The Lady and the Tramp (II): Feminist Welfare Politics, Poor Single Mothers, and the Challenge of Welfare Justice.
Gwendolyn Mink
I see why Mink argues that work in the home should be paid but I don’t see her logical argument of how that would be feasible.Although she points out that housework can be calculated by comparing it to the jobs that it is comprised of: childcare, cooking, cleaning, etc.However, would this work be paid hourly?Would every person be able to receive this aid?What about single adults who care only for themselves?Would everyone be paid at the same hourly rate?And the biggest question, where would this money come from?Wouldn’t paid housework essentially be lowering each person’s taxes?Because the wages would most likely come from the government which receives the money via the taxes that every household pays to the government.So the money would just cycle through the system with a lot of money lost along the way as a result of all that processing and organization.I do believe that housework is worth something, especially because people make a living doing aspects of housework.
One thing that I was somewhat confused by was that Mink did not clearly explain how the Personal Responsibilities Act changed the welfare laws for single mothers.I was also confused as to whether she was arguing that single mothers deserve welfare so that they are not forced to work outside the home, or that they should receive welfare to supplement their wages because they are the only wage-earning member of the household.
Finally, as I was researching welfare, I found this article that discusses the amount of money spent on welfare and social services for illegal immigrants.I don’t understand how illegal immigrants can receive all of this aide in food stamps and healthcare and no one seems to be doing anything about it.Its really sad that these people need to basically steal from the rest of the public (because they don’t pay taxes but they reap the benefits) in order to survive.
Mink’s article coincides with exactly what my economics professor has been discussing on poverty and welfare.The problem with the new laws legislated by Clinton, is that people can only be on welfare for five years of their lives. This is unrealistic for most single women with children facing poverty. The problem is that a woman’s work in the home is not technically work, in that the woman receives a wage for her duties. As much as I don’t see women ever being paid ever to be a stay at home mother, the Personal Responsibility Act has made it harder for women to move out of poverty and get in to the labor force. Something I found really interesting was how Mink sheds light on the topic of care giving for other families. I never really thought about how women are paid to take care of children from a different family, but not their own. These women are doing the exact same work, yet they are being rewarded with money for it. This is because of the ideas many people hold about housework/ being a stay at home mother. Mink discusses how within the feminist movement there are different beliefs. She says how middle-income feminists believe a woman’s being able to earn a wage grants her independence. I agree with Mink that women in poverty need to be helped with government programs and feminists acting for them by activism. However, the subject of welfare is extremely controversial and emotional. For example, the inequality gap in America is $60 billion. Moreover, the government spends about $500 billion on welfare programs. When congressmen look at poverty, they had to account for the emotional side and the political side.
The emotional side strikes in when you hear stories such as Rosanna Eang’s. I found her story to be captivating and extremely moving. The fact that young children are subjected to that type of childhood, in America, is extremely upsetting. Her perseverance wowed me and enlightened me to realize no matter how hard I try to empathetic and understand what growing up in poverty would be like, I will never know. Until you actually experience something, it is harder to fight for a cause. Most policymakers have never experienced poverty and so they allot a certain amount of welfare thinking that will get them out of poverty. I cannot even imagine how Eang might feel about her accomplishments. I like to think that I am a strong-willed person and would be able to handle/survive any adversity handed to me. But after hearing how her mother slaved and slaved over her family and countless jobs, I really don’t know where I would stand when faced with poverty. What is even more upsetting, is how much poverty plays a role in America. I cannot even imagine the role it plays in a third world country such as Cambodia.
Mink’s article “The Lady and the Tramp” discusses a theme that frequently arises in our class and that is the way the feminist movement can be harmed by divisions within it.Since this movement affects all women in the world there is a huge spectrum of people to which different issues in the movement are important.Since different factions see different issues as important sometimes members of the same movement end up unintentionally working against each.Mink illustrates this concept by looking at the Personal Responsibility Act and the way it has affect poor working women.This act stripped many poor working mothers of their entitlement to welfare and devalued the work that they are doing within their homes.Their has been a public image created of these women of abusing the system simply because they do not want to work.It is projected that they sit at home breeding children and living of the hard work of other Americans.What is upsetting about this bill is that it devalues the work that these women do in their homes, while raising their children.The Government is willing to consider the work that more well off homemakers do in the home as work, but since these women do not have money their work in the home is ignored.
The way that this issue has divided the women’s movement is that it is difficult for middle class women to see that the option to stay at home can be liberating.Women of the middle class expended so much energy in earning the right to work and escape the home that they cannot see how economically disadvantaged women want the option.While middle class women saw the home as a trap, economically disadvantaged and often non white women never got the option to stay home.They would leave their home and children everyday in order to earn money caring for someone else’s children.Having a right to income support for the job of caring for one’s children is a step towards women being seen as dependents.An issue like this that can affect women in a multitude of different ways shows how important it is that women take the time to see issues through other women’s eyes.The women’s movement will be at its strongest when we all band together rather than allowing ourselves to become divided factions.
Rosanna Eang’s uses her personal story of living in poverty to show how it can be a perpetuating cycle and the strength that it take to overcome that cycle.She was born in the United States to a family of immigrants that had fled from the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.Her family resided in Philadelphia in a home that housed her immediate and extended family.Even though her family was happy to enjoy the freedom of America it did not come without confrontations of racism and sexual abuse because no one was around to protect the kids.Eang’s is especially grateful to her mother’s hard work because like many women in America, but more extreme she had to take on both domestic and external work.While the men were expected to make money, her mother tended to a family of seventeen people and spent time working in factories.What her mother and her rough childhood taught her was that the way out of poverty is through education.Education became her tool against remaining in poverty as well as fight the oppression of women that often accompanies poverty.I thought that the way in which she used her experience to start an organization that would read to poor children while they wait for their doctor’s appointments was amazing.She knew that it was not just facts and science, but compassion and setting a good example that will help break this cycle.
Megan Pinand’s passage, “Stories from the Sidelines” really hit home to me because like her I imagine myself in a successful well-paid job after schooling.However, just like her I want to have a family and not abandon my children for my career.It was interesting to hear how there is no correct answer and that we are told as young college students that we can “have it all”.Pinand has already begun to see the troubles in trying to secure her career and have children before she even has any.Pinand’s piece correlates to the “Mommy Tax”.This chapter really blew my mind because I would have never imagined a situation like the one that DiBiasi found herself in.Women’s leaving the workforce to tend to their children is portrayed as a choice in our society.However, DiBiasi’s story showed how she did everything she could to stay at her job and not leave the workforce.I thought it was ridiculous how are bosses purposely changed her job to something that was not feasible with her obligations to motherhood.Basically, she was discriminated against and forced out of the workforce. http://cnettv.cnet.com/another-look-opting-out/9742-1_53-50028934.htmlI found this video of a philosopher Linda Hirshman, describing how women need to choose to stay in the workforce as opposed to quitting.I found this to go completely against the “Mommy Tax”. Hirshman says women need to choose not to leave the workforce and balance their lives without giving up their careers.I agree with Hirshman that women should not leave the workforce, but I do not agree that all women are choosing to leave.Something that even surprised me more was the discrimination that men faced by trying to help out more with family life.This is horrible and shows how employers are not valuing family life for both women and men.
From a sociological standpoint, women are being subjected to criticism for remaining in the workforce and leaving the workforce.In my economics class, we are currently discussing poverty.Single women with children make up the largest poverty group in America and most welfare programs are targeted to them.However, if they do find work, they are criticized for not being there for their children.This is a ridiculous concept because there can definitely be a balance between work and family life.Another thing that blows my mind is how women who went to University of Michigan Law School were being paid less than men who basically had the same educational experience.We need to get rid of these stupid stereotypes of women and how they are judged if they work part time, and also judged if they are a stay at home mother.These articles scared me a little bit because I plan on getting an MBA and making a good living for my family.However, I want to be there with my kids while they are growing up and I would want my husband there too.I could imagine how hard the balance would be, but I never realized it would become so hard that an employer was able to force me out of the workforce.
The readings for class today made me take a second to question many norms that I have grown up with and always taken for granted.Dalla Costa’s writing about the wages for housework was a revolutionary idea for me.I am still not sure whether I agree with this movement, but it did raise some strong points.I began to wonder how it is that the majority of the housework came to fall on the shoulders of women.It really is an interesting phenomenon that this is a common trend in almost all cultures across the globe.I loved the fact that she talked about how this is an opportunity for women to unite.One of the biggest difficulties that the feminist movement faces is that it is applicable to people across such a varied span of economic and social situations.It is hard to gain support for a movement that means so many different things to different people.Last week I watched a documentary called “Beyond Belief” which featured a Colgate graduate who lost her husband in 9/11.The documentary told the story of her coming together with another 9/11 widow and creating a non-profit organization that helped widows in Afghanistan.I feel like this documentary related a lot to the Dalla Costa writing because it showed how women from two very different cultures can bond over the common aspects of their struggle.It was amazing to see these women take a step back from their own grief and empathize with women in a country that is considered to be the enemy.When the two American women traveled to Afghanistan and met the women that they were helping through there organization it was clear how much in common they had.At one point they said that “a mother is a mother is a mother” the tasks and fears that a mother must confront are similar no matter where in the world you are.While housework may be a weakness that women must deal with it can be changed into a power because it does unite women.At the end of the day both the American women and the Afghani women were worried about creating a safe and happy home for their children.This underlying desire was enough to surpass incredible amounts of hated and that is a really powerful thing.The link to the website for Beyond Belief is:
In the fall of 2010, Beyonce launched a commercial for her new line of perfume, Heat. Beyonce’s commercial reflects Susan Douglas’s concept of enlightened sexism by showing that the feminist movement has ended and women are free to be in control of their sexuality; hence, empowering women. However, I will prove that Beyonce’s Heat commercial is not empowering to women and actually strips women of their dignity by displaying them solely as sexual objects. Beyonce says, “I want women to definitely feel sexy, strong, empowered and I want them to feel like they can conquer anything when they walk in to a room. And I want them to feel like they can leave a lasting impression on everyone they walk past”. That was what Beyonce wanted Heat to represent for women: empowerment, being in control, sex appeal. Is her commercial empowering? In this paper, I will prove why the answer is no.
Beyonce’s Heat commercial starts off by showing the bottle of perfume for a mere three seconds and then quickly transitions to Beyonce lying in a bathtub naked, rubbing her shoulders. Throughout the whole commercial, slow seductive music is playing and the lighting remains dark and steamy. Beyonce wears a red satin robe that is open down the middle of her chest, barely covering her breasts. She is pouting her lips and moving throughout the commercial in a sexual fashion while wearing black high heels and having her legs look as if they were perspiring. The commercial focuses on Beyonce’s body and the sexy moves she undertakes. However, the commercial is suppose to promote Beyonce’s perfume, Heat, and the only time you actually see what the bottle looks like is quickly in the beginning and end of the commercial. The image that is sticking in young women’s mind is the image of Beyonce strutting around half naked.
Beyonce’s goal in filming this commercial is to promote her new perfume, Heat. After viewing this commercial several times, I began to question if Beyonce was advertising sex or perfume and if they were interchangeable. I believe that both sex and perfume are being advertised and are in relation with one another. For starters, like I said above, the perfume is only shown in the commercial for a quick second, definitely not long enough for a consumer to remember what the bottle looks like. The commercial, like many other perfume commercials, are linking a scent to a sexual experience. Beyonce’s sexual appearance in the commercial sells the image of women becoming sexually desired by all men, just by smelling them. What is being advertised in this commercial is the idea of Heat and what doors it’s contagious smell unlocks. The scent is not being advertised clearly because not once is smelling the perfume involved in the commercial. Heat holds an idea of sexual desire and Beyonce advertises her sexiness to be attached to the product. Men and women view this commercial and immediately see sex appeal in Beyonce. It is the image of Beyonce the viewer will remember when going to the store to try and search for this new hot commodity.
The Heat commercial sends the message to viewers that as long as you wear this perfume, you will be considered indefinitely sexually desired by all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mecYFl188E&feature=related. I have embedded this video to go along with the Heat commercial to give voice to Beyonce in explaining why her Heat commercial is the way it is. Beyonce wants this commercial to promote empowerment of women and give women the feeling that they are unstoppable and can conquer anything. Why does society connect sexiness to empowerment? Susan Douglas goes in to depth on this idea in Enlightened Sexism and what we learn is that the fight for feminism is considered to be ancient by many women. We now feel that we are able to use or bodies in any sexual way to demonstrate our sexual freedom that we lacked for centuries. Beyonce is an attractive woman and flaunts herself for all to see in her commercial for Heat. Why not use your sexuality to increase revenue? By displaying our sexuality we are in fact stripping our inherent power and giving men the mindset that they are the ones with the power in all aspects of life and women are secondary to them. Beyonce’s commercial does not empower women; unless you think strippers and Playboy bunnies are empowering. Beyonce’s commercial is degrading woman and sending the message “you see what you get”, meaning a sexual being is all we are. As quoted from the embedded video, Beyonce wants women to leave a lasting impression when they walk by someone. How can you possibly leave a non-sexual lasting impression by not even talking to a stranger and simply just strutting by? I have embedded a magazine ad for Beyonce’s Heat. http://pinoytutorial.com/lifebytes/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/beyonce-heat-perfume.jpg. This picture further proves why this commercial is purely sexual and offers nothing of empowerment to women.
Society has linked perfume for men and women with ideas of sexuality. Beyonce’s commercial may empower women, but only in regards to sexuality. When I think of empowering women, I think of ideas displayed in Enlightened Sexism that Douglas refers to as embedded feminism. I think of empowering women when I see women in successful careers or women who dominate a sports arena. I do not see in any way how being viewed as a sexual object is empowering to women. Beyonce’s Heat is striving to tell women that they will feel powerful and sexy if they wear Heat. Women should want to smell good or bad for themselves to begin with. However, our society puts a strong emphasis on men and women to appeal to others more importantly than themselves. Beyonce jumps right on the bandwagon with this idea. Beyonce sends the message that a perfume can make you feel more than just smelling nice. Heat can make you feel like a new woman. I would say that this is a far reach for a perfume to accomplish, however that is why Beyonce’s commercial for a perfume focuses on herself as oppose to the perfume. Women who see this commercial will say, “Wow! Beyonce looks so good and is so sexy and if I wear Heat I can feel sexy and good about myself too”. Since when does smelling a certain way allow you to conquer the world?
Another problem I have with this commercial is the concept that the commercial for Heat is a large contributor to many low-esteems of women. For example, what happens to the woman who does not fit the typical “feminine” characteristics and never does feel sexy? Does she feel empowered by simply spritzing a perfume on herself? I would have to say that buying Heat is not going to make this woman or any woman feel as if she can conquer anything in the world and be seen as sexy. Furthermore, Beyonce’s commercial genuinely makes women feel worse about themselves. We see in Enlightened Sexism how women who do not fit in to this ideal of feminism are treated poorly and are the end of every joke ex. Janet Reno. Yes, of course Beyonce is stunning in the commercial, but paid professionals also created a beauty by perfecting every flaw with make-up, lighting and camera angles. Beyonce’s commercial is defining beauty as outer beauty. Not once during the commercial does it talk about being a good person, having values or being warm-hearted. The commercial is trying to do one thing and that is make money. Beyonce’s Heat racked up 3 million dollars worth of sales in the first month on shelves (Miller 2010). Beyonce is definitely receiving large benefits so who could blame her? We all know America is a capitalist society, but these commercials and other media objects are detrimental to women by portraying them as all beauty and nothing else. As we know from all of our class discussions and reading Susan Douglas, we are in a period of enlightened sexism. Enlightened sexism is making large strides backward in the feminist movement. Today, successful women are criticized for not being “feminine” enough. Beyonce’s commercial creates what many people think as ideal feminine characteristics. These set of guidelines are not empowering to women and Beyonce’s commercial does exactly the opposite of what she hoped it would do. It makes women empowered in one category: sexuality.
Morning talk shows are a unique niche of mainstream media. There is an especially powerful aspect to these shows because they enter houses all around the nation every morning. The people on the shows become like friends greeting us every morning and in that way they earn a certain level of trust from the audience. The Today Show is a well-known and respected morning show, which as evidenced by its ratings has come to perfect the recipe for what it takes to become successful. Overall there is a mix of genders amongst the cast of the show, but there is one portion that is gender imbalanced. This segment features Kathie Lee and Hoda, which airs at 10:00 am Eastern Standard Time. During this segment the feel of the show shifts from a news perspective to a gossipy and discussion based feel. This shift sparked my interest because it seems like a conscious decision to feature only women at this time of day to handle the discussion based segment. After learning about the relationship between gender and the media throughout the course of this class it appears that The Today Show may be using Kathie Lee and Hoda as a way to project the image of empowered women. The media knows how to project the image of an empowered woman in order to earn the trust and respect of the female audience. This image of empowerment is far from the reality because the image is then exploited by corporations to sell products.
In order to test this theory I examine a clip of an episode of Today with Kathy Lee and Hoda that is about finding the right jean for your specific body type. This clip is an example of a fairly typical segment that Kathie Lee and Hoda cover on a daily basis. It discusses how finding the right jeans for your body can “change your life”. Immediately women come across as shallow beings whose only aspiration in life is to find jeans that will fit her. I believe that the average American woman would not stand for the media to belittle her in such a way. The question then becomes what is it about this show makes women not only willing to hear this criticism, but also to believe it?
The first step in earning the trust of the American female audience is through the crafting an appearance that is deemed acceptable. In class we discussed how prominent female figures in the media are mocked if they do not properly play the role of femininity. That can go either way with Susan Boyle being the example of a woman who displays a lack of femininity versus Sarah Palin who is seen as overly feminine. Hoda and Kathie Lee have created an image that walks the line between feminine and professional. This narrow realm of acceptability of appearance is reminiscent of “The New Girliness” from Douglas’ book Enlightened Sexism. In this chapter Douglas discusses the recent image that women can be ultra feminine, while at the same time being empowered and making a difference in the world. The way in which Kathie Lee and Hoda are presented encapsulates this idea. They are perfectly made-up, have impeccably matching accessories and in this particular episode are wearing body-hugging jeans. They are conforming to a very narrow image of feminism that America demands of women in power. The empowered woman wears respectable yet feminine and figure showing clothing without being overtly sexual. This exemplifies the paradox that images of empowered women in the media create. The public sees Kathie Lee and Hoda as empowered women when they are really being controlled by some greater force. They cannot really be empowered if a corporation, whose main objective is to make money, is dictating their image.
This discrepancy between image and reality carries over from their image to the content that they cover in their segments. The content that is covered in the fourth hour of The Today Show has similar characteristics to the advertising and product placement in women’s magazines. Kathie Lee and Hoda introduce many products as objects that will improve women’s lives by improving their looks. In this particular episode on jeans it is apparent that the sales tactic used is similar to something that would be seen in women’s magazines. One similarity is the way in which they say the models are “five real women with five real problems”. By calling women with bodies that differ from what is seen as ideal as “problem bodies” is a way to make women in the audience feel insecure. Suddenly they see their differences as problems that can only be fixed by finding the right pair of jeans. Then the first “real woman” is brought out and she is shown wearing a brand called “Hello! Skinny Jeans”, which ironically is the same perfect pair of jeans that Kathie Lee is wearing. I went to the website for this jean brand and saw that Hello! Skinny Jean has a section on its home page that said, “as seen on” and Today with Kathie Lee and Hoda was listed.
Clearly both The Today Show as well as Hello! Skinny Jeans is in someway benefiting from this partnership. The only people who seem to be disadvantaged by this deal are the everyday women of the audience.
The everyday women viewer is targeted by the time of day that this airs because it is believed to be the stay at home wife that would be watching TV at this time. Once this target is designated NBC needs only to find partnerships with companies whose products they can push onto these viewers. Hello! Skinny Jeans is a great choice because their brand can benefit from the publicity as well. The next step is to make the housewives watching feel bad about their bodies and then spend their money. Clearly this proposition must be presented in a positive manner and that is where the image of the empowered woman becomes a selling tool. Through fostering an image of Kathie Lee and Hoda as empowered women the pushing of products comes off as a secret between friends. There is a feeling that these women want all women to achieve their best and would only recommend what they personally know to be good for them. The question is who is really benefiting? In women’s magazines as well as Today with Kathie Lee and Hoda, the image of the empowered woman is exploited in a manner that forces women betray other women. Advice that may be taken as an insult when coming from a man is manipulated to be seen as friendly advice. Corporations that are often patriarchal in structure have found a way to use the image of empowered women to gain trust and sell their products to the before unreachable female population.
The media object I chose for my analysis is a billboard ad I saw while I was in Rome, Italy last week. It was in every subway station all over the city. It is an ad for the clothing company Antony Morato. It caught my eye because it is a very simple ad that features a male model in black and white on the far left and the brand name in bold letters to his right and at the bottom in small print is the website MORATO.IT. The ad caught my eye not only because it is an eye-catching simple ad that was all over the place, but also because the model featured in the ad has a much more feminine look than American male models show in ads here in the United States. I actually had to do a double take to check and make sure it was a man and not a masculine looking woman. After seeing this ad a few times and observing young men on the street, I realized that men in Italy have a very different sense of style and Italian society has a different standard for what makes a man attractive compared to our standard in the United States. This ad is trying to sell the clothes that will make a man look like that ideal image of a young, svelte man. I realized that clothing does not have to be categorized as strictly male or female items. After thinking about this ad and how it relates to Ann Fausto-Sterling's writings, I realized that Italian culture has a more lenient ideology of gender separation and portrayal of sexuality; they view gender on more of a continuum than categorical basis.
What makes the male model look feminine is his facial bone structure, clean shaven face, tight pants, V-neck white T-shirt under his blazer, three-quarter length sleeves blazer and he is wearing a belt around his waist over his blazer instead of on his pants. Women wear belts like this all the time to accentuate a narrow waist; but I have never seen a man wear a belt like this because in the United States we do not think of the ideal man as having a narrow waist, we think of a well-built man with a thick torso. Women tend to wear tighter fitting clothing to show off the shape of their body. Evolutionarily men are attracted to women based on their body-shape and perceived ability to bear children. Women are attracted to men based on qualities such as strength, reliability, and protectiveness. Italian men’s wear challenges that notion by showing off the male body the way that women tend to do. Maybe this bridging of the gap between mens and womens styles makes it easier for men and women to relate. On the other hand, one could interpret this clothing style as one aimed at men who identify as gay or transgendered. If that approach is taken, then it is very interesting to see an ad like that all over the city blended in as just another ad on the subway station wall. If this ad is targeted at gay men, then they might be attracted to the model and want to look sexy and svelte like him in order to attract other men. By advertising clothing to gay men, this shows an underlying acceptance of gay men without being too obviously in favor of homosexuality which might offend some people.
I noticed that in Italy men tend to be shorter and skinnier than men in the United States. So naturally, Italian men physically look more similar to Italian women. The men like to wear skinny pants and leather jackets. I heard once that Italian men dress to stand out (as do many women) and look good to attract women. In many other cultures, like the United States, men dress to fit in. A good example of this would be a corporate office: every man in the office is likely wearing a black or navy blue suit; but women wear a variety of colors, shapes, and lengths of suits, skirts, dresses and blouses. Many people praise Italian men for choosing to look stylish while maintaining their manly image. I think that Italian men do not pay much attention to dressing to prove their heterosexuality or masculinity; they dress to be stylish and show off their bodies. The billboard I chose is an extreme example of a man dressing in a feminized way; most Italian men’s clothing is more masculine than that. However, the fact that there is such a feminized men’s look that is so pervasive all over the city shows that Italians are accepting of such an image. As Fausto-Sterling discussed, gender does not have to be separated into distinctly male or female. Men and women can wear some of the same clothing items, especially in a place where their bodies are not so different from each other.
The company’s website promotes their ideology of striving to provide well-made clothing at a reasonable price and their target consumer is 18 to 35 years old. Because they are targeting the average male, they are saying that pretty much anyone can have this look. It is not an image of luxury or boring conformity; they are appealing to men who want to look good and stand out without having to try too hard or pay too much money for that look. As an interesting side note, the company profile emphasizes that “the style organization is all Made-in-Italy,” but in a different section it says, “90% of the production is made in China, in a facility where the Company holds a participation quote. The remaining 10% is made between Italy and Turkey. Shoes and Leathers are 100% Made in Italy” (http://www.morato.it/2011/cp_ss11_eng.pdf). They are appealing to the idea that Italian clothing is well made, but many of their consumers probably do not realize that the clothing is not actually made in Italy, which is the main reason why they can sell their clothes at a lower cost.
Antony Morato’s ad appeals to Italian men because Italian’s have an ideal image of a man who fits a less masculine form compared to American men. This is possible because gender and sexuality in Italy (for young adults today) is not as categorically based as it is in America. This image brings men’s and women’s style closer together and provides a more fluid continuum between the genders.
Cynthia Enloe’s chapter, “The Globetrotting Sneaker”, discusses how companies such as Reebok and Nike have used global strategies to increase their revenue in addition to making shoes overseas for considerably lower prices. Enloe starts off my reviewing Reebok’s strategy to move to Russia to increase sales in post-Cold War era. The Reebok advertised shoes were way out of most families budgets, however they were advertised to children who had a better chance at persuading their parents than Reebok themselves. Enloe points out, “In 1993, almost 60 percent of Russia’s single parents, most of whom were women, were living in poverty” (43). As “global competitiveness” increased, so did the exploitation of women in these American shoe company factories. Trade agreements such as NAFTA and WTO are the reason behind this allowing of exploitation of women.Organizations such as NAFTA and WTO allow countries like the U.S. to set up agreements for working conditions and such with governments from these 3rd World countries. Most of these governments are military regimes, therefore not allowing public opinion. The passing of NAFTA and WTO in the 1990s only made it easier for U.S. companies to produce overseas at an extremely low cost. Before these trade agreements, the U.S. was already setting up cheap factories in Taiwan and South Korea. Companies such as Nike, would further shy themselves from the exploitation they knew of by not owning these factories, but instead sub-contracting the production process to foreign companies in order to not be responsible for the exploitation of women. South Korean women began to organize to fight for their rights and against the long hours, horrible pay and assaults they were subjected to. Finally, the South Korean women used the activism to receive higher pay, although still 50% of men’s pay in the 90s, and U.S. shoe companies moved out of South Korea to cheaper countries: China, Indonesia and Thailand. Enloe says, “the regimes in these countries believed that if women can be kept hard at work, low-paid, and unorganized they can serve as a magnet for foreign investors” (49). As U.S. companies moved out of South Korea, many women were left jobless and resorted to the “entertainment” industry. However, women throughout China, Indonesia and Thailand still organized and were fully aware of the risks. Both Reebok and Nike try to prove they are companies that respect the lives of human beings by making a couple visit to their oversea factories each year. Enloe discusses how women are forced to lie to the International Labor Organization because they are hoarded in to a room to keep quiet and have the mouths taped to prevent the women from talking to each other. The issue of women being exploited is extremely important and needs to be dealt with. We cannot hide this exploitation by focusing on the benefits of “free trade”.
“Daughters and Generals in the Politics of the Globalized Sneaker” discusses the politics behind companies and governments creating an idea of feminism. Women became dependent on working in the factories as defining their femininity and Nike and Reebok became dependent on these women to be profitable. In Korea during the 1970s, many young women were being brainwashed by the Korean government to leave their homes in the countryside and be far from their parents. This migration was seen as patriotic. Young women wanted to move to urban areas and work in the city to make money to send back to their poor farmer parents and make money for their dowries. The government redefined daughterly respectability and was able to persuade parents to allow their daughters to work in these urban factories; therefore, allowing industrialization in South Korea. Enloe says, “inside every computer chip, inside every elaborately stitched sneaker produced in the 1970s and 1980s, is a complex web of Cold War militarized, feminized respectability and daughterly patriotism” (61). A women’s studies scholar Seung-kyung Kim investigated these women by working on the assembly line. Kim found that many of the women did not mind the long hours and low pay because they felt their job was patriotic. Many feminist activists found that factory owners would offer dating services to get these women married. These owners liked to get rid of the older women who were more costly and fill their spots with younger women who could be paid the “training fee”. However, in the mid 1980s Korean factory workers became more aware of their role as a Korean citizen and U.S. companies started to shut-down their factories and move to look towards Indonesia.
Anuradha Shyam discusses the role of South Asian women in the United States Corporate world. “Safe Keepers and Wage Earners” reveals how South Asian women are further discriminated against as just being women. Shyam talks about the traditional values these women grow up with. Many women from South Asia grow up with strong traditional values where women do the housework and there is an apparent relationship between a man’s world, work, and a woman’s world, the home. Shyam works with organizations to help women from this area get out of abusive relationship and become financially independent. Something very interesting Shyam discusses is the fact that many women college graduates aspire to be a CEO, an executive or a boss. However, these women are subjected to family life and often ending up leaving the workforce because they are not able to be promoted anymore.
Aside from opening my eyes to the injustice that these Asian women face in order to make a living, this chapter made me appreciate the fact that women like me in the United States generally have so much more of a choice in their life compared to those women in Asia. It seems like many of them are working in these factories because it’s one of the only ways that they can make money to support themselves and their families. And these jobs are not even good enough to do that but there is no better option available to them. When I put myself in the place of a girl my age but living in poverty in Indonesian, I realize how hard it must be to get up and go to such a miserable job every day; I’m sure none of them ever dreamed of working on a sneaker factory or consider it a fulfilling career. It makes me feel guilty that I complain about getting up to go to class in the morning. Obviously I’m in a much better situation so I shouldn’t take that for granted. I also have basically an unlimited choice of what I want to do as a career, where I want to work, and I don’t have to support my parents or children at this point. I feel like everything about my life situation is the opposite of most of the women described in this chapter. I never realized that Confucian philosophy worked against these women through the belief that that “a woman’s morality [is judged by] her willingness to work hard for her family’s well-being and to acquiesce to her father’s and husband’s dictates” (46). It’s a tough issue because if we were to ask those women to reject that notion, then we are telling them to reject their religion, something important to who they each are as individuals. However, most of these women probably grew up in a family that taught Confucianism and never thought of challenging their religion and thinking about what they truly believe.
Safe Keepers and Wage Earners
I see that Shyam is writing about her own personal experiences and giving us her perspective on how South Asian women in America are expected to have full-time demanding jobs as well as maintain their homes and take care of their families. However, I don’t think that this is as issue faced only by South Asian women. I think it is present in women of all cultures in America today. My mother worked until I was seven when my family moved for my dad’s job. Today I can see that even though my mom doesn’t work at a paying job, she still has a lot of responsibilities. I also feel like I am getting this great education and I want to have a successful career, but I also want to have a family and I don’t want to/might not be able to rely on help from other people. Shyam seems to claim that what makes life even more demanding on South Asian women is that they are expected to pass on religion and tradition to their children. Maybe this requires more effort and active work for her, but I see that women of all cultures, as well as men, actively pass on traditions and religion to their children. In the second half of her chapter she talks about how women in corporate jobs are stereotyped and many leave work or opt for less-demanding positions in order to fulfill family responsibilities. I totally see what she means. My dad works at a company similar to the one she describes and from what I hear from my dad, there are far fewer female partners in his firm than men. I also think that men might feel more comfortable working with other men because they think similarly and have more in common. So a man choosing between a man or a woman for promotion may unconsciously (or consciously) choose the man because he feels more comfortable working with him. He may also suspect that a man is in the job for the long-haul and therefore favor the man over the woman who might possibly leave the firm within a few years to spend more time taking care of her children.
Paula Ettelbrick makes some very interesting points in her article, Since When is Marriage a Path to Liberation?Ettelbrick is challenging the institution of marriage and arguing that gays fighting for legalized marriage rights are fighting to be considered the same as a heterosexual relationship.This is interesting because from Andrea Vaccaro’s chapter in Leading the Way, we understand Andrea’s reasons for wanting to be married.Andrea wants to be able to become married to her partner for all the reasons a straight man would want to marry his girlfriend.She points out the 1,000 federal benefits that gays are not subjected to because they are not legally married.Ettelbrick makes the argument that legalizing marriage for gays will not stop the oppression gays face from oppressors.She makes a really strong argument by pointing out that everyone in the United States strives to be “normal” and instead of fighting for marriage, continue to fight for equal treatment and zero discrimination for gays from all parties.
Michelle’s youtube link reminded me of the movie The Kids Are Alright.In the movie, Annette Bening and Julianne Moore play a lesbian couple married with two children born with the aid of a sperm donor.The kids find out who their biological father is and want to meet him.He starts off as an immature, irresponsible guy who first says, “I love lesbians” when he finds out that the children has lesbian mothers.The sperm donor, Mark Ruffalo begins to enjoy the responsibility of a family and spending time with the children and the mothers.When I first heard of the movie I thought it was about a lesbian couple.However, after watching it I realized the movie was about family.Just like Zach from the youtube video, who preached he was a normal guy and is doing quite well for himself. I do not understand why parents who are alcoholics and significantly impact their children’s lives are allowed to be parents, but a lesbian couple, like in the movie, face backlash from people who are concerned that the kids will grow up impacted solely on the idea of having lesbian/gay parents.Annette Bening and Julianna Moore play a role that is similar to the gay couple on Modern Family.All relationships have problems and all of those problems are going to be different depending on race, class, sexuality, age, religion and much more.
The government should not be able to tell people who can and cannot get married.Giving the rights to legalized marriage to all is not going to have a negative impact on the country.It seems so barbaric to try to control who is allowed the privileges of married life.I really enjoyed how Ettelbrick went beyond the idea of marriage making homosexuals equal to heterosexuals.Oppression does not stop just by making laws.Based on out many class discussions, we know that people are still oppressed by race, class, age, gender and everything else that is different from the white, Christian, middle-class, male.Marriage for all needs to be fought for and that would be an influential changing in our society for the better.
The Reading “Soldier in a Long White Dress” by Andrea E. Vaccaro details the struggles involved in the fight for same sex marriage.I really appreciated this look into the hurdles that must be passed as a heterosexual I would never have thought about some of the problems Vaccaro encountered.She starts telling her story with an anecdote about going with her father to buy a wedding dress to wear to a protest.She talks about the way that she was immediately assumed to be a heterosexual woman planning a wedding.This assumption is created because in America same-sex marriage is not legal.The only option for same-sex couple is a civil union, which falls short of being equivalent to marriage in many ways. The hardship that must be faced by a young women activist includes oppression from many sides.Vaccaro had to face resistance due to her youth, homosexuality as well as her being a woman.The fact that there is this much opposition makes Vaccaro’s achievements even more outstanding.Her devotion to that cause of same sex marriage began in High School when she headed and Gay Straight alliance group and organized a day of silence.When she went to college she took leadership roles in several activist groups then opened a chapter for Marriage Equality USA in New Jersey.What is really amazing is the perseverance that she displayed even in the face of apathy coming from the surrounding community.It seems that at every turn in this battle there was another surprise making the fight more difficult.The protest rally that she discusses in detail shows how much Vaccaro cared about this topic.She would let nothing stop her from trying to spread the message and gain visibility.It is sad that after this much passion and devotion Vaccaro and her partner had to settle for a civil union rather than a marriage.She discusses the ways in which accepting this is difficult because while it is a celebration of their love by getting a civil union it is in some ways supporting the restrictions against same-sex marriage.
Same-Sex FAQs is a useful document for anyone to read in order to gain some knowledge to have intelligent conversations about the same-sex marriage debate.The list of rights that are enjoyed by married couple that are therefore denied same-sex couples is really eye opening.It is absolutely crazy to think that a couple that has spent there entire lives together would not be able to automatically make medical decisions for their partner or live with them in nursing home.There is no basis on which to claim that Civil Unions are equivalent to marriage.From this document it is apparent that they are just a small concession made by the Government to pacify those who are protesting.Ettelbrick’s article “Since when is marriage a path to liberation” offers many fascinating viewpoints.She starts with the discussing the ways that a desire to marry is reflective of a need to be less of an outsider.As same-sex couples are forced to exist on the edges of society marriage would be a way to feel more accepted.Despite this acceptance Ettelbrick worries that by joining in the institution of marriage gay people and lesbians would be playing into exactly what they have been fighting against.She has a very strong point in arguing that just because she wants her choice to be respected does not mean that she wants to be the same as non-lesbian women.In conclusion she suggests that by focusing on the right to marry lesbians and gays are tricking themselves into believing that marriage will mean respect and equality.
Many people have probably seen this but I figured it was relevant so I want to share it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q I saw this video a couple months ago and I thought it was really inspiring. I also saw Zach appear on the Ellen Degeneres show and I thought it was a really good that he got support from someone so public and respected.
Ettelbrick makes an interesting point that marriage won’t create equality because it will be separating married people from unmarried people which will hurt those who choose not to enter into marriage but still want to live together. I see what she’s saying but I still think that marriage equality for gays and lesbians is an important right and it will help make other changes in society. I don’t quite understand why she thinks that the institutional aspect of marriage is so bad. I wish she had explained that better.
Soldier in a Long White Dress
Vaccaro’s chapter was kind of annoying to me because I felt like she just kept listing all of her responsibilities and how much she had on her plate. It was like she was bragging to us and saying “look at how much I did and I succeeded at pretty much everything I tried.” The chapter was more about her personal accomplishments than what her groups actually accomplished or spoke about. I can see that she worked very hard but she portrayed herself as a martyr which took away from the experience of reading her work.
I really enjoyed reading Bromberg’s piece on the changes of a woman’s self-image throughout the twentieth century.I was shocked to hear the story of Yvonne Blue because I was not aware that so many young women felt the need to be skinny and diet in the 1920s.However, it did make sense because this was the time period of the flappers and women bearing their arms and legs.It is interesting how a woman’s body use to be hidden underneath corsets and heavy dresses and sleeves.It was not until women’s skin was being displayed in the beginning of the twentieth century when women felt the obsession to be slim and fit in with their friends.Bromberg discusses how bras have revolutionized the emphasis on breast.Bras were used in the 1920s to create a flatter looking chest and many young adolescents and women resorted to making their own bras at home.Something really interesting about the market for mass-produced goods, brand name bras, is that you have to fit in to the standard sizes manufactured.
Bromberg talks about how young women who do not fit the standard sizes feel as if there is body is simply deviated.This is exactly what we were talking about in class the other day.We were discussing clothing sizes and how either stores offer sizes that do not correlate with other store sizes or they do not offer a size that fits you perfectly.This is a problem for many women because when they run in to this situation, they feel as if it is their fault not the manufactures fault that they cannot fit perfectly in to any pair of jeans.Something that really struck me as intriguing was the change in attitudes for bras for young girls.Bromberg discusses how the old idea was that bras are unnecessary for young girls.I remember when I was in fifth grade most of the girls did not wear bras.We had a fifth grade musical and the teacher told the girls we should wear a cami under our outfits.I remember being outraged because first, I was a tomboy and second I was completely flat.I did not understand why a girl would ever want to wear a bra because obviously they were gross.However, in junior high all the girls changed for gym class in a locker room.Most of the girls from the other two junior highs wore training bras or camis.I, under no circumstances needed one until mid seventh grade, bought a training bra simply because the other girls had one and it seemed mature.Wearing a bra was crucial to be considered an “older” girl.
Bromberg’s chapter encouraged me to see how bras and girdles have transformed throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.I came across this old commercial for a Playtex bra and girdle.It was humorous to compare this old Playtex commercial to a current Victoria’s Secret commercial.The Playtex commercial was very conservative and did not even show the bra on a woman’s body.Also, the woman in the commercial was fully dressed with a blouse covering her chest.This shows how bras have progressed from a necessary support item, to a fuller chest under a blouse and now finally to sex.Also, the Playtex commercial offers a new, slimming girdle as oppose to the old corsets used to slim women. This idea is so odd because it would make more sense for a woman to eat healthy and exercise to lose five pounds as oppose to just hiding the five pounds.I agree with Abby in that women are always trying to find the perfect body and always feel they are too heavy or too skinny.Why can’t all women work on having the best personality instead?
Our Bodies, Ourselves This is a opening presentation of the book by the Boston Women’s Health Book Collective where the writers discuss how writing this book impacted them. They acknowledge the important of gaining information from one another as equally informative as information from doctors and textbooks. They feel better prepared to evaluate health institutions and the control they have over our health and bodies. They discuss the new notion of pregnancy in an era of birth control where getting pregnant is a choice rather than a destiny. They also emphasize that women have been freed from a life of chronic pregnancy and that has enriched women’s lives as mothers. Finally, they say that learning about our bodies makes us better people and more whole as individuals.
Body Projects Brumberg gives a chronicle of how girl’s images of their bodies have changed throughout the twentieth century. It all started when clothing started to show more skin and skinny became the ideal body form. Girls started to focus on dieting to attain some culturally constructed idea of an “ideal weight” around 120 pounds. Next Brumberg looks at the evolution of the bra. It was first a luxury item but as it became more accessible, all women and teenage girls began wearing them. Brumberg points out that undergarments used to be made by women at home to fit each individual, but when standard sizing emerged in the clothing industry, women’s bodies had to fit the clothes, not the other way around. Therefore, most women didn’t quite fit into garments perfectly, so there always seemed like something could change on a woman’s body. The obsession with breasts made breast size the measure of superiority among teenage girls in the 50’s, not weight. Brumberg emphasizes the emerging chronic preoccupation women had (and still have) with their body image. Today, girls still worry about how their body looks, but they control it with diet and exercise more than corsets and girdles like they used to. Additionally, the new body area of scrutiny has become the butt and thighs. Finally, Brumberg addresses body piercing and says that it is a way for young people to show the world that they are in control of their bodies.
Sex, Lies, and Advertising Steinem goes through the whole history of Ms. Magazine and its fight with advertisers and the struggle to keep the magazine going. Her main point is that advertisers are very picky about their ads and how the magazines present them. They usually require extras in the magazine like editorials about their products or photo-shoots displaying their products. Companies only seem to apply these stipulations to women’s magazines though, not other mainstream media like newspapers. She also cites many examples of readers writing to the magazine with comments about the ads. She proposes that some day we might have ad-free magazines which would allow much more diversity, creativity, and realistic material.
Text from Ads form the 1950s-1990s: “Show her it’s a man’s world”-ad for ties, “We dedicate this collection of toilet secrets not to pretty women (they have advantages enough, without being told how to double their beauty) but to their plain sisterhood” –ad for a book, “if she doesn’t want to give it to you get it yourself” –ad for aftershave, “a women’s wealth is her constant beauty” poster displayed at industrial fair in 1950’s, “if a women wants more excitement in her life she can wear it” –ad for Neiman Marcus. “Can you compete with your daughter’s “little girl look?”- ad for soap, “is it always illegal to kill a woman?”- ad for a toaster, “so the harder a wife works, the cuter she looks!”- ad for cereal, “your guy the number one reason for midol. Be the way he likes you”- ad for midol, “skinny girls are not glamour girls” –Numal a nutritional supplement”
The reading for this class period inspired me to look up some vintage sexist ads and they never cease to be shocking to me. I also found it even more disturbing to see the text from the ads without any picture behind it. Within this short survey of ads the text suggests domestic violence on multiple occasions, which people dismiss as a joke because of the picture. Without the image the severity of encouraging this kind of action seems much more real.
Even if everyone does understand the intended comedy of these ads one theme that was so prevalent in these ads as well as the reading was the criticism that women face regarding their appearance. The attitudes towards women’s appearance in the social media remind me of the bird cage analogy. It seems like there is no right way for women to be and it is never accepted that an attractive body can be a variety of different sizes. A perfect example is the last ad that I quoted above which tell women that being skinny is not sexy. While in modern society this seems like an odd claim, but there was a time when being voluptuous was the ultimate body shape. Women strived to achieve this and it is as difficult for some women to be voluptuous as it is for other women to be skinny. This shows just how arbitrary ideas of beauty are and how sad it is that these images of beauty become an obsession for many women. Last class we discussed how often it is women who are more critical of the female form then men, while this may be true one wonder who dictates the images and text that society is bombarded with everyday.
It is difficult to rid society of an ideal beauty, but perhaps it is possible encourage women to be less critical of each other’s appearance. I believe that the best way to accomplish this is to focus on the intelligence, creativity and achievement of the amazing women in our lives and in our society. This approach takes a positive angle to create a difference rather than just focusing solely on everything wrong with our society. This was one the issues that I had with the “super girls” brown bag, while I believe that striving for super achievement may be stressful of some girls it seems like not we are being critical of girls for trying too hard. It seems that we are always too skinny or too fat, too hard working or not hard working enough etc. We will be closer to equality when we realize that just like men there are a variety of personalities and body types embodied by our gender.
