Summary of “Dueling Dualisms” and “The Sexe Which Prevaileth”

In the book Sexing the Body, Fausto-Sterling begins her first chapter “Defining Dualism” by exploring society’s ideas about gender and sex.  Past sexologists have differentiated between sex and gender by defining sex as biologically and physiologically determined while describing gender as something that is more psychological and dependent on a person’s behavior.  Furthermore, second-wave feminists stressed the idea that socialization is the primary factor that creates gender, rather than physiological differences.  Fausto-Sterling explains that through this book she is attempting to demonstrate the ways in which science has created “truths about sexuality” and how these truths are what lead to our socially constructed views of gender.  Thus, although many may accept information about gender, race and sexuality as factual we often do not see the impact of the social world and our experiences on these “facts”.

            The world today has become obsessed with the idea of normalization, Fausto-Sterling explains.  We are constantly trying to maintain the norm and therefore we only define two sexes.  People look to define the normal as male or female, as well as either heterosexual or homosexual.  People like clear-cut categories expressed through dualisms, which are often portrayed as part of a hierarchy.  In the way that we define genders and sexuality in our society, Fausto-Sterling argues that we “narrow life’s possibilities while perpetuating gender inequality”. 

The chapter, “Dueling Dualisms” also discusses the historical background concerning sexuality.  Fausto-Sterling explains how our perception of sexuality has changed with time as well as culture, demonstrating that it is constructed socially.  Furthermore, she emphasizes the idea that sexuality encompasses everything from physical factors to behavior and motivation.  Sexuality is only constructed through a combination of these factors. 

Fausto-Sterling also focuses on the idea of nature versus nurture with regards to dualistic thought processes.  Developmental systems theory rejects the idea of two fundamentally different processes of genes and the environment, suggesting that the two concepts need to be combined. 

The second chapter of Sexing the Body, “The Sexe Which Prevails”, explains that society works to establish two distinct sexes, even though biologically there is more of a sexual continuum.  The idea of more than two sexes goes against norms and greatly disrupts society and thus we find benefit in keeping a male-female system of sex.  Hermaphrodite history demonstrates that hermaphrodites were considered disruptive in the past; still, depending on the culture and nation they were treated in various manners.  Some societies were more accepting such as the Italians, while others like the English found it “distasteful”.  Nevertheless, these societies emphasized the idea of a male-female sex system. 

The arrival of teratology worked to classify people with different bodies, lending explanations to uncommon births.  Now due to scientific improvements, doctors are better able to “fix” sexuality abnormalities at birth.  In this manner, doctors decide what sex the baby should be; Fausto-Sterling explains that this type of surgery emphasizes the societal assumptions that there should be only two sexes, heterosexuality is correct and that gender roles identify men and women.  Thus, this works to maintain the socially constructed view of gender. 

Summary of The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House (Lorde), White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack (McIntosh), and A Bla

Audre Lorde: The Master’s Tools…
Lorde is a black lesbian feminist who is sick of prejudice. She begins her article on how black women are separated from white women in the feminist movement, with the focus being on what white women think. She says that racism, sexism, and homophobia are inseparable in America and we need to do something about that.
Much of the article focuses on difference. There is a difference between being tolerated and being appreciated. Lorde writes how black women are only tolerated, and the same is true for homosexuals and women. She also discuses age and economic status, and how this affects how you are treated. There is a divide between black and white women because they have different experiences. No white women will ever be able to understand what it is like for black women, but there should more of an effort to try to. If feminists want to get rid of prejudice against women, they should work harder to get rid of prejudice against black women too. Lorde brings up Adrienne Rich, which is interesting because we have read some of Rich’s writings previously.
Lorde writes that there is a difference between being male or female, being white or black, being gay or straight, and being young or old. These differences cannot be helped, but the prejudice that goes along with them can be.

Peggy McIntosh: Unpacking the Invisible…
This article also looks at racism within the feminist movement. McIntosh describes what men believe about women becoming empowered. Men think that the relationship is one of negative correlation (as one goes up, the other goes down), but McIntosh disagrees. She links how men see sexism to how white people view racism. The privileged group does not see how they are privileged. Racism and sexism are both forms of prejudice that need to be ended.
There are many forms of prejudice in the world today. McIntosh looks at racism and sexism, but she mentions many other forms as well. She makes a list of the ways that she is privileged every day. When describing the list she only mentions how black people have different experiences because they are not privileged; she does not mention any other race, which is an interesting side note. One of the items on the list struck me particularly. It is number seven, which says: “When I am told about our national heritage or about “civilization,” I am shown that people of my color made it what it is” (2). She is just talking about how white people are the ones that people mostly learn about in history class, yet it can also be said that it is mainly white men that people learn about.
McIntosh goes on to discus prejudice in our society and how it affects everyone, even those who do not think that they are affected. She calls for new social system, just as the Combahee River Collective does. Finally she concludes that power needs to be redistributed without prejudices to control whom gets what.

Combahee River Collective: A Black Feminist…
The Combahee River Collective is a group of black, lesbian, feminists who want to see a change in the social structure. Like McIntosh and Lorde, they criticize the feminist movement for being hypocritical. On one hand, feminists fight for equal rights between men and women, and on the other hand, there is a divide between white feminists and black feminists.
The Combahee River Collective starts out by talking about what it is like being black women. They list the different stereotypes that go along with black women, and how they reject these attributes. White men are considered above black men, black men are higher than white women, and white women are higher than black women. Sexual politics are directly involved with racial politics, and class prejudice is also important when looking at how people are treated.
They call for a total social revolution, but even this may not be enough. The Combahee River Collective writes about how personal these issues are for them, and they are sick of waiting for them. There is a call for everyone to become involved with attaining equality for people. Like Lorde, they directly look at the racism involved with the white women’s movement. The struggle for equality is harder for black and homosexual women, and instead of ignoring this fact (like white feminists do) the Combahee River Collective wants to start a social revolution.

Response to McIntosh, Lorde, Cambahee River Collective

I found “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack” by Peggy McIntosh to be very interesting and very relative to what we spoke about in class on Tuesday.  McIntosh emphasizes the immense amount of privilege that whites are given as well as the various daily effects that accompany them.  Often these effects are not even considered to be privileges to those who experience them.  Rather they are taken for granted as the norm when in actuality not all groups of people are able to experience them. 

This privilege is due to a social system in place that keeps whites as the privileged group and non-white races as the oppressed group.  McIntosh explains that many see racism or sexism only in actual individual acts however racism is immersed in an “invisible system” that gives whites dominance.  Thus, like Johnson and McIntosh I believe that racism, sexism and other forms of oppression are due to the system that we live in and interact with.  Still, as people we are all active participants in continuing this societal status quo.  Changes need to be made, and it must be understood that the changes need to be made to this underlying power structure.

I also liked that McIntosh explained that often, bad behavior or activity is blamed on an individual’s race or gender.  For instance, she gives the example, “I can talk with my mouth full and not have people put this down to my color”.  This statement is very interesting; in psychology classes I have consistently learned that people often attribute some negative behavior to that person rather than the situation or some other factor.  Thus, when a bad behavior is observed people may see it as a reflection of ones race or gender because that is what they associate the behavior with, when it fact there are other underlying explanations.  This is another example of how stereotypical thinking is employed in daily life when making judgments about people and their actions.  Underlying all of this is the system in which these stereotypes thrive, the system itself needs to be fixed if we are to live in a more just and equal society.  

Follow Up: Lorde, McIntosh, and the Combahee River Collective

My favorite article was "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" by Peggy McIntosh. I had never before considered that being white came with privileges. She notes that men will say that women are disadvantaged but won't say that they are overprivileged. I think I was of the same mindset. However, after reading McIntosh unpack the numerous different ways that white people have advantages, I have changed my mind. The "invisible package of unearned assets" that I carry around with me at all times has probably shaped my life more than I know (1). McIntosh preaches that we need to try to spread the positive advantages while, at the same time, rejecting the negative advantages to force us out of our present hierarchy. This requires that we completely reshape social systems so they take the unseen prejudices into account. This relates to Lorde's comment that we need to accept difference and think of it as a strength because we can't use the masters tools to dismantle his own house. I thought it was really interesting that the Combahee River Collective related the oppression of women (and patriarchy) to imperialism and capitalism. I never would have made that connection, but it makes their goals seem even less attainable. Not only are they trying to fight patriarchy and the oppression of women but the huge institutions of imperialism and capitalism too. I was a little confused about how the two were related but from what I understood, it had to do with the fact that the Collective believes that race, sex and class are all interrelated.

Summary Post: Oppression, Johan Gokova, and Patriarchy

Oppression by Marilyn Frye

According to Frye, the word oppression has become a meaningless term that is a catch-all phrase for anyone undergoing any type of suffering. She claims that "humans can be miserable without being oppressed" (1). The word oppress is much stronger than it is often treated and should be used with such words as "immobilize" or "reduce". She claims that oppression means that the oppressed people's options "are reduced to a very few and all of them expose one to penalty" (1). She relates this to the difficulties women face in everyday life. For example, sexual activity isn't okay because women could be considered a slut, but sexual inactivity isn't okay either because it implies that there is a greater problem or the woman is a lesbian. The life of an oppressed person is thus being forced to live "one's life...confined and shaped by forces and barriers which are not accidental or occasional and hence avoidable, but are systematically related to each other in such a way as to catch one between and among them and restrict or penalize motion in any direction" (2). She says we need to consider all aspects of life macroscopically rather than microscopically. She uses the metaphor of a bird in a cage. If you only look at the one wire in the fence, it isn't clear why the bird can't escape. However, if we pan back and realize that the one wire is part of an entire fence, it becomes much clearer why the bird is immobilized. The small everyday actions that oppress women could be seen as silly when looked at individually. Yet, when examined as a whole, they pertain to a much larger problem.

"Challenging Men to Reject Gender Stereotypes" by Johan Gokova

Gokova argues that men are equally oppressed by gender stereotypes and that, in order to restore an equilibrium, men must seek to make women their equals. They need to strike gender stereotypes once and for all. He believes that gender stereotypes have had a strong negative effect on men as well, and says that, "Living the myth of male superiority has sometimes resulted in men suffering from stress, even early death, because of pressure to project an image that is not naturally theirs and that is not sustainable" (422). Gokova argues that getting rid of typical stereotypes and patriarchy would positively effect both sexes.

"Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us" by Johnson

Johnson argues that patriarchy is a system. Systems are made up of parts that create one whole. Thus, we as people, are parts of the whole that facilitates patriarchy. He believes that people take the "path or least resistance," and this helps foster the ideals. The path of least resistance essentially means that we do what is easiest and most comfortable. Since patriarchy is a system in our society, we play into the system because it is what we are used to and fighting that system may cause some resistance. Johnson argues that "when people step off the path of least resistance, they have the potential not simply to change other people, but to alter the way the system itself happens" (32). He uses the metaphor of a game of Monopoly to prove his point. In the game, people are ruthless and steal the money of the people they care about. They don't think twice about it because those are the rules of the game. What we don't consider is that we are playing in the privacy of our own home, and therefore, have the power to change the rules if we don't like the way the game is played. This idea of change doesn't occur to us because we assume the rules are finite. Patriarchy in society is "an arrangement of shared understandings and relationships that connect people to one another and something larger than themselves" (34). If we want to stop this cycle, we have to change the structures and the systems. We consistently individualize patriarchy by "shielding the system by pretending problems like violence aren't about systems, only about individuals who have somehow gone astray" (48). However, individualizing it, doesn't solve the bigger problem and can't explain the fact that violence against women is a pattern. It involves everyone even though the minority group is the one doing the victimizing or being victimized. Thus, "by participating in patriarchy we are of patriarchy and it is of us" (43).

Follow Up Post: Why Patriarchy?

Reading “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us”, I pictured the author to be a woman.  However, the author’s identity as a man was identified towards the end of the article.  Personally, I found the article much more appealing when I discovered that the author was male.  At first, I thought that the peice was whiny and full of complaints.  Even though good points were made I found it biased, thinking this was a female discussing the idea of patriarchy as a male-dominated system of inequality.  Finding that Allan G. Johnson wrote the chapter I found the argument more persuasive because it was coming from someone who was not female yet still saw women as being oppressed.

I definitely agree that often when issues arise we look at personal traits, or individual cases rather than trying to address the underlying social roots.  Although people are obviously part of “the system” they must be viewed as participants who are in turn are also shaped by socialization.  I think this is a clear model that displays social issues well yet I also don’t believe that the general public realizes this relationship.  It is much easier to see people as the main issues, thus when a specific course case is displayed in the media people are likely to see personality traits or past personal experiences as the root of the problem.  I believe it is easier to see the relationship between a personal experience and an issue rather than investigate the social systems in place that caused the issue to happen.  Thus, as Johnson explains, people often take the path of least resistance and accept the easy solution. 

I would be curious to read the rest of Johnson’s book, as he references chapter 10 at the end as including his thoughts on how people can take responsibility.  The answer of how to address the many problems embedded in society is unclear.  It would be interesting to read how Johnson attempts to tackle these patriarchal issues.

News Flash: Critics of Oprah Disregard Her Success

"Is Oprah’s Network Too White?" 

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/30/is-oprah-s-network-too-white.html

            Oprah has recently received much press regarding her new cable network OWN.  The network debuted on January 1^st with many new shows for Oprah’s established audience.  Already Oprah has become a household name through her talk show, The Oprah Winfrey Show.  Still, critics find fault with many of Oprah’s ways.  Newsweek recently ran a story on Oprah’s new endeavor questioning whether it is “too white” (Samuels, 2010).  Although Oprah targets a 25-54 year old women audience as expressed by The New York Times, she has received much backlash regarding her emphasis on white rather than black women (Anburajan, 2007). Much of this critique stems from the fact that many of Oprah’s experts are white and unrepresentative of all women.  Furthermore many feel that Oprah’s programming is not only geared towards white over black women but it also neglects other backgrounds, ages and races.  This perspective also explains that black portrayal in the media, especially portrayal of black women, is already not optimal and one would think that Oprah should remedy this situation.  Still, it is important to recognize that Oprah runs a business in which profit is her primary goal.  Clearly she has established herself as a popular host for women, yet the network’s main goal is still to make a profit.  The criticisms for a more diverse network are important for Oprah to consider yet in the end it is important for criticizers to recognize what Oprah is already achieving for American women of all race and class.  Oprah herself represents women, especially black women, favorably and helps to demonstrate the power that women can possess.  Thus, it is important to remember her achievements when considering her downfalls.

Data from NBC in 2007 found that Oprah’s audience is primarily women, 5.7 million women to 1.7 million men.  Furthermore, is predominately white as 5.6 million whites watch her show versus 1.4 million blacks (Anburajan, 2007).  This evidence demonstrates the vast difference in the race of Oprah’s audience; this finding was also expressed in Susan Douglas’ Enlightened Sexism.   Still, it is important to understand what exactly Oprah has done for women in general.  As a strong, independent talk show host Oprah has managed to represent women favorably.  Not only is Oprah a beloved character, but also her audience trusts her.  In this manner, despite her downfalls regarding demographic inequalities, she does act as a positive role model to her women audience.  As an accomplished woman, she demonstrates the power that women can hold.  Thus, personally she exemplifies a strong woman, while her female experts such as Suze Orman also demonstrate great knowledge and intelligence.  The benefits of having positive women role models on television need to be taken into account when critiquing Oprah. 

            Furthermore, when compared to other media representations of women, particularly black women, Oprah is clearly a more positive depiction.  Thus, Oprah may be seen as the lesser of two evils.  When faced with watching Oprah or a degrading music video displaying the objectification of women, it is clear that even though Oprah is imperfect she does portray women more favorably.  As Mora Johns, a high-school teacher from Chicago expressed “It’s so upsetting to see what’s on TV today and to see the way most shows still depict blacks, and particularly black women, in a negative light.  So I do look to OWN for more of a balance to show who we really are. I hope that’s coming,” (Samuels, 2010).  Thus, rather than bash Oprah for her shortcomings, it is important to embrace the accomplishments that she has made for women.  Douglas explains the manner in which Oprah has managed to bring together women “as allies and friends” (Douglas, p. 147).  As a force, Oprah has united women despite their race and background, undoubtedly an uneasy feat. Thus, although many people still find issues with Oprah it is necessary to be proud of the achievements that she has made and understand that there are many worse networks and shows than OWN.  Not only has she proved herself as a powerful icon but she also displays a more positive depiction of women than most other media representations. 

            Finally, the current issue regarding demographic inequalities in Oprah’s audience and new network are likely found in other networks as well.  Shows and networks are working to make a profit.  Thus although many would like to think of Oprah as their friend or companion she is also a businesswoman who is gearing her show towards profit.  Oprah knows who her audience is and thus must shape her shows and topics around that demographic.  Thus, a probable reason that specific races and backgrounds are focused on by Oprah is so that she appeals to her viewers.  Therefore, it is likely financially beneficial for Oprah to gear her network towards this audience despite critiques for its “whiteness”.

            Apart from this current news article, it is also important to address the critics that dislike the fact that Oprah focuses on individual achievement rather than politics.  As Douglas explains, “advancing personal empowerment is hardly the same as advancing a feminist political agenda” (Douglas, p. 150).  Still, Oprah is working on awareness from within her women audience and through doing so she increases consciousness about sensitive issues.  This is better than no action, Douglas also explains that “researchers have found that watching shows like Oprah, which often focus on family and child welfare issues, increases people’s support for government programs like national day care, greater funding for education, and universal health care,” (Douglas, p. 149).  Although there are ways in which Oprah could improve the diversity of her network as the article by Newsweek suggests, it is also necessary to question whether Oprah is expected to do it all.  Already Oprah has become a female media icon, with a new network and worldwide fame.  She has portrayed women in a more positive light than many other media outlets and has managed to educate women on current issues, possibly indirectly impacting approval for government programs.  Thus, despite not directly working for working for political change, as many feminists would have hoped, Oprah still influences women and is an important contributor to public awareness.

By criticizing Oprah for her shortcomings we are criticizing a woman who has already enhanced the portrayal of black and white women in the media.  Although she likely could improve her diversity, along with many other shows and networks, she should simultaneously be applauded for her achievements as a women.  Together, American women should appreciate victories made by other women.  These victories clearly do not mean that the fight for gender equality and fair media representation are complete.  In no way does having Oprah as a famous talk show host lead us to believe that all races and classes of women are portrayed in a positive light.  However, it is important to accept accomplishments as they come, no matter how minute.  Although Oprah still can and should improve the OWN network, the network itself is a great symbol of women power.

Resources

Anburajan, Aswini. "Breaking Down Oprah's Numbers ." First Read. NBC News, 2011. Web. 1 Feb. 2011. <http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2007/12/07/4425062-breaking-down-oprahs-numbers>.

Douglas, Susan J. Enlightened Sexism. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2010.

Samuels, Alison. "Is Oprah's Network Too White?" Newsweek 30 Jan. 2011: Newsweek. Web. 1 Feb. 2011. <http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/30/is-oprah-s-network-too-white.html>.