Making rape appear as a casual topic is detrimental to both men and women.  Women feel as if sexual assault is not important enough to report (based on the statistics) and men clearly do not know the rules regarding consent and sexual assault.  Clearly, colleges are not taking the appropriate steps to prevent this sexual assault and must do more to solve this pressing problem.

            The Dean of Yale College quickly issued a statement two days after the incident expressing how outraged they were to have this situation encompass their University.  However, she did not expose the punishment for DKE because she said that information was confidential under federal law and the University’s policy.  There have been more statements following the first, however the punishments, as of April 18, 2011, have not been made public.  In response to Yale’s management of the situation, a group of 16 students filed a complaint that Yale did not punish the men in a suitable manner and further shed light on a list of past incidents that have occurred.  These students feel that Yale is overlooking this serious issue by not giving the response these students felt Yale should have.  Moreover, these students feel that Yale is not making itself an environment where both men and women can succeed equally.  According to Title IX, “Any educational institution that takes federal funding cannot discriminate against women. (Sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape are all considered discrimination on the basis of sex)” (Webley 1). It is clear that Yale has not upheld to Title IX and is currently being investigated by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights for not rejecting this type of discriminatory environment.  We often hear of Title IX in association with athletics, scholarships and funding as oppose to sexual assault.

            Unfortunately, many other universities are dealing with the issue of sexual assault on their campuses.  A story that hits close to home is my neighbor and classmate, Lizzy Seeberg who committed suicide after an alleged sexual assault by a Notre Dame football player.  Lizzy had recently transferred to St. Mary’s College and reported her sexual assault to the school-counseling center.  Shortly after the incident, she overdosed on prescription medicine and was found dead.  After the night at the Notre Dame party, Lizzy received a text message from the perpetrators friends saying something along the lines, “Don’t mess with Notre Dame football or you’ll be sorry”.  Her parents were outraged with the lack of investigation Notre Dame carried out.  They were terribly upset due to the fact that many of the people in their family had attended Notre Dame and were strong supporters of the football team.  They have since hired a lawyer to further deal with the school’s ignorance.

            These events happen throughout all universities and even here at Colgate too.  Enloe discusses how sexual assault is linked with trivialization and therefore both men and women are able to make light of the issue.  She defines this trivialization with the factory managers who sexually assault their women factory workers.  What makes men think this is okay in any setting?  The fact that sexual assault is consider trivial makes men and women believe it is okay. I have heard many women talk about rape in a mocking way saying, “yeah we like raped him on the dance floor”. The term rape gets thrown around casually, therefore making it a trivial topic. It was interesting to discuss the topic of consent in class.  We are all highly educated Colgate students, yet there were all sorts of questions regarding consent, which seems to be a black and white topic.  However, everyone was asking questions seeming as if they were unsure of the laws of consent.

            Masculinity scholar Michael Kimmel analyzes the Yale incident, breaking down the chant and the previous history of DKE at Yale.  Kimmel focuses on the underlying meaning and message sent by the chant “No means yes! Yes means anal!” He points out how all the incidents involving DKE have taken place outside the campus Women’s Center.  The Women’s Center is the building on campus where many victims of sexual assault seek help and assistance.  Kimmel discusses how these pledging rituals take away the one place these women have to feel safe and sends the message that not even the Women’s Center is safe.  After reading Susan Douglas, we can understand that we live in a day and age where women can act equally to men in regards to sex.  Kimmel focuses on the feminist movement and how it is now acceptable for women to say “yes” or “no”.  When interpreting the second part of the chant, Kimmel says, “if she says yes to intercourse, you have to go further to an activity that you experience as degrading to her, dominating to her, not pleasurable to her”.  Now that women have ownership over their sexuality, men have to go farther to prevent women from being equals to men sexually.  One question we can ask is why do students from a prestigious university such as Yale, feel the need to degrade women and display their masculinity?  Kimmel answers this claiming these highly privileged Yale, DKE brothers feel powerless due to the fact that women have reached equality.  According to Kimmel, these boys are “trying to re-establish a sexual landscape which they feel has been thrown terribly off its axis”.  We can thank feminism for our strides towards equality that is making these boys so upset and pitiful (Kimmel 1).

            Based on these articles, it is evident that college campuses are not doing enough to combat the issue of sexual assault. I have a few suggestions that could potentially lower the statistics for sexual assault on college campuses and raise the statistics of how many of these sexual assaults are reported.  Colgate started working with Mentors in Violence Prevention (MVP) this year.  MVP works to train men and women to take on leadership roles in their communities to prevent gender violence, bullying and school violence.  A program like MVP should be implemented at every university to teach men and women how to prevent sexual assault as a perpetrator, victim and bystander.  Another suggestion I have, is to make a class on gender violence/sexual assault a required course at Colgate so students can be educated on the numerous issues that stem from sexual assault on campus.  Lastly, universities only need a “preponderance of evidence” proving that it is more likely than not to find a student guilty.  Therefore, even if there is not enough evidence for a police report to find a student guilty, the university can still act.  Many Title IX activists fight for schools to act on gender discrimination.  I truly believe these three ideas can help solve the growing issue of sexual assault on college campuses.

Works Cited

Courtney. "Privileged Boys, Impoverished Ethics." Feministing | Young Feminists Blogging, Organizing, Kicking Ass. 19 Oct. 2010. Web. 22 Apr. 2011. <http://feministing.com/2010/10/19/privileged-boys-impoverished-ethics/>.

Kimmel, Michael. "Michael Kimmel: Men -- and Women -- at Yale." Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post. 20 Oct. 2010. Web. 22 Apr. 2011. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-kimmel/men-and-women-at-yale_b_765683.html>.

Webley, Kayla. "Are Colleges Doing Enough to Combat Sexual Violence? - TIME." Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. 18 Apr. 2011. Web. 22 Apr. 2011. <http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2065849-2,00.html>.

New Flash #3: Fraternities and Rape Culture

Link to article: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/09/magazine/09FRATS.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=ban%20of%20brothers&st=cse

The article “Ban of Brothers” by Benoit Denizett-Lewis was printed in the New York Times with the intention of bringing to light the recent debate about whether fraternities should be dry in order to better fulfill their original purpose. The article came to my attention for a different reason and that was because it highlighted the way fraternities act out masculinity and how that affects the gender relationship. The article tells the story of Denizett-Lewis returning to his alma mater, Northwestern, to observe frat activities and see if they can survive and be fun once they are declared dry. As he describes what he finds the scenes are all to familiar to me, but an outsider’s perspective made me more critical of the culture. Throughout the article girls are always in the background referred to as adoring, loving and even called groupies of the frat boys. The way that fraternities are conceived now creates an image of masculinity similar to that seen in militias, which in both cases fosters a rape culture.

Both fraternities and militias are closely associated with the idea of masculinity, the men in them are expected to act in accordance. There is a paternalistic mentality in both organizations, which helps to support the masculine image. For militias there is a sense that the men are going out and risking their lives in order to protect and care for the women. In frats the men take on the role of being the providers for their female counterparts. Non-dry fraternities host the parties with plenty of alcohol, which is given to the women at no cost. While this may seem beneficial to the women’s pocketbook, in reality in strips them of all their power. Men get to decide who can come, who is not allowed to come and even when to kick people out. By taking on the role of providers for women fraternity boys are once again feeding into their masculine identity. Along with this image of masculinity comes the need for competition. In competitions between men women often become an object to acquire in order to prove ones manliness. This phenomenon was clearly demonstrated at Tailhook and it also applies to competitions between fraternities. In the article it talks about one frat being pleased that Theta is going to have homecoming with them. This shows that when girls bestow favor on them then it gives them a boost of popularity. Once again this creates a mirage of female power, but it reality all it does is reduce women to object that men compete to obtain.

This competition mentality is what keeps the rape culture alive in both fraternities and militias. Once women become objects there is no longer any need to be concerned about their emotions or to believe that they are even human. This dehumanization of women allows men to rape women without feeling the guilt that should be there. Suddenly the more women a man is able to sleep with or the more he degrades a woman the more his masculinity is reinforced. Once having sex with as many women as possible becomes the goal and a way to achieve power then rape becomes the reality. In Brownmiller’s article “Against Our Will” she discusses the way in which rape is the ultimate expression of masculinity. With this in mind it makes sense why groups, such as militias and fraternities whose identity is inextricably linked to masculinity would turn to rape.

In militias rape is seen as both a tool to power and even a bonding experience for the men. Men with more power provide the women to the lower ranking men, therefore both degrading the enemy and creating closeness among the troops. Within frats clear-cut rape is often not the case, instead rape is hidden behind the disguise of drunken sex. The men in these organizations invite girls to their houses then provide them with plenty of alcohol in hopes of having sex with one of them. Then if a girl claims that she was raped there are always assertions that she is at fault because of what she was wearing or the amount of alcohol she consumed. In cases where a girl drank too much it is sad to see what a high price she will have to pay because she made a mistake. Again this reminds me of the Brownmiller article where she discusses how rape is a tool men use to constantly keep women in fear. Whenever attending a frat party a girl must enter with the mentality that she cannot get to drunk or she will get raped.

Fraternitity parties are advertised as groups of friends getting together to have a good time. How is it that within a group of so called friends half of the people must be afraid that they will get raped? In the letter that the professor at Zenith [Wesleyan] University professor wrote to her students it is clear that this dynamic is not a healthy way of life. It has become the norm and people within the rape culture cannot see clearly, but having a professors opinion brings up some concerning points. Not only are fraternities creating a rape culture similar to one seen in Militias but they are also perpetuating a culture that is unfriendly to anyone who tries to speak out about being raped. In the “Ban of Brothers” article Denizet-Lewis talks about how his frat used to be much tougher and references an incident where they threw stones at a group participating in a take back the night march. Somehow we have come to a point in college culture where disrespecting and degrading women has become the idea of masculinity.

The conclusion the Denizet-Lewis ultimately reaches is that perhaps fraternities becoming dry organizations is not the worst idea. What I wonder is why are there organizations that have become so out of control that the presence of alcohol leads to rape and other criminal acts? Perhaps though alcohol perpetuates the culture the real problem lies in the structure of an organization that prides itself on being the masculine ideal. In a world of “Enlighten Sexism” where we believe that all of the hard work is behind us and that women are equal, why is it still necessary to have organizations that divide be gender? All this accomplishes is the creation of groups striving to achieve the ultimate display of masculinity or femininity. Some think it is fine because sororities are the female counterpart therefore women have an equal opportunity. The reality is that these organizations may be separate, but they certainly are not equal. As long as men and women are kept separate in these Greek organizations women will continue to be objectified and seen only as pawns in a game of power. In any organization that is all male and strives to achieve ultimate masculinity, rape can quickly become a strategy to gain power. It is essential to recognize that this is not only happening in the military in a country far away, but that it is happening in college and universities all over our nation.

Newsflash: If Girls are Better Students, Why is it More Difficult for them to get into College?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

If Girls are Better Students then Boys, Why is it More Difficult for them to get into College?

Women have been working for the past century to gain equal access to education and jobs. Although women still don’t make as much money as men, women now make up 57% of college students in the United States. Studies have found that this can be attributed to the tendency for men to drop out of high school at a higher rate, are more likely to join the military, or they have other job opportunities after high school that do not necessitate a college education (Birnbaum & Yakaboski). However, it has also been found that even from an early age, girls are simply better students than boys. They mature faster, have more flexible learning styles, and from my personal experience, girls seem to be much more able to sit, listen, and do their work than boys (Saman). This has translated to girls having better college applications than boys, for multiple reasons. However, colleges want to maintain a gender ratio as close to 50:50 as possible. Therefore, boys are having an easier time gaining admittance to colleges than girls, even though they are not as good of students.

In the past, women did not receive as much education, or the same type, as men because it was believed that they needed to know how to take care of children and a home, and nothing else. It was thought that educating a woman would have negative consequences, even sterility. However, slowly but surely, throughout the 20^th century, women began to attend universities and receive degrees. What they were able to accomplish in the workplace is another matter that I won’t get into. Colgate University finally began admitting women as late as 1970. Here we are, in 2011, and we actually have more women enrolled in universities than men. Women finally have some solid statistics saying that they are doing something better than men.

The problem with this success is that men and women don’t want to attend colleges that have more than 60% of the student body comprised of women. For some reason, that 60% tipping point turns people off. Colleges are all about marketing themselves to attract as many smart students as possible. But when more of the best students applying are women, suddenly admissions counselors don’t see men and women equal. Instead of choosing the 2000 best candidates overall, they choose the 1000 best men and the 1000 best women. But those men have lower test scores, grades, and fewer appealing personal activities than the women. This means that more women are being rejected from colleges even though they probably deserve to go there. And more men are being accepted into schools even though they are performing worse than the women. It sends a message to girls that they need to work even harder and do more activities in high school than boys, just to get into the same schools. And it tells boys that they don’t need to work as hard as girls, and still get the same result of admissions to the schools they want.

Jennifer Britz wrote an article in the New York Times about this problem called “To all the Girls I’ve Rejected.” As an admissions counselor at a university, she sees first hand that admissions counselors favor male applicants in order to keep the gender ratio equal. Seeing her own daughter on the receiving end of a waitlist letter from a different school inspired her to write this article. I actually got very emotional when I first read this a few months ago because not long ago, I was one of those girls doing everything I could in high school in order to get into the colleges I wanted. Meanwhile, I saw my male peers in school goofing off, copying homework, and putting in minimal effort and still getting accepted into great schools. It just didn’t feel fair and I felt powerless. For girls like me, there is nothing more we can do. But does that mean we have to lower our standards for the type of college we can get into? Many girls probably end up going to their third or fourth choice school as a result of this favoring of males.

Affirmative action at universities was created to allow racial minority and female students to gain access to universities, which were previously made up of mostly white males. It was designed to sort of make up for past discrimination. Many people disagree with affirmative action because it has a zero-sum result: for every minority or woman admitted, one white man is not admitted. People think this is wrong when the white man actually has better test scores and the like. Some say it goes against the American way of working hard and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, not getting a free ride just because you are a minority. Some states have actually repealed affirmative action in creative ways. California’s Propositions 209 was passed in 1996. The wording of the main part of the propositions is as follows:

(a) The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting (4).

Essentially, this is saying the states will not discriminate against race, including whites. So people who are pro-affirmative action (against discrimination) voted for this bill because they thought of it as something that was anti-discriminations (which it is technically.) However, they were not aware that it basically eliminated affirmative action.

The problem with using affirmative action to benefit men, is that they were not discriminated against in the past. They have always had the full opportunity to education that women and racial minorities had to work for. And some may argue that racial minorities have lower test scores or grades because they haven’t been given as good education prior to college and they may have had fewer opportunities overall due to factors such as poverty. However, males in general have lower test scores, lower grades, and participate in fewer activities simply because they are not performing as well as they could. Clearly, if the women of the same population are doing better academically, its not the environment that is having the adverse effect on the males, it’s their gender itself.

The gender imbalance is prevalent at Colgate University just like many other liberal arts colleges. We already have a 55:45 ratio of women to men. And it is noticeable that women tend to spend more time doing their work, make up a larger percent of the “library crowd,” and participate more in class relative to the men on campus. I get a sense of apathy from my male peers when it comes to academics. They don’t care as much about what grades they get, whether they understand the material in class, or whether they contribute equitably in group projects. Its frustrating but as a woman, I don’t feel like I can call men out on their laziness, especially because it likely won’t make any difference.

No one seems to have an answer to this gender imbalance and unjust admissions policy that is taking place all over our country. Each news article I read and the video I watched don’t have an answer. They all agree that its unfair, but colleges don’t want to budge on this gender ratio because it will make them look bad. It feels anti-feminist to suggest that boys should be treated with special care to make them better students to bring them up to the same level as the girls. However, that may be the only way to actually balance out the gender ratio on college campuses. At the very least, the message needs to be sent to males in elementary school, high school, and colleges that its not okay to give their minimal effort while they watch their female peers working as hard as possible.

Birnmaum, M., & Yakaboski, T. (2011) The legan and policy implications of male-benefiting admissions policies at public institutions: Can they ever be considered affirmative action for men? http://journals.naspa.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?context=jsarp&article=6200&date=&mt=MTMwMzMyNjg2Nw==&access_ok_form=Continue

Britz, Jennifer Delahunty, To All the Girls I’ve Rejected. New York Times (2006) http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/23/opinion/23britz.html

NBC Nightly News. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22652639/ns/nightly_news_with_brian_williams-the_truth_about_boys_and_girls/

Saman Malik Global Committee Saudi Arabia. Are Girls Better Learners than Boys? Sep. 16, 2009.

Short Post 4/21

All of today’s readings were extremely informative and brought to the forefront something I did not know too much about. I grew up in a predominately white, affluent, Jewish town so I did not know much about Muslims at all. 9/11 was my first introduction to Muslims, obviously in a negative light. Arwa Ibrahim discusses this hostility a large number of Americans have towards Muslims and the discrimination American Muslims are subjected to. Two stories stuck out sharply in my mind from her essay. The first was how she interviewed young males in Iraq and described how they felt unsafe to go to school due to the U.S. troops/Iraqi government shooting at schools in retaliation to the Taliban. This story was so frightening and ultimately shocked me. I would like to think that all of the U.S. troops in Iraq are carrying out their military duties of fighting terrorism as opposed to hurting civilians. I guess that thought is a little naive. The other story she told of her family being detained in JFK for five hours was nonetheless embarrassing for all Americans. I cannot imagine ever feeling like a prisoner in my own country and being treated as a potential terrorist.

Lila Abu-Lughod’s essay, Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others, argues why Western views of the controversial burqa are not all true. Western culture sees the burqa as confining and oppressive of women. I know I cannot even begin to imagine wearing something that was constantly covering my face. I think this is why so many Westerners fear for these women because they themselves are terrified by the idea of wearing a veil. However, Lila Abu-Lughod points how many criticizers of the burqa simply do not understand the culture behind the burqa. It was really interesting to learn how most people believe the burqa was imposed by the Taliban when they took over Afghanistan. However, Abu-Lughod says how she believes many of the women emigrated from Afghanistan as things started to shake up and the women who were less-educated and poor were the ones who could not escape due to the expensive costs. This proves how the Taliban did not initiate the wearing of a burqa. Furthermore, she says, “If liberated from the enforced wearing of burqas, most of these women would choose some other sort of modest headcovering” (786). In order to fight women’s oppression in the Middle East, we need not focus on the burqa, but put our energy towards education and making women equals to their men. A lot of traditions seem incomprehensible to other cultures but that is why we need to educate ourselves instead of passing judgment on something we do not fully understand.

Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?

Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others

Lila Abu-Lughod

I think many Americans are unsure, curious, and misinformed about Muslim culture because it is so different from Western culture. We equate many of their practices with “bad” and “constraining” without taking the time to individually find out for ourselves what its actually like to live in that culture. I still feel like I have a lot to learn on this subject. During my Intro to Religion class last year, we read a book about the history and practices of Islam. What many people don’t understand is that some Islamic practices are not written in the Qur’an, but rather developed over time and were taken from other traditions and adopted into Islamic practice. For example, Abu-Lughod explains how the burqa was not invented by the Taliban and it was not a law of the Qur’an. Women of a certain ethnic group wore burqas to show their modesty, and other groups of women adopted the traditions as well. I think the problem that most people have with the burqa is that they see it as forced seclusion and oppression of women. However, as something that has been part of their culture for centuries, I don’t think that Muslim women would prefer to suddenly dress like western women, and certainly wouldn’t feel “free” doing so. I agree that all women should be free to have the same opportunities to leave the home and do what they want. But wearing a burqa is not the biggest obstacle in these womens way right now. Afghan women are not allowed to obtain education, receive proper food and nutrition or medical care like men. These are the larger issues that should be addressed and taken more seriously at this point in time.

Whose Security?

Charlotte Bunch

It may seem insensitive, but I appreciated it when Bunch wrote “in many places, people have long lived with terrorism, violence and death on a scale as great or greater than 9/11,” and although it was a shocking, tragic event, Americans became obsessed with it and assumed that it was a defining moment for everyone. I agree with her that Americans became obsessed with 9/11, even when I was 11 at the time of the attack. I think the main reason I saw this differently was that I was living in Switzerland at the time so I had a different perspective on the attack than most Americans. Yes, 3000 deaths is very tragic, but think about all the other attacks, natural disasters, and wars that have killed so many more than that. We can only be so lucky to have one day of terrorist attack compared to wars that last for years. As for it being a defining moment, I’m sure it changed many peoples’ lives, it definintely impacted our country as a whole, but I didn’t really notice any immediate, personally life-altering changes as a result.

Bunch also discusses the idea of national security as a “security less as defending territory and more in terms of protecting people.” I’m always taken aback when I watch the news coverage of places like Lybia where I see so many innocent civilians who have to deal with such violence. It seems like militaries just view civilian deaths as negligible losses that are “accidents they can’t avoid.”

Long Post 4/21

Bunch’s “Whose Security” was written to shed light on the way that the Afghan’s women’s rights have become an excuse for the war on terror, while the women have not seen many benefits. In fact the war has mainly had an opposite effect on the women’s movement in Afghanistan. While the American Government make more aggressive foreign policy, they are simultaneously ignoring national laws and conventions, which is causing conflict amongst the national women’s rights movement. A movement that was slowly moving toward creating a global awareness is now divided against women of America. There is a sense that America values military above social needs. As well as their own needs above global law. By breaking global law the US is showing counties that regularly break humans right laws that there will be no repercussions. This war became an excuse for the US to become more self-centered and justify its rash moves rather than become a chance to looking to other countries for support and therefore unifying the world. It is important that the women’s movement take the time to take a stance against the treatment that the US is giving to the rest of the world in order to continue the move towards Global citizenship.

Abu-Lughod’s article was focused on America’s obsession with saving the Muslim women and in what ways this could be a more successful campaign. She begins by pointing out the ways that America has become obsessed with learning about the lives and beliefs of Muslim women. They want to hear broad generalizations in order to take a stance that these women are oppressed. By doing this American audience is missing out on a colorful history and gaining an understanding about how things came to be this way. The obsession with the afghan woman seems to center most drastically on the veil or burqa that many women wear. Perhaps this is because it is so different from our culture which values less clothing is better. Abu-Lughod does a good job of describing why in some ways the burqa is a fashion or cultural statement. It tells something about you to the world in the similar way that women in America express themselves through fashion. While she attempts to create an understanding of the burqa she is not in anyway saying that women’s rights in Afghanistan are at an appropriate level. Her point is that we will be able to make more of a difference if we stop focusing on the veil and rather on the serious human rights violations. One of the difficulties with fighting for women’s rights is that in some ways we are joining forces with people that are seen as the enemy. While America is immediately willing to see the women as the victim it is impossible to separate them from their fathers, sons and husbands whose beliefs they likely share. The best way to improve the lives of these women is to try to contribute to their worlds rather than take over and force our ways in a colonialist manner.

Short Post 4/19

Enloe’s chapter, All the Men are in the Militias, All the Women are Victims, focuses on the idea of men being socialized to display masculinity in regards to being in a militia. The story of Borislav Herak was not at all a surprise to me. You do not have to be a crazy person to do something you know is wrong. This topic of men doing bad things in the company of other men is extremely interesting in how our society is socialized. We see horrible events like the rapes of the Bosnian women frequently in the United States. While reading this chapter, I drew a parallel to male athletic teams. We have seen in the United States how sometimes when guys get together, especially on a team, do things that they would never dare do alone. For example, we look at the Duke lacrosse team and see the scandal that shocked their school dealing with sexual assault. I agree with Enloe in that together, men feel the need to basically impress each other and commit acts they would normally see as horrible. Most guys find it easier to just join in or allow a situation to happen then stand up and put an end to the event. Enloe discusses a case where Nazi soldiers killed a group of innocent Jews and the nonshooters pleaded to the police officers, “Not that they were ‘too good’ but rather that they were ‘too weak’ to kill” (112). It is thought of cowardly and embarrassing for men in a militia to speak  up for what is right and wrong. It was really interesting to read Enloe’s second chapter, The Spoils of War, because I was not aware that the soldiers participated in such behaviors as prostitution. Enloe brings up the point of how when a woman is raped by a U.S. soldier it makes the headlines, but when women are paid to have sex and dance for the soldiers nobody cares. This is a problem because women who offer these services send the message that we are allowed to be treated worse than men and are allowed to be look at as objects. In order to solve this problem of women getting sexually assaulted we have to fight for all women and not just for the “respectable” women. The NY Times articles were very contrasting with each other. It was interesting to learn about Warhouse and how women are Captains and fight alongside men. It seems that most of the men here respect the women, maybe not at first, but in the end. However, I was kind of shocked to learn that sex was a common thing at bases. I guess that makes sense because they may have a lot of down time, but it just surprised me.

Long Post 4/19

Peril in War Zones: Sexual Abuse by Fellow GI’s

This article brings to light sexual abuse on military bases, specifically in Iraq and Afghanistan, an issue that I had never heard of before. However, I’m not surprised to hear it either. The article discusses how females in the military who are sexually assaulted or harassed have difficulty with reporting abuse, receiving support, and having their perpetrator convicted. Although the military has a stated “zero tolerance” policy for abuse or harassment, these things are often overlooked, dealt with poorly, or simply left unreported for various reasons. The usual he-said-she-said issue is prevalent as well as the fact that the “commander’s focus on the mission overshadows other concerns” such as sexual assault. Many women who are sexually assaulted in the military deal with the hierarchical structure of the military. One woman who was harassed did not report it because she is just a private but the man was a warrant officer. The women often feel like reporting abuse or harassment would mean that nothing would actually be done about it or it could negatively impact their careers. By reporting abuse, females in the military often receive punishment for committing adultery, fraternization, or under-age drinking. This just reiterates that myth that women who are raped “deserved it” because they were doing something else that was wrong. Meanwhile, the men get off free of charge and people pass it off as an act of releasing the stress of being at war. What makes this abuse and lack of follow-through after reports is that the females are forced to continue living and working alongside the men who abuse them. There is no escape without losing their jobs.

All the Men are in the Militias, All the Women are Victims.

This essay looks at the life and mindset of Borislav Herak, a young man from Yugoslavia who joined a militia during the war in the early 90’s. He ended up raping and killing Muslim Bosnian Women. Enloe uses this man to look at what made him do these horrible crimes. When he spoke to reporters about the rapes, he says that he did it because he feared being punished by being sent to the front lines of war or being thrown in jail. He also says he felt guilty about it but he never said anything about it to the other men, and they never talked about it. He and other men were apparently instructed to rape women as a boost to their morale. However, raping women did not help morale, drinking and barbequing was what helped their morale. Enloe proposes that because Borislav was an unsuccessful, lonely young man followed the militia for protection and he received acceptance by the other men. He was also given a house that was once owned by Muslims. So the appeal of this barely there connection with other men was enough to convince him to blindly follow orders to rape and kill women. Enloe ends her essay seeming like she still doesn’t quite have the answer to understanding this mentality. Perhaps if she looked at the stories of other men like Borislav, she could find more patterns that would help her piece together this psychological puzzle.

Spoils of War

This short essay discusses how military leaders actually try to provide their soldiers with prostitutes while they are deployed to satisfying their urges so that they will not rape women instead. Enloe’s main point seems to be that she is criticizing the military for condoning paying women to have sex with the officers but not condoning rape, even though prostitution can be seen as a form of rape. I think that because sex is a private, taboo subject, and the military wants to appear professional, that sex is rarely talked about. However, from these three readings we had today, we can see that sexual abuse is present in many different forms in the military and very little is being done to stop it.

Women at Arms- Living and Fighting Alongside Men, and Fitting In

This article describes the difficulties and differences that females serving in Iraq experience. Although the separate accommodations for women were not abundant at the start of the war, soldiers seem to have learned by experience to figure out what the women need and how their needs are different from the male soldiers. The article mentions that sexual harassment is an issue and that the women often don't know how to respond, but this article definitely made it seem like much less of an issue that the other article Peril in War Zones. This article focused more on the positive changes that have been made to incorporate women into the military. It also mentions that there is harassment, bias, and hardships, but this article doesn't give many examples of that. My last newsflash was about three female marines serving in Afghanistan and they talked about how the males in their unit had trained together for years and then the women were added into the group for a special mission and the men did not accept them as part of the unified group socially.

I was surprised to hear about married couples living together on bases but I guess thats sort of an ideal situation if both spouses are in the military. In my newsflash I also looked into the military's rules on pregnancy and it did mention that women who are pregnant are not allowed to be deployed, which makes sense. However, it also strongly urges soldiers to be responsible, and try to avoid having pregnancy conflict with their jobs. I noticed that working in the military is such a life-consuming career that pregnancy really doesn't mix well with it. The military also expects mothers to find childcare for their children, even if the mother is deployed overseas. This would be the same treatment that men receive, except that if a woman is in the military, then there is a pretty high chance that her husband is also in the military. I don't know the military's stance on this issue, but I think it would be a good idea if the military made sure that both parents are not deployed overseas at the same time, just in case that they both die or are injured, so as to not leave the children parent-less.

Short Post 4/19

Enloe’s chapter on men in militias shows the way in which the constructions of masculinity can affect the creations of femininity. I know that other readings in this class have discussed the importance of including men in the battle to end the oppression of women, but I believe that Enloe added to this argument in important ways. It not simply about men raising their voices in support, it is also critical to look at the ways that men are treated by each other. At one point in the chapter Enloe’s discussed a study of the men in Police Battalion 101, who were sent on killing assignments and were offered a non-killing option. He learned that the men who took the non killing option worried most about losing masculine respect and friendships. Rather than saying that they did not want to kill they stated that they were too weak, which interestingly implies that there is something wrong with them rather than the other way around. Men in militias are trained in a way all it takes is social pressures from their male comrades to inspire them to commit acts that they normally would not. I think that this is especially prevalent in a militia setting because one must depend so intensely on their friends. If your friends in your militia do not have your back your own life is at risk. One thing that is especially concerning is the way in which degrading women is so often a way to prove one masculinity. This reminds me “Against Our Will” essay by Brownmiller which talks about the way that rape can be seen as the ultimate act of masculinity. Since militias are so masculinized it makes sense that they often turn to rape in order bond and establish a power order within the group. This is seen in the actions of the American aircraft carrier pilots who had a competition of stripping women of their clothing in hotel hallways. The women are no longer seen as humans or even as sex objects, but rather as a means to prove one’s devotion to their friends and their right to be a man. This mentality that is seen in these men is vaguely reminiscent of the mentality that fraternities often seem to have towards women. In these organizations there often seems to be a feeling of bonding over treating women badly. There is a dichotomy that is created in which men elevate themselves by lowering women therefore feeding into the superiority of men.

Long Post 4/14

Cynthia Enloe’s chapter, Whom Do You Take Seriously?, brings up a lot of important issues relevant to women’s issues.  She draws the parallel of women not being able to speak out about abuse to women remaining absent from the public sphere.  The main issue she focuses on is how women are being silenced.  Enloe starts off discussing her chapter about her experiences as a teacher.  She questions how she, as a teacher, has silenced her own students.  Enloe begins to analyze the reasons of what motivates female students to not participate in class discussions.  Some may just not be stimulated by the conversation, some may fear public criticism and some may even feel that there is no point in conveying their thoughts because they feel that many teachers only pay attention to male students in regards to politics or world affairs.  Enloe brings up Hannah Arendt, who placed such importance on public speech, who became convinced “It was only by speaking to each other as citizens that we could create and sustain an authentic political life” (71).  Enloe uses Arendt’s belief to discuss the Asian and Pacific democratization movements.  These democratic reforms have given voice to a larger group publicly and politically.  She starts to narrow in on specific modes of silencing that relate to violence against Asian-Pacific women.  There is an idea supported my men and women that women are “naturally” best in the private sphere.  This idea is what women’s rights advocates are fighting to get rid of.  Enloe focuses on trivialization as being a primary cause of silencing women.  She lists three ways of how regimes, opposition parties, judges, popular movements, and the press go about making female violence seem trivial:

1.     Gendered violence is inevitable- not worth expenditures of political capital

2.     So rare-wasteful to try and prevent

3.     Other things are more important- global competition, structural adjustment or nuclear testing

4.     Undermining the credibility of the messenger

Enloe moves on to research “respectability” and how it was “the most potent tools for keeping women silenced” (75).  This idea of respectability has kept violence against women from being taken seriously as a political issue.  In most countries, women would lose respectability by publicly speaking out.  These women were the first to publicly express themselves and some even had to write articles under a man’s name to be taken seriously.  Enloe brings up how many Asian-Pacific women working in factories were subjected to sexual assault and did not speak out due to the fear of being seen as an unrespectable woman.  Enloe says, “Most women who report sexual abuse find that it is they, not their alleged abusers, who are likely to suffer damage to their precarious social reputations” (79).  Most women fear that by speaking to strangers and being the subjects of a humiliating experience are seen as less “pure” by the listeners of these women.  Organizations such as the Hong Kong based Committee for Asian Women is trying to make women understand and feel comfortable that it is okay to organize in a fashion where women can speak out in public about their political concerns and speak out I public about their sexual abuse on the job.  We discussed this in class a couple weeks ago when reading Enloe, furthermore she brings up the concept of factory owners recruiting these young women to work for them.  The factory owners persuade the parents that these are indeed respectable jobs for young women.  Enloe says how most pro-democracy movements have run into trouble with the problem of violence against women.  To prove this point she says, “the pressure to expand citizen participation has increased when men and women have interpreted a given incidence of violence against women as evidence of the current regime’s inability or unwillingness to protect the most vulnerable members of the putative nation” (80).  This concept as led still-masculinized movement leaders to become humiliated, which has actually stripped women of their own political voice in regards to the violence.  Moreover, women are frowned upon speaking out against men who are part of their nation and therefore subjected to “keep quiet for the sake of the “nation””(81).  Enloe further develops this argument by saying sovereignty has partially contributed to this silencing.

Steinem’s article, Supremacy Crimes, is extremely informative and raises awareness about our idea of masculinity in society.  Steinem points out that the majority of hate crimes, “senseless” killings etc., are carried out by white, non-poor males of heterosexual orientation.   This leads Steinem to question the cause of such behavior in a systemic sense.  She says, “it's not their life experiences that are the problem, it's the impossible expectation of dominance to which they've become addicted”.  Men are subjected to this idea of power and domination from early on in life.  However, most men do not thrive on the idea of dominance and do not carry out such awful acts to prove their dominance.  Although, there are some men who do choose this outlet.  Steinem says, “the very existence of gentle men proves that socialization can override it”.  This fact is extremely important in shaping society.  There are plenty of men who feel no need to be dominant and use power to prove they are the powerful gender.  Steinem brings up interesting points when she refers to specific cases such as the idea of race playing in as a factor for crime.  However, the white male is the one who is typically committing these massacres.  Also, not once does Steinem give an example of a female who has committed a crime at this level.  This is because women have never been socialized to thrive on dominance and feel the urge to demonstrate their dominance.  Steinem closes her article on a strong note saying, “We will never reduce the number of violent Americans, from bullies to killers, without challenging the assumptions on which masculinity is based: that males are superior to females, that they must find a place in a male hierarchy, and that the ability to dominate someone is so important that even a mere insult can justify lethal revenge”.  This statement adequately sums up the action society needs to take to prevent these horrific tragedies from taking place.

Short Post 4/14

I assume we will probably discuss the budget cuts in class, but since i've been interested in this issue this week and I was looking at articles anyways, i figured I would post an article about the budget cuts and mention some of the programs that seem to relate to the class in the sense that they will negatively affect women, especially low-income women. I also want to mention that I even though these numbers look huge to most of us, the actual impact on each individual is unknown at this point and it might not even be noticeable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/whats-getting-cut-in-the-fy-2011-budget/2011/04/11/AFMIynLD_blog.html

$456 million cut from public housing Capital Fund

$942 million cut from Community Development fund

$100 million cut from HOPE VI

These three funds all work to repair and maintain public housing.

(52 percent of all public housing is occupied by elderly or handicapped households, 43 percent by households with children (including some with handicapped heads of household), 56 percent of public housing with children is a single-parent-household,). http://www.huduser.org/periodicals/ushmc/spring95/spring95.html

$17 million cut from family planning agencies like Planned Parenthood.

$870 million cut from department of labor programs for job training, literacy, vocational skills, and welfare-work services.

$103 million cut from legislative branch. (interesting!)

Finally, the department of defense will receive $5 billion more than last year! I was surprised by this one because defense is already our country's biggest source of spending. I'm actually surprised that there aren't more news articles pointing this out because this was one of the only areas that more money way granted for this year compared to last year.

Supremacy Crimes

Steinem

This essay was really interesting because I never thought about this before, especially not from the perspective Steinem took. She claims that white, lower-class males commit supremacy crimes because they are addicted to dominance. She points out that "even if one believes in a biogenetic component of male aggression, the very existence of gentle men proves that socialization can override it." The idea of this problem as an addiction makes sense when you think about how men commit these crimes even though they will have no benefit to him, and will probably result in a worsening of his condition. At the end of her essay Steinem says that this problem of violence (in general) will never be fixed until we challenge the assumption that "males are superior to females, and that males must find a place in male hierarchy, and the ability to dominate is so important that even a mere insult can justify lethal revenge." I think thats a really good point, but she brings it up at the end of her essay and then doesn't expand on it. This could have been just the introduction to a five page essay. I wanted to read more about it but she stopped short. I related her thoughts to an experience I had this fall at Beta Beach. I was standing in the crowd next to my friend. A couple boys in front of us started fighting and right away we were scared. We tried to get away but before we could, my friend was punched in the face by one of the boys fighting. He didn't mean to, he just let his fist swing in the heat of the fight, but he never even noticed that he just punched a girl in the face. Its not fair that even though girls are generally non-violent, we still get hurt as innocent by-standers. If males were less violent, including with other males, it would makes women feel safer around men.