To help you prepare for next week’s take-home midterm essay exam, I’d like you to spend the rest of class working in small groups reviewing our course reading thus far. For each of the essays or excerpts that we’ve read, I’d like you to write a paragraph (or so) in which you summarize the main claim or central argument of the piece, briefly describe how the scholar supports or explains his or her argument, and the explain why you think this piece is significant or meaningful.
Each group should pick 4 or 5 of the pieces listed below and complete these summaries before the end of class. Then, before class on Tuesday, I would like you individually to post one or two of your summaries to our course blog as a way to help the rest of class review our readings in preparation for the midterm. Here are the readings we’ve completed thus far:
• Judith Lorber, “The Social Construction of Gender”
• Audre Lorde, “Age, Race, Class, and Sex”
• Anne Fausto-Sterling, “Should There Only Be Two Sexes?”
• Thomas Laqueur, “The Discovery of the Sexes”
• Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality
• David Halperin, “Is There a History of Sexuality?”
• Will Roscoe, “Was We’wha a Homosexual?”
• Paula Gunn Allen, “How the West Was Really Won”
• Carroll Smith-Rosenberg, “The Female World of Love and Ritual”
• Judith Halberstam, “Perverse Presentism”
After reading Monday’s articles, feel free to include a summary of one of them if you’re feeling ambitious.
• Ellen Carol DuBois, “The Nineteenth-Century Woman Suffrage Movement and the Analysis of Women’s Oppression”
• Lillian Faderman, “Acting ‘Woman,’ Thinking ‘Man’”
• Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham, “African-American Women’s History and the Metalanguage of Race”
In the article about "The Social Construction of Gender", the main thing we took from this was how each individual is raised and where you come from. Some for those of us who had been raised without a sibling may have allowed us to fulfill both a male and female role. Others of us had to face a stricter way of living like a “man” or a “women”. Also we took away the idea that how you are portrayed to others, says for instance (more masculine than feminine or vice versa) could be totally different than your biological being. We also thought that transgender/sexual people set the way of what feminine and masculine things are, for instance if we see a man wearing pink or something that looks like a skirt, we automatically identify that as feminine clothing, so in a way that sets how we identify feminine and masculine things.
ReplyDeleteIn Anne Fausto-Sterling article, “Should there be only two sexes” she brings up the notion of more than two sexes. She says that society today has rejected the idea of 4 or more sexes, which in reality; exist such as Fems, Herms, and Mems. Fems are persons with testes, XY Chromosomes and some aspects of female genitalia. Herms are persons with ovaries and testes. Mems are persons with XX Chromosomes and some aspects of male genitalia. Sterling also proposes a new medical management of intersexual birth that needs to change. She states there be no unnecessary infant surgery. Let the medical care team provide full information and long term counseling to the parents and to the child. Sterling also introduces some information about Cheryl Chase, founder of the Intersexual Society of North America in 1993. Chase fights for rights of intersex individuals to choose their own sex. Also, the consequences of these surgeries to “control” a individual’s sex”. Procedures such as clitoral surgery which affects sexual function. Also vaginoplasty – a general term for a variety of techniques to enlarge, reshape or construct vaginas.
ReplyDeleteIn the article, "Was We'wha a Homosexual?" by Will Roscoe the main point of the article was how today's contemporary Western terminology relates the naming of sexual orientations of indigenous peoples. Roscoe's article talks about how when Europeans came in contact with native people that the gender structures were set up very differently. In these set ups there were often "men-women" or "warrior women" who did the traditional tasks of the opposite sex that were accepted and sometimes honored by their tribes. So, the Europeans who had more of a binary gender system tried to call them "homosexuals," beraches, or even hermaphrodites to label their differences. He also talks about how this interaction caused some of the native people to begin adopting or altering certain ways of thinking about their identities. Roscoe explains that over time caused some of the indigenous people began to reject these members of their society due to the widespread European institutions such as Christianity that disapproved of such behavior. Overall, Roscoe explains, that the bringing in of European terms and religions forever altered the tribal senses of spirituality by replacing it with European ways. All of this helped to try to erase the memory of two-spirited people to conform society in the Americas to a gender binary so in modern times these people are simplified to our current understanding of "homosexuals."
ReplyDeleteI found Ellen Carol DuBois’ article an interesting continuation of the discussion we started with Thursday’s readings. DuBois focuses on the historical context of the suffrage movement and how it affected its radicalism and failures. The development of suffragism and its relationship with the labor movement was constricted by women’s social conditions in the nineteenth century—most notably their dependence on marriage and sexually segregated labor. However, leaders of the movement were able to make the best of this tension and showed that the two movements overlapped because both laborers and women represented groups of strength as well as politically demoralized groups. While the leaders wanted to embrace the image of the working woman, they found that their strongest support instead came from middle-class women. The relationship between suffragism and male supremacy hinged on the concept of sexual oppression of women by men. Public conversation started concerning women’s rights in this arena and what “social and sexual arrangements would work to women’s greatest benefits” (75). Through these types of forums, leaders worked to developed feminist opinions on public matters. Stanton’s position on sexual oppression highlighted the fact that not only did laws need to change to remedy the situation, but the morality of society needed to change as well. Despite all of their strides, the leaders of the women were up against a strong reluctance of women to commit to the movement because so many women’s only real life option was marriage. Overall, it was the social condition on women in the 19th century that shaped the nature and aims of the movement, rather than the radical ideals more deeply embedded in the hearts and minds of the movement’s leadership.
ReplyDeleteThis piece is significant to understanding the development of the 19th century movement in terms of how it interacts and creates a dialogue with other readings that discuss the nature and nuances of the movement during this time period.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn Carroll Smith-Rosenberg's article "The Female World of Love and Ritual: Relations between Women in Nineteenth-Century America" she discusses the concept of female relationships in the Victorian era. She argues that in the nineteenth century, because of shared female experiences and gender segregation, women formed more intimate bonds of friendship. She gives evidence that some of them were even sexual relationships. Women were also closer to their mothers and female family members because of their female gender roles.
ReplyDeleteIn Will Roscoe's "Was We'wha a homosexual? Native American Survivance and the Two-Spirit Tradition" he discusses the American Indian belief in two-spirits. He states that American Indian two-spirits would not have considered themselves as homosexual, because they didn't have the term. They celebrated two-spirits and the other terms in their individual languages that meant similar things. But Europeans changed the American Indian's gender structures and started applying these terms to their culture. They made the behavior of two-spirits into a deviant one. They began to enforce European religious systems instead of letting the American Indians celebrate their spirituality.
When I read Carrol Smith-Rosenberg's article, "The Female World of Love and Ritual:Relations between Women in the Nineteenth-Century America" I think the main idea she wants us to take away, is that woman back then were looking for intimacy. While they were searching for this intimacy the ended up finding it in each other, some were sexual, some were just very spirtitually close. Rosenburg shows us the concept of being able to be in love with more than one person at a time. The wives loved their husbands and also their girl friends, mothers, and other relatives.
ReplyDeleteIn the article by Halperin "Is There a History of Sexuality?" he makes the claim that sex has no history, but that sexuality does. Sexuality is a cultural creation. It is from sexuality that sexual identity emerges. He then describes sex during different times of history. In Athens, sex was not a mutual act that both participated in to express love. It was something that a superior person would do to an inferior person. To them, two different kinds of sexuality did not exist. Men had sex with males and females as long as they were of inferior social standing. Sexuality at that time was heavily influenced by status. It was very different from the way that it is today. And it's not important to focus heavily on the way it was. Halperin makes the claim that by looking at this history of sexuality, we are idealizing it when we should be focusing on a new analysis of the construction of sexuality.
ReplyDeleteIn Thomas Laqueur's “The Discovery of the Sexes” they didn’t think that the male and female anatomy differed very much- they varied in degree, not kind. In the 18th century they had a one-sex model; which was basically the vagina being an inverted penis. This was basically when the modern day "sexes" were invented. They justified degrading women because they were just “lesser men” and therefore didn't deserve as many choices. They also thought that women had to orgasm to get pregnant so if they were raped, they couldn’t pursue it as rape if they got pregnant. People were very interested in sex back in the 18th century and did a lot of research about it. That's how they also discovered that an aroused female is similar to an aroused male in that the clitoris swells just like the male penis. Eventually as their research became more advanced, they disregarded the 1 sex model and recreated a 2 sex model.
ReplyDeletePaula Gunn Allen’s, “How the West Was Really Won” labels the Anglo-European colonization period as the shift between gynecentric (women-centered), egalitarian, ritual-based social system to secularized structures similar to the European patriarchal system. This led to the disbanding of ritual tradition and as a result, the tribal people lost status, power and leadership. The devaluation of women, including lesbians and gay men, spiritual leaders, and medicine people was due to the ideals of gender-based roles and labor division of the Europeans. All that was labeled “deviant” was either altered, or prohibited causing sexual customs among tribes to change. The respect and honor associated with homosexuality and lesbianism among tribes dissipated. Conquest led homophobia, a term foreign to tribal people, to increase as traditional tribal values were exchanged for Christian industrial ones. Interestingly, the homophobia of the colonizers was in complete contrast with the acceptance Indians had exemplified. Women also had a traditional respect by Indian men,” …because all work was valued because all of it was important.” The ritual and political relationship men had with women was severed due to colonization.
ReplyDeleteAllen makes reference to the amount of “spirit power” that has been locked in museums of homes where its significance is unknown. Traditional American Indians’ social and personal life was very much ruled by internal rather than external factors. There was a spirituality attached to this sentiment. Allen proposes that the reclaiming of balance, health and wellness can in turn lead to the restoration of tradition.
Judith Halberstam’s “Perverse Presentism” makes the argument that characteristics of female masculinity have been, more or less, disqualified from our modern concept of masculinity. Halberstam focuses on two general claims: one being that women have made their own unique contributions that play a part of modern masculinity, yet are disregarded. Secondly, that what we recognize as female masculinity is actually representative of an array of masculinities. She exemplifies this through a brief history of terminology, stressing that the terms “tommies”, “tribades”, “female husbands”, “fricatrices”, “hermaphrodites”, and “inverts” allows for a new perspective of thinking rather than the umbrella term of “lesbians”. She uses the term “perverse presentism”, meaning denaturalization of the present to link to the history of female masculinity. White middle-class ideal of manliness were severely challenged at the turn of the century, thus causing middle-class men to “remake manhood”. New ideologies of “manhood” were created, further prompting “excessive femininity” in women and men alike. Halberstam utilizes an example of the 19th century court case of Miss Marianne Wood and Miss Jane Pirie v. Dame Cumming Gordon, highlighting the issue of same-sex between women at the time. She also uses several literary examples of the “female husband” to further explain her argument. This piece is significant in that it elaborates general conceptions and meanings that we see in our everyday lives. It gives greater meaning to the abilities of women and represents a sort of empowerment that has been purposely excluded out of fear.
ReplyDeleteLillian Faderman emphasizes a main era of great victory for women’s rights through the piece “Acting “Woman” and Thinking “Man”. The central argument is about the main conflict of the 19th century as there was a construction of the clean, definition of the ideal woman. Numerous suffragists had become sexual inverts who believed that they could only effectively be a spokesperson if they presented themselves to the public as “womanly”. Besides their outward presentation to the public, the general majority of their acts, lifestyle, and characteristics were not categorized to be “womanly”. Faderman focuses on two historical examples, Anna Howard Shaw and Frank Willard, both of whom were remarkable public speakers of the time, and both of whom brought about notable change for women’s rights. Partially through their efforts, they brought about the ability for women to assume a political voice, the right to higher education, and the right to a profession, while greatly increasing public awareness of women’s rights. The central issue is that they both masqueraded a public disguise that was not akin to their true character. Some criticize this because they were not representative of their true selves; others argue that they held this disguise because it was crucial in taking the first steps to the women’s movement after gaining rights to education and economic independence. It is significant to see the contrast of criticism and praise for a somewhat unusual approach to a social movement. But similarly, this presents a larger scope of a more tactical approach in the woman suffrage movement.
ReplyDeleteIn the article “The Discovery of the Sexes” by Thomas Laqueur. The pre 18th Century one sex concept is discussed. The classical, pre-modern view of the sexes consisted of the idea that one sex encompassed the explanation of anatomy because it was one sex in varying degrees. This was the basis for women's class as lower than a man because their internal organs made them a lesser man. During the 18th century, the idea was developed that men and women were in fact separate and the two sex model was societally excepted. The bigger concept discussed in class based on this reading was that our current concept of the 2 sex mode is only 3 centuries old. It is not something that has been accepted forever and therefore it should not necessarily be accepted as complete fact. The concept of a 4 or more sex model could one day be the societal norm.
ReplyDeleteIn Audre Lourde's article, "Age, Race, Class, and Sex", the main point to come across was the idea of intersectionality. Intersectionality is the ability to talk about privilege and oppression in general rather than comparatively between, as the title of the article describes, age, race, class and sex. There is only one power dynamic which causes all this oppression, so it would be easier and more efficient if everyone who felt oppression to band together, rather than try to compete with each other due to slight differences in their situations. An example of this is white women not wanting to teach the theory of black women because they aren't black so therefore they can't understand and comprehend how it works. However, white women feel completely comfortable teaching, for example, Russian novelists, despite the fact that they are not Russian. A basic understanding of oppression is simply oppression, because it does not see race or age or sex. As Lourde states in the article, "White feminists can't forget about black feminists," and therefore, oppressed people can't forget about other oppressed people.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSocial Construction of Gender Judith Lorber
ReplyDeleteGender has been created and recreated by human interactions and social life. Without the scientific knowledge that we have today, gender could be socially constructed. Due to misconceptions about the female body, such as: that a woman’s genitals were thought to be that of an introverted penis, phantom ideas were created to insure that women were inferior to a man. In sexual relations, because little was known about the female orgasm and conception, women were subject to rape and were not protected under the law. Gender was constructed through ignorance of science. As science progressed societies understanding of female bodies became more knowledgeable, yet still the fundamental beliefs were that women were subordinate.
Sterling-
ReplyDeleteIt is important to first clarify Sterling defines key terms, essentially intersex and hermaphrodite. The terms themselves are entirely equatable one obviously less political correct. Intersex is a group of conditions where there is a discrepancy between the external genitals and the internal genitals (the testes and ovaries). The older term for this condition, hermaphroditism, came from joining the names of a Greek god and goddess, Hermes and Aphrodite. Hermes was a god of male sexuality (among other things) and Aphrodite a goddess of female sexuality, love, and beauty. After explaining the two terms Sterling essentially describes the conditions in which sexual reconstruction surgery is necessary for those born. She stipulates under the doctors advisement, and in cases of danger it can be necessary. But if done the child needs to be prepared for the long term effects through consul. From physical to psychological trauma, Sterling describes the adverse effects of unwarranted gender assignments. Essentially Sterling describes the pros and cons of the gender assignment surgery in the status quo.
"The Perverse Implantation" by Foucault looks at the history of sexuality and how western culture has been narrowed down to a heterosexual couple. He notes how repression has caused a backlash into a more "perverse" and secretive society. Yet due to the pathologizing of sexualities helped create an explosion of sexual identity and more discussion of them. In class we also discussed how the Industrial Revolution and rise of the middle class created an avenue to best produce the nuclear family in order to keep creating worker bees.
ReplyDelete"How the West was Really Won" by Paula Gunn Allen looks at the role women have played in tribes and how these tribes were Gynecentric--having women as the center of thoughts and activities. Then colonization began and implemented patriarchal ideals the corrupted men towards seeking and desiring more power. Natives were forced to assimilate and women were devalued. Strong women were discredited in order to promote the new patriarchal structure. This in turn created a space of violence against women. Article also mentions basket weaving and its role for women as an expression of spirituality.
The article, “Discovery of the Sexes” describes that how in the 18th century sex was invented as a result of more physical understanding of bodies. There was a collapse of the old representations of bodies, thus creating a two sex model. Along with all the anatomical research being done, it was discovered that the female’s clitoris could swell, much like a penis when aroused. Also, because orgasm was believed to be necessary to conceive a child, many women who were raped and conceived were considered liars. The article goes on to say how women were deemed passionless in many ways, yet they were most likely to conceive when orgasm is experienced. Though little was still known about women in many ways, discovering more about the human body was the first step in the creation of the two-sex model.
ReplyDeleteThomas Laqueur
ReplyDeleteSorry my last post got missed up when I said Judith Lorber meant Laqueur
The construction of two genders arose in the 1800’s due to advancements and interest in science during this time. The idea that woman having different biology than a man created a scare, and misrepresentation of the woman and femininity. The hierarchy of the male during the 1800’s depicted the human sex organs as penis and internalized penis or internalized man. This conception generated a falsehood of the female orgasm. Such that if a woman was raped and conceived a child the rape was consensual because there was desire involved that produced an orgasm. For some this ideology was great and made the male try harder during intercourse in order to conceive, but it was ultimately the female orgasm was misunderstood. When it was discovered that the it was not required for a female to orgasm to be with a child, the perception of a female became even more degrading with the sanction that women were passionless. This social construction of gender through physical science determined ideologies of conception, marriage, femininity, and were based of the understanding of the orgasm.
Thomas Laqueur: In this piece, the change in ideology throughout the 1800s and on is discussed, specifically in terms of gender. At one point, women and men were even considered one gender, women simply being the lesser form. The two-sex system then came about, and certain things for women improved, and some did not. For example, it was briefly believed that an orgasm was necessary for a woman to become impregnated. This gave women power sexually, because men truly desired the female orgasm in order to carry on their family name. But, in some situations, such as rape, it had detrimental outcomes. If a woman was impregnated from rape, it meant she had an orgasm, and therefore enjoyed herself, which it not necessarily true. Female genetalia became competition for the male penis, making many social norms thrown off.
ReplyDeleteAudre Lorde: In her work, she discusses how there are different standings and oppressions, yet there does not have to be any sort of ranking or hierarchy to this fact. People should not be competing who has it worse, but working together to overcome boundaries and seeing past societal statuses that sometimes affect peoples viewpoints. "Intersectionality" is a huge part of her discussion as well, and how white feminists cannot be seperated from black feminists. It may make us uncomfortable at times, but if one is working towards equality and fairness among ALL women, not just a small section, we must push ourselves out of our comfort zone and be open to discussions and potential change.
ReplyDeleteWill Roscoe, “Was We’wha a Homosexual?”
ReplyDeleteIn this work he describes the idea that there is a problem in translating old gender systems to conform to the current gender systems represented by European American traditions. Christians typically have only a rhetoric of abomination for any gender variance outside of the two sex male/female system. In Native societies there was the idea that there could be multiple gender systems, and person's could possess attributes which allowed them to embody both genders. People adopt a process of comparing cultures in order to label/make sense of their differences. Ideas from societies interact and influence one another, like the term homosexuality being imposed on Natives, but assimilating to a culture shouldn't have to mean giving up what is unique to one's own.
David Halperin, “Is There a History of Sexuality?”
He describes how sexuality has been used to appropriate the human body through ideological discourse, and has come to be viewed as a separate domain that helps to form one's "identity". Sexuality is now seen as proving one's sexual identity, but ancient societies didn't separate these domains, but viewed sex in terms of power and sex as a preference of roles rather than as an identity.
The article "Discovery of the Sexes" the main thing that is discussed would be the reconfiguring of sexual labels. Talking about how sex organs were viewed and how that view changed. This included the transition from thinking (and drawing) the vagina as simply an inverted penis to seeing it as its own entity. Further in the article it discusses the idea of how the overy and testicals are different from one another. The hardest thing throughout the piece was the discussion about what people thought a female orgasm was (or if they even had one at all) and how this idea changed.
ReplyDelete