fIvan has 12 post(s)

I think Lughod’s critique on constructions of veiled women is that even though they achieved freedom from independence of the terrorist group they don’t take off their veiling. That is because of the way that their society is portrayed along with the cultural status and religion which may be different compared to how the others (west vs east) view it. I think the constructions of the veiled for women was meant to protect women allowing them to go outside. Lughod’s mentions how the veiling allows the women to do so while hiding/fulfilling something that feels right in their society, but compared to other society they look at it differently. Also by wearing these veiling it seems that the women has more freedom than if they don’t wear it because Lughod’s article mentions how women were able to go outside when they wear the veiling, whereas before when they didn’t it was impossible to do so. Maybe this is just the norm for society as the women who wears the veiling also means being a good respectable women.

The “vocations of saving others” is a the voice and opinion of people that think the muslim are being restricted when in reality they aren’t. The media portrays this differently and only goes after stories that will make them money, but they won’t show the unimportant things. For example when France had a terror attack the news were immediately covering that, but when another place that was also attacked by the terrorist there was no media coverage on it. This is because that other place was not as powerful as France and less important to the news. I think the “vocations of saving others” is just another way for the media to try to get people to show the Middle East which has a different culture, religion, lifestyle, practice, etc… compared to the place the media is comes/belongs to. In reality we don’t really know what the women in the Middle East wants like whether or not they want to wear the veiling or what happens if they don’t have to. The habit that their society has are completely different from ours and you can’t really change someones habit so that might have something to do with it.

I think Amelia Cabezas defines sexual citizenship as someone who represents their sexuality and understanding the process of why they do what they do. Cabezas mentions about sex tourism and how specific people work in the tourism industry to fulfill a specific requirement whether that may be to make money, create relationship, etc… However there is a gender equality where females are treated worser compared to their counterpart, males. Females can be thrown in jail anytime and this is all because of how the government wants to make sure that the females that do sexual tourism don’t take the wrong path or to stop bothering the tourist when in general they aren’t.  Also some females are more accepted compared to other females and this is probably how the police portray (decides which ones can stay without being arrested) those females that are more accepted (probably because their more beautiful and younger). Males on the other hand is respected and supported to continue to do what they are doing. This gender inequality lets Cabezas bring up the point of heteronormativity, where females should be able to have the rights to their bodies and make decisions on what they should and should not do. This idea is a threat to the government because they want to make sure that the women are following sexual morals that is set by them (the laws). However most government in the world don’t really cares what happens after the child is born. All they care about is that the child is safely born so that they can contribute to the economy and make sure the same process repeat. The government doesn’t want the women who are outside the heteronormativity to be deciding whether or not they want to do sexual service for money, marriage, pleasure, etc… Otherwise this will improve the organization (social groups) that support the fundamental rights of female.

I think queer of color mentioned by Roderick Ferguson is a group of people that are outcast/misfits and the analysis behind it is that these group of people has their own identification (culture, ideas, beliefs, etc…) that may or may not be a reflection of other people (Marxism, liberalism, nationalism, etc…). Instead these queer of color debunk the ideas and beliefs of those other people ideologies and create a sense of something similar to group work. And the connection that this has to property, capital, and prostitution create those ideologies (norm in society). The capital (government) create the policies/laws that become the norm that societies follows and the people in those societies become the property of the capital. So when time begins to change (the economy and the revolution like the industrial revolution begins people are affected differently. Prostitution in particular may dehumanize a person and make them treated as a lust object which can affect people around them. Things that were never possible (expensive things like clothes, etc…) soon became possible for prostitution to get (even though they were poor) and creates a potential threat to gender stability where people could now be forced to do something they don’t want to do (e.g. human traffic). These people (the prostitution-er) like everyone else is apart of the capital property where they work for money (job), but are treated differently due to this not being a norm and how dehumanizing it is for that specific gender (reason for why feminism exist and an example is if a girl/women does something in the adult industry they are called slut). Also capital in Ferguson article is formed when the discourses of race, gender, and sexuality comes together. How this affects the formation prostitution is due to those social norm as mentioned above. By setting the discourses as a norm for society, it becomes harder to understand the morals of certain people, but once we come to an understanding of those certain people we will know how they feel.

Ivan Chang

One thing that has inhibited radical potential of queer activism is not enough people practice the ideas that are in the queer activism and that these ideas aren’t effectively challenging the norms that the government has set in society. By not being able to do this these queer activist aren’t able to go against the government (heterosexual) politics. Also the queer activist has many other groups such as lesbian, gay, race (African American), gender (male/female/transgender), etc… that deal with oppression by the government and it is possible that they have more than one idea to fight for against the government (essentially since there is so much ideas floating around in a group of people that has oppression they each person might want something like rights that the other person might not want, but some of the ideas are combined together to make it form a specific type of queer politic). Also since their is so much groups in one activist with different race/gender/perspective it will be harder to understand how for example the other group maybe feeling. For example usually male is dominant in society so females tend to be more oppressed than males. However African American have less rights and are usually more oppressed than white American, so how would those white Americans understand the African American? Another thing that is inhibiting the radical potential of queer activism is how society looks at these people who are part of the queer activist. Usually when you want to be successful in something you need a group of supporters which the queer activist has, but if society and people disagree with that then it will be harder to get your point across unless you continue fighting for it because those people that disagree tries to ignore the people of the oppressed. Also with the government who has power and they can pass laws to make oppression worser.

Outsiders can contribute to the field of sociology and our understanding of society and culture through their experiences and everyday life challenges that they face and how they would tackle that challenge. Collins mentions how African American deals with the oppression that they face from the whites. In one example she mentions how African American women take care of each other because they are in the same position and only have each other to help each other out. By doing this this allows the Afro-American women to deal with the oppression in their own ways while also keeping themselves safe and fighting the oppression in their own quiet way. Collins also mentioned how these Afro-American women consciousness is hidden because they are being oppressed and by not revealing anything they are protecting others African American. One way for them to reveal something without being pressured by the oppression is through creative expression where they are aware of themselves being oppressed and they find different ways to cope with it and continue different activities without letting the oppression get into their ways.

Also outsiders tend to be able to see things that the insiders or sociologist don’t see such as the oppression/racism in a certain area. Collins mentions how Judith Rollins was hired to work in a place and while working the people (employer) there ignored her existence and had a conversation as if she wasn’t there. The people that ignored Rollins were playing the part of the norm that the society had set. Collins mentioned earlier how the dichotomy of white/black and male/female was unstable and that one will always be superior to the other counterpart and this is that norm that was set by physicians (people with the knowledge). Also another example is if you are traveling to another place you will see a different perspective of that place you went to compared to if you were to live there. This is because each person has a different perspective and experience of that place and they each view the place differently. Similarly the African American women has a different perspective compared to white American because they are the ones experiencing the oppression not the whites. That’s why they will find ways to cope with it, but if it were to be the other way around what would happen then?

I think hetero sexism is a more precise way to analyze a relationship of gender difference because when you think or talk about hetero sexism you are not talking about one gender specifically. Even if it does mean talking about a specific gender, hetero sexism allows a women to have a decision or be on some what of a equal standing to male because their decision will have some consideration in it (they have a say- freedom of speech, and technically males need them to fulfill that gender identity – the genders purpose in life). However hetero sexism has some oppression and it denies everything else besides the ones I mentioned above (including some stuff that I didn’t mention) and many more. For example when men do what a women does (role) in society it is kind of rare and looked down upon because that is what the women should be doing (the sexual stereotypes where women role is at home doing chores and reproducing while the men role is working at factories and supporting family kind of show up on most reading we read as well as this one), but this solely depends on the person and how they were raised. Also hetero sexism allows male to be in control and sometimes women need permission for certain things that they don’t really need permission for (like getting an abortion, contraception,etc…). Hetero sexism has also become the norm for how society functions and people who are in a homosexual relationship can be punished for it due to not following the norm that society (government) has setup which disallows adolescents from exploring what their sexual identity might be.

In Peterson and Parisi’s piece they mention how women aren’t treated as a human agents in relation to economic, social and cultural practices besides the reproductive role they play. This goes back from the early time period in society when someone (I think probably politicians, physicians, and some of those people with knowledge/power to change the society view) put in place the stereotype that women should follow. Things such as not being able to own property, being a housewife, etc… has been around for a long time and it still kind of is today. The government however doesn’t want to really investigate the rights and by regulating women’s body they can determine what will happen to them (in most cases things like what will happen to the baby in the women’s stomach, should it get aborted – is abortion allowed, etc…). This brings up argument that exist today where the government is arguing whether or not the ACA (affordable care act) should be fund programs that will help women through these difficult process (stuff like that). They also want to keep the male dominance over female long lasting since most of the people in the government are mostly old men who are in their 50’s (some maybe younger) and by doing this they can deny a women’s right while also keeping the gender hierarchy in place.

In society heterosexuality is the norm for how relationship should go, but it is forced upon people (women in Rich’s piece) who doesn’t want to be heterosexual. Instead these women want to become homosexual, but they have to hide their sexuality because of how they are treated in society. In Rich’s piece she mentions how women market sexual attractiveness (the way they look and dress up for the job they are applying for and if they are sexually attractive in their boss or person who is hiring them eye’s then they would probably get hired) to get hired because their bosses are usually the people (male) with the money and position to be able to make a decision on whether or not they should be hired or fired. If they do end up getting hired they would have to endure sexual harassment if they want to keep their job and this is usually when they would join a group (usually feminist) to fight for women inequality. Also since women’s role in society have been usually to become a housewife in the past it isn’t rare to see that some people from that generation still view that women should play that housewife role, where women do all the chores around the house and to produce kids and take care of them. So if a women decides that she is a lesbian the society of that generation would apply the rules/laws that happened during their time whereas with the next generation depending on how they were raised and how open minded they are they would probably view women who is a lesbian differently or the same. Also I think Rich’s brings up a point where by being homosexual you have a better understanding of the person of the same gender because your body and partner body is similar, so you can understand each other more than with partner of the opposite sex. Since women are usually treated as an object in certain men eyes (thinking them as sexually depending on what they wear, for some reason human beings are the only creature on earth that views the female’s breast as a sexual object) it makes women uncomfortable.

I think the assumption that Gayle Rubin argues in “Thinking Sex” is that sex is a taboo topic in society depending on the time and place you are in. Sex can also be a sin depending on other peoples ethnics and religion.

Sex is usually a taboo topic in society because of how awkward it can be when talking about it. The reason to this is probably because the government passed so much laws trying to protect kids from it that it became a norm to not say anything in public to harm anyone else. Also according to Rubin, sex laws was derived from the bible, which to some people is very important because to them god created everyone and that he is always right. So when there is a gay couple or lesbian couple, people who believe in god or religious get kind of angry (depending on the person) at those couples for breaking the sayings of the god. Later on Rubin mentions how sodomy is illegal even in your own home (secret private life) because the government doesn’t allow this. This was a breach of privacy because gay/lesbian couple would be arrested just for having sex with one another, which is taboo.

Sex is a sin because according to Rubin s/he uses a diagram that shows what is good and what is bad. The good is usually when your faithful to someone (your married and have someone you love) and this allows you to be compatibility and build a future together with that person (having sex to produce offspring). On the other hand the bad is when you aren’t faithful to someone and instead you use sex as a way to work for money or for pleasurable purposes or etc…

Sex limits the political discourse on sexuality in the United States because of how the government has to try to define the norm that is right/wrong to follow. Since there is also a lot of people in the government with different views, religion, opinion, and etc… It gets a bit harder for the government to come to an agreement on something. However the world is moving forward and changing because Obama passed the rights for lesbians and gays to get married, which allows them to get the rights that regular couples get.

The degradation of women that Federici describes is that women had no control of their body. They were limited to what they could and couldn’t do by the government. The government also passed a couple of laws saying that if they used any contraception, have an abortion, and infanticide (killing the baby) they would be considered a criminal/murder and receive capital punishment. This was going to far for just trying to increase the work force because women’s body was a tool for the men to use, they could be raped anytime like the slaves (African American during and after slavery was abolished), they were being stalked by the government (that way the government can determine how much kids there is to increase the workforce), and were unable to see to their child after giving birth to them. So much of women’s rights have been taken away and they were being treated like a toy (slut, looked down upon, etc…).

I think the wealth in capitalist political economy also played a role, where women was being paid less compared to the men. This forces the women to either get married (rely on the men) because their income was too low to support themselves (they were being paid like half of what the men would get paid for working the same amount of hours and job) and that way the income of the men will be able to support them. This however forces the women to be a housewife by taking care of everything in the house (domestic work like knitting clothes and selling it became an option until the textile industry replaced that completely changing the roles of women again) and the child. Also when the economy was really bad, a group of women would go on a protest to steal food from bakery and the rich in order to support themselves or their family because their job wasn’t enough to support them (low pay) and there wasn’t enough money to go around so people were starving.

Today this is still happening, but more like a double standard kind of thing. For example if a women work in the adult industry (prostitution/porn) they would be called slut and etc… If they decide to look for another job after quitting the adult industry they would be unable to escape the industry because people think it is bad influence on society so they would be stuck making their own company or try finding something else to do (this is kind of hard to explain). Overall, I think women are still being treated unfairly (some times you will hear the sexual harassment at work, being raped [I guess rape culture is a pretty harsh topic too], etc…), but for the most part our generation has been more accepting (we are pretty open-minded even though we wouldn’t want to admit certain stuff like saying we are racist or something, were more of the treat others the way you want to be treated kind of type I think). This also depends on the person (nature vs nurture) and how they were raised.

Physicians are the ones that determine the gender (male or female) of the child when they are born. They rely on John Money and Anke Ehrhardt, where they published a theory (knowing the gender, make sure the genital matches the gender, etc…) and it was supported widely because the cases that kept showing up was related/claimed by what the theory mentioned. Physicians also used some form of the theory and applies it when deciding on the gender along with whether the genitals will fit the child’s gender (masculine penis – a certain size, and feminine vagina – if there is a opening). However sometimes there is an inexperienced physician that comes across a child with an ambiguous genital and they can make a mistake on determining what the child’s gender is. When that inexperienced physician determines the child’s gender and it is incorrect, they usually play around with their words and tell the parents/patients something else. When the parents/patients go to other physicians, who will support that inexperience physician decision, they are told how the other physician’s decision might have came to that conclusion, but other factors (hormones) will determine the gender of the child. Physicians have it kind of tough, but with the development of technology and science determining the gender of the child maybe less of an issue these days with help of virtual reality, 3d scanning, x-ray, etc… You can see the child inside the stomach before it is even born. Physicians should also try to use easier phrasing so that parents/patients understand the situation. Instead of using medical term, which can give lots of people headache, they should explain the process of how the decision was made and what the hormones/chromosomes did to make changes within the body of the baby. That way parents/patients will understand better.

Parents and patients on the other hand rely more on the physicians. For parents, the physicians tell them what gender of the child will be that way they can prepare male/female stuff (toys) and give their child a name (a male name for a boy and a female name for a girl, sometimes some parents will choose a gender neutral name that way it can accommodate both male and female). Parents also have to make a decision on whether or not their child should get surgery because sometimes the genital of the child will be to ambiguous and it is their responsibility to make a hard decision that can affect the child’s life. I think before the parents make their decision they should see more than one physician that way they have more than one opinion. For patients usually a surgery is involved to fix the ambiguous genital and other things as well. They would have to go through some diagnosis (hormonal test) to see if they are producing that specific one (testosterone for males and estrogen for females, although males and females tend to have a little of each hormone from the opposite sex to make up for the physical appearances) for their gender (this way the physicians can determine what gender they are). However that may not always be the case and sometimes a patient is lied to about the gender that they were given. They are asked by the physician to take this drug (medicine) in order to produce the hormones of that gender. The physicians also make it sound like they are normal, but in reality the surgery was done to either remove and replace the reproductive system to match the gender intended for the patient or to just adjust something (maybe size of genital, etc…). This can affect the patients mentally as they grow up being confused with their life (since it is usually a baby that gets their gender being identify). So I think physicians should make a careful decision.

Overall, the people that Kessler interviewed to come up with many different situation and issue shows us how parents and patients rely on physician who rely on Money’s theory. With how advance the society is today the error of determining the gender will decrease more, but in terms of how it is determined and why it is still being determined will probably be a mystery. It will continue for generations until someone decides to make changes and get everyone else angry at that change because after all this is how you make changes in society.

sources:

The Medical Construction of Gender: Case Management of Intersexed Infants Author(s): Suzanne J. Kessler