fMarlena has 11 post(s)

White Christian nuns are accepted as practicing their freedom of religion when they wear conserative clothing and head scarves, but when a Muslim women does the same, she is considered to be dangerous or to be under the control of something oppressive. According to Lila Abu-Lughod, there was an invasive questioning of all Muslim women after the September 11th attacks in 2001. Many white Americans were questioning the beliefs and intents of women of Muslim faith. As Abu-Lughod pointed out, this would be considered unacceptable if the question was posed to a Christian or Jewish woman. Referring back to the title, these White Americans believe that Muslim women are under an oppressive grip. They believe that they have no choices or freedom in their faith, and that Muslim women who wear burqas and hijabs are being controlled by men, when in reality, it is the women’s choice. White Americans have continuously blamed Muslims for the September 11th attacks, and to this day that blaming has not stopped. Women who shame Muslim women for practicing their faith and wearing hijabs and burqas do not truly understand what the religion of Islam represents; these women are not being oppressed or controlled by anyone, they are practicing their religious freedom just like Christian or Jewish women. Relating back to the title of the article, “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?”, these white women feel as if they need to liberate Muslim women from their own religion, when in fact, they are already free to decide to practice whatever faith they wish. White Americans refuse to understand the true teachings of the religion of Islam, because of racist ideologies. They believe that their religion is superior because they are supposedly more free, when in fact women in both Christian and Islam religions have the ability to decide how they wish to express their religious freedom.

According to Cabezas, Cuba and the Dominican Republic have experienced an influx of sex tourism; foreigners visiting to take advantage of looser laws on prostitution and sexual activities. The women of these countries are heavily influenced by sex tourism, as these tourists come in and take advantage of them because they are sex workers. Being a sex worker implies negative connotations, especially to Americans, where most of it is completely outlawed. Sex workers in Cuba and the Dominican Republic change the economy, especially with the increase of sex tourism. These tourists are contributing to the lives of these women, allowing them to make a profit but also while exploiting them. Sex workers not only gain a profit, but gain opportunities; many build relationships with their clients, allowing them to have other opportunities to work and migrate. There are cases in which sex workers marry their tourist clients, allowing them to migrate, get married, and build families; this is an opportunity they would not have without sex tourism being so popular. Cabezas explains the difference between light-skin Cubans and Black Cubans in the sex tourism industry; Black cubans are considered to be more frequently involved in hustling in the tourist industry, while light-skinned Cubans are more often employed in just sex for cash, having less opportunities. This made me think of the hyper-sexualization of people of color, and how for White tourists it is easy to use a dark-skinned women for sex and nothing else, but in their daily lives they continue to treat these women as objects. Sex tourism has the ability to be an industry that greatly changes and improves the economy, but can also lead to the objectification and abuse of women, especially women of color. Sex workers can be liberated, and gain opportunities, but they also can be treated as unequal. Sex tourism is an ever popular industry that changes the economy of various countries.

Marlena Esposito, Gabrielle Pilagonia, Azel Kahan

In her essay, Cathy Cohen describes queer activism as a two-dimensional system that is harmful to the minorities within the queer community. In queer politics, there is no recognition of intersecting identities, due to interlocking forms of oppression that marginalize all minorities into one. Homosexuals of color are subjected to greater forms of oppression because of this system. Cohen argues that a left-wing point of view is necessary to understand the multi-layered oppressive systems and how to counter them. It is also necessary to understand black feminism in order to understand queer politics. Cathy Cohen documents that the AIDS epidemic had a large impact on the queer community, garnering equivalent treatment to queer communities with those suffering from the AIDS virus under the public eye. Previously, queer politics would only acknowledge queer and not-queer issues, and think of people as either straight or not straight, ignoring those who are queer and not exclusively homosexual. Another issue that impacted queer activism is the cultural assumption that there must be a stigma associated within queer relationships; there is a societal understanding that all queer relationships are inherently bad.A reason for this stigma existing is the belief that all homosexuals are impacted by the AIDS virus, and that the queer community is responsible for this. This also impacts queer people of color heavily, since the AIDS epidemic effected the black community and the queer community the most. The gay activist movement that took place in the 70’s did not have as big of an impact as it should have, which reflects on the faults within the queer activist movement. Cathy Cohen maintains that queer politics is currently focusing heavily on class and race politics, which causes people to turn a blind eye towards minorities within the homosexual community and the issues that must be addressed.

Black women face the issue of marginalization in ways of both race and gender. They were, and still are, dehumanized and forced into a subordinate role that makes them subject to both black and white males. Black women in the workforce were frequently placed into a domestic setting. In a white household, Black women were contributing to keeping the white family together, but were considered to be outsiders. This position led to Black feminist thought and the rejection of the stereotypes and roles that Black women were forced into by the White patriarchy.

Collins outlines 2 principles of black feminist theory: self-definition and self-valuation. Self-definition is the concept of challenging political knowledge that has lead to the discrimination and oppression of Black women. Black feminists acknowledge the stereotypes that are present in their everyday lives and in the political realm. According to the Black feminist Mae King, these stereotypes represented in images contribute to the exploitation of Black women’s labor. Black women’s labor was frequently devalued; more than White women’s, which was more commonly discussed. Black women and White women in the workforce were both mistreated; Black women were considered to be complete outsiders, while White women could belong to the family, but be considered as less equal. An important concept noted by Collins was the image and stereotype of the assertive Black female — this is still commonly shown today. The stereotype of the “angry black woman” became a frequent character due to the threat that White people (specifically men) felt of their power. Black women who spoke out against their oppression received this label and had their opinions ignored. Self-valuation is a concept that validates the content of Black women’s own self-definition and allows Black female images to be present. These images are meant to empower Black women, allowing them to define their image for themselves, breaking stereotypes placed on them by oppressive groups.

This essay helps us to understand our society and culture by outlining the specific forms of oppression that Black women face when they are labelled as outsiders. Being an outsider forces them into a box where they cannot speak up for themselves, because their opinion will either be completely ignored, or it will result in them being labelled as “angry Black women”. Black feminists fighting this discourse are able to understand the reasons why this occurs, and they re-define and value themselves as equals to both White men and women. Outsiders in general are able to see the oppression that occurs that is not discussed. They have an outside opinion that those in the realm cannot understand or visualize. The discourse of “outsiders” allows for a step towards political and social change in our society. Black women being oppressed in White households in which they work forces them to be considered “outsiders”, which many Black feminists fought against.

Heterosexism outlines our relationship to the concepts of femininity and masculinity. Gender roles are increasingly defined through heterosexual relationships, which are idealized and considered a norm through the institution of heterosexism. In a traditional heterosexual marriage, both genders are placed into distinct roles. Women are considered the homemakers, in which they stay at home and take care of any children and their husband while cooking and cleaning. This calls for women to rely on their husband, who is considered the breadwinner of the family. Women’s labor is devalued, which is a concept often discussed by Karl Marx. This placement of the genders into distinct roles increases the construction of genders. Gender is not something that exists biologically; men and women do not have distinct roles that they are placed into because of their biology. There is an important difference between gender and sex that is often not noted because of heterosexism. Heterosexism leads us to believe that if men and women are not placed into definitive roles that they are not truly heterosexual or that they are not valuable. The specific gender roles that people are placed into in our society prevent women from truly having equal rights. Until the principle of gender roles that is placed by heterosexism institutions no longer exists, there cannot be true gender equality.

There is a distinction between the marxist view of heterosexism and the freudian view. Freudians focus on instinctual, sexual desires such as sexual orientation and Marxists focus on the structural hegemony of society, which includes class struggles and the distinct difference between the genders. Both views contribute to the inequality of the genders and of those in the LGBTQ+ community, as both are equally effected by the institution of heterosexism. The class struggles between men and women can be shown in the workplace, as women are placed into lower paying jobs that are considered “traditionally” feminine or are told to stay at home, and men have a higher ability to progress in their field and be at the top. The Freudian view and Marxist views overlap as those of a sexual orientation that is not heterosexual are often not given a job or can be fired from their job because of their sexual orientation. Heterosexism in the workplace is extremely prominent.

Heterosexuality is something that has become monetized and commercialized in capitalist societies. It has been engraved in us since birth that heterosexuality is the only correct sexuality, and this has been institutionally enforced. The institution of heterosexuality places an attack on the lesbian community, claiming that they have a bitterness towards men. Because of this belief, heterosexuality is engraved into women from a young age. When girls are as young as 1-2 years old, they are told about fairytales where every single ending involves a woman getting married to a man. This need for parents to have their children grow up heterosexual is extremely profitable in media. Children’s shows, books, and films frequently relate back to the topic of heterosexual marriage, even though that is something that children do not understand. The capitalization of heterosexuality occurs in every platform other than platforms geared towards children. It is very rare to see a homosexual couple being the lead of a television show or a film. Most couples in popular media fit the trope of being straight, white and wealthy. This thrives in our society, causing heterosexuality to be something that is capitalized.

Another way that heterosexuality is an economic institution relates back to the way that women are treated in the workforce. Women are given an unequal pay, are sexually harassed in the workforce, and are often denied jobs if they claim they are a lesbian. Women are often forced into low-paying degrading jobs because higher position jobs are claimed to be “unfit” for a woman. Sexual harassment in the workforce is an extremely common occurrence, and the perpetrators are infrequently held responsible. This makes it almost impossible for a woman to speak out against this behavior, and when she does she is often labelled a prude or accused of not being heterosexual. Women are placed into this vicious cycle of being abused in the workplace but not being able to advance in their place because of the institution of heterosexuality.

The discussion of sex in the United States if often very limited; it focuses on only straight couples, most of which are both white and probably married or in a romantic relationship. Western society tends to ignore the topics of homosexuality, casual sex, sex outside of marriage, sex for pleasure, and this inhibits the ability for sex theory to develop. This issue is deep-rooted in the history of the United States, with laws that criminalize sexual acts and feelings. Dating back to 1873 with the Comstock Act, pornographic or obscene material was banned along with contraceptive drugs. This implies that sex is not made for pleasure but for procreation, and that having natural feelings of sexual desire is immoral. Throughout the years, the age of consent as been raised; in 1885, it was raised from 13 to 16, and now varies state to state but is typically around 17 to 18. This law brings the implication that children cannot be aware of sex or engaging in sexual acts, and criminalizes consensual sexual acts between two minors. In my opinion, this law is not all bad because it prevents young children from rape and sexual assault, but it is unnecessary for it to be a crime for two consenting 16 year olds to have sex. This relates to the movement of the rising use of the term “sex offender” in the 1950’s. This term was often aimed at the LGBTQ+ community, but also cracked down on people who possessed child pornography. I also do not see this as a bad thing because child pornography is completely wrong, but this law did ban historical and art pieces that contained naked children which were not sexual at all. There is a common implication in the United States that nudity is equivalent to sexuality, when in fact people use nudity as a form of art and the naked body is not inherently sexual. The criminalization of human sexuality continues when homosexuals were increasingly targeted in the mid to late 1950’s. Homosexuals were associated with communists, were considered mentally ill, and were used as a scapegoat. Many Americans placed their frustration with the state of the country at the time on the gay community, which led to many police raids of gay bars and areas and increased queerbashing. Many of these issues still exist today. Often sexual acts are considered only okay in a monogamous relationship or marriage, and women are often called degrading names for enjoying sex. Although homosexuality is more accepted, there is still a stigma surrounding it. People believe that lesbian sex is not real because there is no penis involved, and that gay sex is unnatural and immoral. These issues were created out of tension with societal problems, and have still not been solved. Sex theory will not develop until these issues are solved in our society.

Before reading this piece, I did believe that capitalism directly caused sexism and worked to harm women each day. Women were unable to have equal rights in the workforce, were placed in unfair unsafe working conditions, and are not given the same wages to this day. In this piece, women are described as having their work being valued as less than that of a man’s. Because of the fact that they are women, the bosses are able to pay them less and treat them more poorly, which is seen as normal by the white male population. Women were increasingly seen as housewives, which were expected to stay at home and work from there, relying on the wages of the man. Women who worked outside of the home still had little access to resources because of their low wages; for example, if a woman worked in a wheat factory it would still be very likely that she could not afford bread on her own. This system caused women to have to rely on men, staying with them and being unhappy just to make a living. Separation was impossible for economic reasons as well as societal reasons, so women were forced to stay in unhappy or abusive marriages because it would be impossible for them to live otherwise. Many women were politically involved during this time, protesting food shortages and unfair working conditions. Women rose up against their unfair treatment, and fought for their rights as seen in the years previous to this. To me this shows the persistence and strength of women, as they are always continuously faced with disadvantages that they fight against. The rebellion and efforts of women are extremely important to the history of women, as it demonstrates the effectiveness of women coming together to fight against patriarchal rule and unfair conditions.

At birth, infants are given certain guidelines on how they should be raised based on genitalia. They are given either a pink or blue cap, and this cap comes with certain rules that the parents follow in order to give them a “normal” childhood; but what happens when a child is born with ambiguous genitalia? Intersexuality is something that is often ignored by society, and is considered a deformity.
The fact that intersexuality is considered a deformity that must be corrected in order to live a normal life is perpetrated by doctors. These medical professionals believe that they must fix this supposed problem for the parents to raise the child in the proper environment, and the basis for correcting this is not based in biology. Much like the issue of sexism being backed up by science, the cultural construction of gender is being supported by these doctors that say that a child must live as either a male or a female. It is proven that the majority of the time the condition of intersexuality is not life-threatening, but it is practically treated like it is by these doctors, because they want to place them into a box of either female or male.
When a child is intersex, surgery to fix the appearance of their genitals is often performed. A basis for whether or not the doctor assigns this child as either male or female is the child’s penis size. Because of society’s definition of masculinity involves having an average penis, children who are born intersex who have an abnormally small penis are often given hormone treatment first to see if there is a response. If there is no response, the doctor then decides that the child will be a female and gives the child reconstructive surgery, because they believe that the child could not live their life as a normal male with a smaller than average penis. More emphasis is given on making the child into a male, which shows a desire for more male children rather than female by the doctors. A significant factor that contributes to whether or not the child is “fixed” of their intersexuality is how their genitals perform sexually when they are adults; if the male’s penis can satisfy a woman, and that an originally intersex female’s vagina can receive a penis. This not only has implications on the gender roles of masculinity and femininity, but it also implies that being straight is the societal norm.
Doctors treat intersexuality as a deformity that needs to be corrected, and they place this belief on the parents as well. They desire to fix the child’s genitals as soon as possible, to ensure the child grows up without being psychologically damaged from this experience. Doctors often discourage parents from raising their child as either gender when they are unsure, so that when the child is assigned a final gender, their gender identity matches with their sex. Although it is important that these doctors recognize the difference between gender identity and sex, they imply that something is completely wrong when children’s identity and sex do not match up.

According to Schiebinger, during the period of the eighteenth to nineteenth century, white men used science to define women and Black men’s place in society and the political realm. At at time where the study of anatomy and science was flourishing, many found it necessary to use this to explain why women and Black men were considered unequal to the supposedly superior white man. During this time, people of privilege would only consider someone’s argument to be valid if it was backed up with scientific evidence. Although most of the scientific evidence used was incorrect, white men used biological explanations to exclude women from the social and political realm of Europe.
Many scientists at the time used the supposed differences between the male and female skeletons to explain why women are inferior. Without the desire to find women’s place in society, the first female skeleton and the study of female anatomy would not have came out. Certain aspects of the supposed female skeleton backed up common stereotypes of women at the time; the idea that women were less intelligent because it was believed that they had smaller skulls, and the concept of the main role of women to be mothers because their pelvis was larger. These findings put women at an even lower political and social place; before this research was published, there was no scientific evidence to back up people’s stereotypes about women, but now people took this as real evidence as to why women were inferior. Many people believed that science was a set-in-stone policy, and that basically anything a scientist claimed about women’s bodies relating back to their status was correct because there was scientific “evidence”.
Another claim that excluded women from the political and social realm was that their bone structure was similar to children. This relates back to the idea that women are submissive, innocent creatures that have no place in a political arena. This and the common belief that women had a smaller skull which meant they were less intelligent led to the belief that politics were a place only for men. Men were considered intellectually superior because of their structure; their “larger” skulls and more robust bodies.
Although men were put on a pedestal because of their anatomy, this only applied to white men. The skeletal figure of man that was drawn was a white man, and Black men’s anatomy were rarely studied, and when they were they were used to exclude them just like women. A popular anatomist Soemmerring stated that the skeleton of Black people were similar to apes, which is a racist insult that is still sometimes used today. These claims allowed white people to belief that their racism and exclusion of Black people from the social and political realm were justified, just like how they treated women as well. Both are rooted in mostly incorrect science, and both were an attempt to place both women and Black people at a lower tier in society than white men.