Women…reduced to sex objects?

Does pornography reinforce male privilege? According to Shira Tarrant, “the vast majority of pornography depicts sex acts being done to women, women being on display for the pleasure of others, women depicted as deriving pleasure primarily by pleasing others. This is not a moral issue; it’s a political one… in mainstream porn, the viewer is usually assumed to be male, cruelty or degradation of women plays a central role, and women’s bodies exist mostly for men’s pleasure” (p. 102). It is interesting because people of all genders and sexual orientations watch porn, and therefore, a great amount of people learn about pleasure and sexuality through it. Since it is usually based on the heterogeneous male and female, there is not much diversity provided to the public. This could promote close-mindedness in a broader context, especially when thinking in terms of the LGBTQ population of people. Some people may argue that porn doesn’t serve a purpose to teach any lesson. However, it does have a huge effect on conceptualizations of real sex and pleasure. Males who watch porn may think it’s okay to degrade women and make them feel inferior. Women shouldn’t need pleasure in return right? It’s all about satisfying the men. Women, on the other hand, may cringe when seeing the degradation in some of these media portrayals. It could also be true that men and/or women do not consciously think about these issues because they are just focusing on “getting off.” Unconsciously, however, it is also true that people may internalize the messages and remember and possibly apply what they see to their own, personal sex lives. These messages and visualizations become readily available in their minds, and is there really anything wrong with it? Everyone is doing it in pornography, and apparently getting ultimate pleasure out of it. Why not imitate what is seen?

Women should experience pleasure, and should not be portrayed as the sole “pleasers” in the sexual relationship. Sex-positive feminism derived from a movement that was developed in the early 1980’s. It advocates for sexual freedom that is a crucial part of women’s freedom in general. People who refer to themselves as “sex-positive feminists” argue that sexual liberation and consent for both sexes is equally important. “They argue that the patriarchy limits sexual expression and are in favor of giving people of all genders more sexual opportunities, rather than restricting pornography” (Queen, 1996). Moreover, advocates reject the idea that sexual orientations are solely biological and “natural forces”. They believe that gender and sexual orientation are social constructions that are formed through society over time. Relating back to the concept of pornography, an anti-pornography ordinance was passed in 1983 and pornography was framed as including sexual discrimination against women. Other ordinances were passed soon after, however, they were later considered unconstitutional by a Federal Court. Again, critics argue and say that people in pornography are only actors who are portraying fantasies to the public. Sex-positive feminists continue to fight back and confirm that these so-called fantasies lead to the encouragement and application of these acts in real life. Encouraging violence against women is completely uncalled for and unfair, to say the least. We don’t want to physically or psychologically coerce women into doing anything, or do we? I know for a fact that sex-positive feminists strongly oppose this idea. How can women truly be enjoying themselves? They appear to be enjoying it, however, feminists believe performers are “brutalized” during the process.

According to Wikipedia, “Anti-pornography feminists hold the view that pornography contributes to sexism, arguing that in pornographic performances, the actresses are reduced to mere receptacles—objects—for sexual use and abuse by men. They argue that the narrative is usually formed around men's pleasure as the only goal of sexual activity, and that the women are shown in a subordinate role. Some opponents believe pornographic films tend to show women as being extremely passive, or that the acts which are performed on the women are typically abusive and solely for the pleasure of their sex partner. On-face ejaculation and anal rape are increasingly popular among men, following trends in porn. MacKinnon and Dworkin defined pornography as ‘the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures or words.’”

Can pornography go so far as to crystallize and “eroticize” male domination and reinforce attitudes consistent with rape and sexual harassment? I certainly believe that this could be true. But what about women-centered pornography? Some feminists are supporting ideas of reformation regarding this production of pornography. It is also interesting to note that whether or not pornographic actresses see themselves as victims of sexism, they generally earn more money than males. Does this aftermath compensate for their subservient role? And going back to feminist pornography that has indeed been produced…is it successful in its feminist efforts? Most people say yes. In fact, more women contribute to the films and take on a producer, writer, or director role. In addition, GENUINE female pleasure is pronounced and exaggerated. More importantly, these films challenge mainstream porn and the stereotypes behind it.

Got benefits?

“Institutional practices and ideological beliefs about masculine superiority seem so normal or natural that we’ve learned not to notice when a man’s opinion is taken more seriously than a women’s or that calling a boy a ‘girl’ is considered an insult” (Tarrant, p. 89). I think this is an interesting point that Shira Tarrant makes in her book, Men and Feminism. There are many notions that go unnoticed, simply because we are not looking for discrepancies between women and men as much as we used to in the past, when there was a clearer divide between sexes in the public and private spheres. If we are not consciously aware of the same past issues that still occur in today’s society, we have a greater tendency to ignore the “unearned benefits” of being a present day male. So… what are these benefits (according to Peggy McIntosh)?

1. I can be pretty sure that when I walk down the street, nobody will yell at me about my body or tell me what they want to do with me sexually.

2. I generally feel safe when walking to my car by myself at night, hiking alone in the woods or the mountains, or walking on the beach.

3. I can dress how I want, without people assuming I want to have sex with them.

So how valid are these statements? Do all men REALLY feel this way? Probably not, but I think these are interesting representations of benefits that could be generalized within the male domain. An interesting way to look at these benefits involves applying these statements as if they were directed to women. So, when I relate to these statements, I automatically “disagree” because I have experienced all of these circumstances or been criticized according to these claims. For instance, for number 1, I have probably been yelled at 50+ times throughout my whole life. It’s embarrassing for me, as a woman, to say that. Regarding number 2, I generally don’t feel safe when doing these things, especially walking to my car by myself at night. I rarely feel very confident in my ability to physically defend myself especially when I am alone. And unfortunately, when I am speed-walking to my car, the worst and most automatic thing I can thing I can think of is a man appearing out of nowhere and attacking me…a man. Isn’t that sad? As far as number 3, I struggle with dressing in a way that is appropriate and flattering at times. I don’t want to be called a “slut” or anything of that nature, but dressing very conservatively isn’t my style either. It’s upsetting that women do have to think a lot and even worry about how to be “classy” in their mannerisms, clothing styles, and the like. But what about men…do they have to worry about how they dress in the same sense girls do? Usually they don’t as much as women do.

So I think the best way to describe these three representations of “unearned male benefits” is to say that the frequency in which males have to think or worry about these ideas is less in comparison to women. This doesn’t mean they don’t think about these things in relation to themselves, it just means that these worries may not be as salient to most men as they are to women. And of course there are exceptions for men of different age cohorts, races, sexual orientations, etc.! For instance, I asked a male friend and an older (more father-like) figure about how they felt about these statements. The older person told me a story about how when he was little, an older neighbor tried to coerce him into entering his second-floor apartment and asked him “to watch naked ladies having sex with sexy naked men.” He was barely a teenager when this happened, but was smart enough to deny this man and ran away. But this story affected his response to the first statement. He told me that ever since that occurrence, sometimes he thinks about what would have happened if he went upstairs to the man’s apartment. He said “sexy naked men,” which implies that he could have taken advantage of my friend if he complied with this man’s demands. Scary. My friend also brought up a great point about the little boys who are sexually abused and who do comply with stranger’s demands. These little boys then grow up NOT being “pretty sure” about statement 1. Instead of being “pretty sure,” now, they are SCARED that these things could possibly happen again or that no one would believe their side of the story. Silly children don’t know anything right? WRONG. When asking my younger male friend about the second statement, he said he actually does not feel safe half the time especially when he is home in New York City. “The dangers of walking alone are much greater in a huge city. You never know what will happen to you. You could turn around and have a knife in your face. But in Ithaca, I definitely feel safer doing things by myself.” For statement three, both of my friends admitted that they never really worried about this or could remember a time where they consciously did. This goes to show the variability of responses in only TWO males to only THREE statements! So maybe it’s true… these aren’t really benefits. Maybe they are just common social constructions that are believed to be true. Or are they benefits? What do you think?

So, tell me what a "cyborg" is?

History also includes “herstory.” In the early 1990’s, people started to use the term “cyberfeminism.” I decided to search online and learn more about it. The term was coined by VNS Matrix (Australian artist group who were active from 1991 to 1997). They aimed to investigate male domination in cyberspace, and link this with female oppression. Apparently they were very explicit in their quotes about their goals, one of which reads, "to insert women, bodily fluids and political consciousness into electronic spaces."

But cyberfeminism is an actual movement, aimed at displaying feminist ideals and criticizing online art and interactions. Because there still is no rigid definition of this movement, people seem to be confused as to what is the history of it, what are its goals, and why does it exist.

“If feminism is to be adequate to its cyberpotential then it must mutate to keep up with the shifting complexities of social realities and life conditions as they are changed by the profound impact communications technologies and techno science have on all our lives. It is up to cyberfeminists to use feminist theoretical insights and strategic tools and join them with cybertechniques to battle the very real sexism, racism, and militarism encoded in the software and hardware of the Net, thus politicizing this environment.” –F. Wilding

Cyberfeminists attempt to examine issues through a feminist lens. Many cyberfeminists are both artists and theorists. They helped to develop a strong connection between women and technology. More specifically, they have focused on contemporary technologies, examining the intersections between gender identity, the body, culture and technology. They have collaborated to fight against preferred patriarchal technology methods. Cyberfeminism is different in that when it first originated, followers developed 100 anti-theses defining what cyberfeminism IS NOT in order to reflect their fluid and diverse viewpoints. Instead of being a strict, structured movement, it is seen as more of an active and serious but fun and playful movement. Nonetheless, it existed as a movement against the masculine ‘toys for boys’ motto that new Internet technologies adopted. Emphasis is on theory and engagement.

Unfortunately, due to a recent reduction in cyberfeminist literature, the movement tends to be undermined. Recent artworks, however, include Evelin Stermitz’s World of Female Avatars. This project attempts to expand women’s understanding of their relation to their body. An artistic survey is taken and quotes and images from women over the world are collected. The pictures are used to create new bodies or avatars (cyborgs) of the female body. Women can be positively or negatively connected to their body due to societal changes that affect and change the body’s natural state. The body over time becomes morphed into a more cultural object. This project aims to show people how they are constantly creating new self-representations, but if we all were able to eliminate gender biases, we would be “androgynus equals” in cyberspace and reach an optimal level of feminism.

“There are also a lot of other gendered people who are suppressed or marginalized or are suffering from social exclusion or are under social pressure. So of course, all this comes together and is important. I think our society should become very vivid and open to all kind of gender theories or sexes or whatever.” –Evelin Stermitz

According to the youtube clip, the cyborg is postgender, pansexualized and asexualized, masculine, and feminine. WATCH IT! I promise it'll spark your interest!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrgez-z1-uQ

Even beyonce dressed like a cyborg during one of her prime performances! Interesting attempt to make cyborgs seem real, no?

Stereotype...Threat

I am particularly interested in this topic because I've studied it in my psychology classes and we spoke about it in our class the other day. Stereotype threat includes preconceived notions about a subset of the population. These notions then affect one's performance, but may not be an accurate representation of the construct that is supposed to be measured. For example, stereotype threat can lower the performance of African-Americans taking the SAT, due to the stereotype that African-Americans are not as intelligent than other groups. Even if one just tells this group that they must fill out demographic information on an intelligence test, cultural norms will influence performance. In intelligence testing which I am particularly interested in, this can increase test bias. Are we really getting at a person's true score? The answer is no. The experience of anxiety about confirming a negative stereotype relative to one's social group can cause one's true ability to be undermined.

The same effect could occur when the situation is based on gender stereotypes. For instance, we talked about typically seeing science, technology, engineering, and math career fields as male-dominated. A scientist is usually visualized in a biased way as a white male with a lab coat on (who maybe has glasses or is bald). Women may be just as intelligent as men in these areas, but aren't acknowledged, are seen as less capable, and are stuck at entry rank.

Here's to the common stereotype, even portrayed in comics!

Psychologist Janet Hyde explains, "One reason I am still spending time on this is because parents and teachers continue to hold stereotypes that boys are better in math, and that can have a tremendous impact on individual girls who are told to stay away from engineering or the physical sciences because ‘Girls can’t do the math.’ There is lots of evidence that what we call ‘stereotype threat’ can hold women back in math. If, before a test, you imply that the women should expect to do a little worse than the men, that hurts performance. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy." However, if a woman (for the purposes of this example) was either unaware of the stereotype or thought of it as inaccurate, then she has better chances of performing better.

Many other examples have been scientifically tested. One includes a female administrator or a male administrator who distributed a math/science test to two different groups of examinees. Results showed that women performed as well as men when a female administrator was present. In contrast, they performed progressively worse than men when a male administrator distributed the test. This goes to show that when being faced by an authoritative figure who is more likely to agree with and confirm an already existing negative stereotype about another group to which they don't belong to, participants get worried and self-conscious about their performance in the way beginning. What about the way the test is presented? Two different modes of administration were given to an experimental and control group of examinees. In the experimental group, participants were told by an administrator that the test had previously shown gender differences among test takers in the past. In the control group, participants were told that the test revealed no gender differences in the past. Random administrators were assigned to each condition. At the end of the study, women who were in the control group had higher scores than women who were in the experimental group. But what do you think would happen if a female administrator was assigned to the experimental group? Would women still do worse than women in the control group? Since the administrator could mediate stereotype effects because of her gender, would this matter? Or would she equally enhance stereotype threat as a male administrator would (as shown in the other study)? Thoughts?

How do we fix stereotype threat? Unfortunately, there aren’t nearly as many female mathematicians, scientists, or engineers as there are male figures for girls to admire and use as a positive example. But what we could do in society is raise awareness of the achievements that women have obtained within these STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and math). Early childhood education teachers can also encourage women that there abilities are just as great as men's abilities in the same fields. Also, in general, when taking a test, it would be ideal for the sex checkbox to be removed from the test, but since we are not anywhere near close to removing it, researchers should keep doing studies to ensure that ANY test is not biased on the basis of one's sex or gender. Also, if students ask about test difficulty, teachers should focus on other factors that can contribute to variability in final scores (i.e. such as not students not reading the whole textbook rather than focusing on gender differences). REINFORCE THAT STUDENTS ARE CAPABLE OF MEETING HIGH STANDARDS! Communicate high standards to both sexes. Unfortunately, in order to follow through with these ideas, perceptions across different cultures, age cohorts, and sexes need to change. In order for this to happen, more education and awareness about intelligence level and the consequences of socialization needs to be more prevalent in many parts of this world.

What is the PERFECT situation?

…speaking of Jersey Shore, of course. Warning: this topic could be QUITE controversial. What exactly is a grenade? According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, a grenade is defined as: a small missile that contains an explosive or a chemical agent (as tear gas, a flame producer, or a smoke producer) and that is thrown by hand or projected (as by a rifle or special launcher). According to the cast of the Jersey Shore, a grenade is defined as: a girl that quite frankly is not hot, the solitary ugly girl always found with a group of hotties (if the grenade doesn't get any action, then neither does anyone else). It’s quite obvious how similar these definitions are. It’s great how Jersey Shore just comes up with their own lingo to harshly criticize and belittle women of “ugly” status. But what do feminists have to say about this topic? How do you define “ugly” in this society? Obviously, what Jersey Shore says goes! Except not. Jersey shore is just feeding into already existing stereotypes by updating society’s norms about the condescension of women and announcing beauty (or shall I say ugly) standards on national TV. Now, all TV viewers and fans can willingly (or unwillingly) make reference to these new and improved terms while exploiting the women who are targeted on the show. It’s not right, and it’s not fair to the women who show their faces on Jersey Shore because these women only further perpetuate this anti-feminist cycle by serving as the perfect example of “ugly” or “hideous” or “girl to never get a boyfriend, or rather, in more sophisticated terms, to never get it innnn.” Why isn’t there a stereotypical term for males on the show though? Am I just missing something or do we just want to further degrade women and cause anxiety about fitting into the perfect beauty ideals? Or does this show just provide us with comic relief that we don’t take these terms seriously? I think the latter question is not applicable. Either consciously, or unconsciously, we internalize certain ideas about objects, people, places, or conversations that we find unique or meaningful. We then find ourselves applying these concepts to the outside world. Just randomly the other day, I referenced “grenade” without even planning to say it. I didn’t rehearse it over and over in my head, it just popped up in a conversation about boys and girls because of the availability of the word and the pervasive spread of it on TV, in the popular media, but more importantly, in our culture.

I could go on and on with examples that are not representative of contemporary feminist viewpoints. For one, remember that time when Snookie was punched at the bar because random guys starting stealing her drinks and she stood up for herself? Even though MTV didn’t showcase or zoom in on the actual punch and viewers could only hear it through audio, they did include a PSA statement following this segment that was certainly biased. It read: “Violence against women in any form is a crime. If someone you know is being abused by a boyfriend, family member, or total stranger, please call 911.” Now don’t you think this statement is quite narrow-minded? I understand Snookie, a woman, got punched. But to be less biased and more realistic, shouldn’t a statement read: “Violence against ANYONE is a crime, etc.” Males can be victims too. So can children! Anyone of any gender or sexual orientation! That statement is not a reflection of today’s reality; whoever decided to come up with the wording is only displaying their own ignorance on the subject matter, or insensitivity to violence against ANY person.

Another short example is when “The Situation” was trying to “hook up” with a girl at a club, who is described by his Jersey Shore family as “a tranny,” as in “transvestite.” They adamantly stated, “if you have to think about it, it’s a tranny. Stay away.” Later that evening, Ronnie is shown wearing a dress and poking fun at the “tranny” that Mike could have been having sexual relations with. This goes back to my earlier point about the degradation of women, or in this case, anyone who self-identifies with a specific gender or sexual orientation. LGBTQ issues are clearly evident in this episode. Why is there such exploitation of people that do not fit the “norm”? Why are new norms being created for these outsiders who apparently don’t deserve any positive commentary and are only worthy of these insensitive remarks that are clearly offensive. Well, at least MTV apologized and agreed to remove this material from the episode. Maybe MTV should just quit thinking about the millions of dollars they make off the show and start taking preventative measures and fix things before they further embarrass themselves. What do you think?

Well, if you’re not sure or just curious, you can go ahead and type in this link into your computer to watch a video clip of the “tranny situation."

http://www.queerty.com/mtv-plays-along-while-jersey-shore-bashes-trans-women-one-more-time-20101029/