Csp Paper

Here is my Final version of my last csp paper!!!!

Gay Education

I found this video called "Gay Education" which attempts to refute common misconceptions about homosexuality. I really liked the video because I felt that it addressed a lot of these misconceptions but in an academic and eloquent way. For instance toward the end of the video, it points out the several scientific institutions that have proven and claimed that homosexuality is not a choice and that others shouldn't attempt to fix it.

However, a few things that made me uncomfortable about this video.  For instance, I really didn't like how it didn't even try to address the issues of female sexuality. I don't believe that there isn't enough research to at least present these issues and talk about it. Second, I really didn't like how it tried to claim that the more male babies a woman has, the more her body will try to feminized the male fetus. So feminizing a boy makes him gay? What does that even mean? It seems like this video reinforced male gender roles, in the sense that masculinity means you are straight but if you are "feminized" that makes you gay. Thats how it seemed like to me, what are your thoughts?

Who Taught You To Hate Yourself

Here is a clip of a speech by Malcolm X called, "Who Taught You To Hate Yourself".

Its really like this clip and when I thought of it, it really reminded me of the movie we watched a while ago, Ethnic Notions. We saw how the media has been involved in perpetuating derogatory racial notions but we never discussed how damaging these notions can be to that community. I think this speech demonstrates how these notions really affect the community.  When you are surrounded by media that constantly mocks you or imply that because of who you are you are ugly and inferior it has a terrible affect on your psyche. You internalize these notions and start to see yourself this way.

Sexual Violence Against Women in Fashion Ads

 

It's not surprise or shock to me that our media (especially fashion ads) consistently portray sexual violence against women in order to sell their product.  I thought these two first fashion ads were great example.  Both ads have only one woman, who of which is being pinned down to the floor by the several other men in the background. And while being pinned down the other men in these ads are either just standing around watching or aggressively taking her clothes off (especially in the second ad).  Basically both ads (to me at least) imply sexual violence against women  or even gang rape. Apparently the second ad was so offensive to some that it had to be taken off bill board ads: 

“The Board considered that whilst the act depicted could be consensual, the overall impact and most likely impression is that the scene is suggestive of violence and rape,” he said. “The Board considered that the image was demeaning to women by suggesting that she is a plaything of these men. It also demeans men by implying sexualised violence against women.”

After reading about these ads on this sociology blog site I started to think about how many fashions I see and barely even realize the implications behind it. I think its scary that we have become so desensitized to these images.

Do We Intervene?

Okay recently I wrote about "What Would You Do" a television show that test people's moral consciousness and pushes them to "do the right thing" and intervene when they see something wrong. This is an ad about domestic violence. The supposed "experiment" serves to point out that many women are murdered in their own homes meanwhile their neighbors may have heard it and never did anything about it. It's a stark contrast to the fact that neighbors are quick to complain about music noise, but not when they hear a woman getting brutally beaten.

I guess my point is that, would would you do if you were the neighborhood and heard this next door? We live in a society where violence against women is very common and I believe it's because we live in a society that does not respect women's bodies. So although I may be playing devils advocate (because this is the opposite perspective of my other post), do you think this is a situation of which we need to be active and stand up against or passively ignore it?

Gender Notions

I found this picture from a Blog site and even though to some it may not be a big deal, I thought it was very interesting.  It's a picture of a section of the California Department of Motor Vehicles Driver's Manual, which says that "women with young children" are allowed more time to cross the street. 


I thought it was important to point out how gender notions are implemented in the smallest ways. Women are not the only care takers of children, men (aka fathers) are also care takers of children. It frustrates me how in our society, we assume that taking care of children is a woman's job. We demonstrate these assumptions in small but consistent ways. Next time you see an ad that has anything to do with children, pay attention to whether or not it has a woman or man. I think we might be surprised at how often these assumptions occur in our daily life. 

Gay Teens Are More Likely to get Harsher Punishments

This New York Times Article  really surprised me. It was about how gay teens are more likely to get harsher punishments in the legal system.  The study started with a New York City teacher who spent time doing work within the juvenile justice system.  According to the New York Times, 

"she noticed a disproportionate number of gay and lesbian teens in juvenile court but could find no studies in the scientific literature evaluating whether gay teens were more likely to be involved in criminal activity or to be more severely punished"

The article continues with more disturbing statistics about how gay teens are profiled by the legal system. According to this article, 

"teens who said they had experienced feelings of same-sex attraction were more likely to have been expelled from school than other teens"

And....

"Girls who labeled themselves as lesbian or bisexual appeared to be at highest risk for punishment, experiencing 50 percent more police stops and about twice the risk of arrest and conviction as heterosexual girls who reported similar levels of misconduct"

These statistics were really shocking to me, because I have never heard of gay teens getting harassed or stopped by the police or that they were more likely to get harsher punishments.  What I thought was most interesting was that, "these teens were less likely to engage in serious crimes and violence than their straight peers".  It reminds me a lot about the way in which African Americans are harassed by the police and the legal system. Blacks are stopped and frisked by the police at extremely disproportional rates even though statistically they are less likely to carry drugs compared to whites.  There are lot of similarities between the way in which the court/legal system abuses their power to disempower certain groups of people. 

. 

I already have a link above but incase you missed it, here it is again!

Homophobia in Hip Hop

This is a clip from Byron Hurt's document called, Hip Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes.  I've seen this documentary before and really enjoyed it. It's a documentary that explores issues of masculinity, violence, sexism, and homophobia in the hip hop industry.

This clip does a great job of exposes the hyper-masculinalized attitudes within the hip hop and therefore the black community. For instance, Byron Hurt only mentions homophobia as an issue within the hip hop industry and Busta Rhymes already wants to dismiss the conversation by saying he won't get involved in this discussion. And although he doesn't mean to disrespect anyone, he says his culture doesn't condone it.  What culture is he talking about? The black culture? I find it so interesting that people will be homophobic simply because they feel others in their community don't agree with it. Its like they can't think for themselves but will rather agree with how everyone else feels.

I especially liked when Kevin Powell addresses these issues of homophobia. He explains that it comes down to how we define manhood. This part reminded me of our reading on Heterosexual Masculinity by Herek. In this article, he explains that men are only allowed to have "social relationships with men and primarily sexual relationships with women". Therefore "males homophobia is based primarily on anxieties associated with the male role". I believe that this clip about homophobia in hip hop accurately demonstrates his theory.  In hip hop, the way to disrespect other men is to demasculinize men and basically call each other gay because being gay isn't conforming to the typical gender roles.

His entire documentary tackles these issues of gender roles within the black community and its very interesting and very well done. I suggest you check it out when you have the time.

Today's Activism

While in the library I found this book called, The Disobedient Generation: Social Theorists In The Sixties by Alan Sica and Stephen Sturner.

 It caught my attention because I know that I feel rather disappointed with my generation and our lack of activism. I've often wonder what inspired the youth then to be activists. In the chapter The Sixties and Me, Jeffery C Alexander writes that, "the cultural and political radicalism of the sixties focused on emotions and morality, on the structure and restructuring of internal life".  Does this mean that our generation lacks emotion and morality? While writing my paper about the future of LGBT rights, I started to think about how our activism as American citizens influence the progress our society makes. While I believe that we will make progress, I believe that it might take longer than we would like because we aren't pressing these issues.

Why It Sucks to Be a Woman in Hong Kong

I found this link while working last week and I thought it was very interesting. And although the girl in the video is speaking about gender notions in Hong Kong I believed that a lot of what she says applies to the American society as well. I think its interesting that gender notions do not really vary from place to place and women are usually oppressed in similar ways. I think its interesting how sexism exist most in our daily lives through our gender expectations. I also really liked how she categorized the types of roles women have in society.

Myaisha's post

Here is a link to my final paper!

Personal versus Political

It really frustrates me that anti-gay marriage supporters are pressuring the appellate judge to disqualify himself from hearing arguments next week in the Prop 8 case, because he is married to a woman who was once the director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Southern California. Apparently, "Prop. 8 supporters had argued in a brief filed Wednesday to the court that Ripston has "an avowed interest" in the case, 'an interest that unquestionably will be substantially affected by the outcome of this proceeding.'"


I trust that this Judge will do his best to separate the politics of this case with his own personal life. What frustrates me though is the fact that we have had politicians (in the past as well as today) who definitely used their government position to support their personal agenda. In the past we have had people who worked in the government who were also members of the KKK or had friends and family that were and yet they were never pressured to resign their position. The Supreme Court Justices definitely have personal beliefs that affect the way they interpret the constitution but there is nothing anyone could really do about that. The way you interpret anything will be influenced by your own personal belief and past experiences.  In a way, its impossible to separate the politics and the personal.  So when I read that this Judge has been pressured to disqualify himself from the case, I just thought it was a very silly argument. 


http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/12/02/Judge_Wont_Recuse_Himself_in_Prop_8_Appeal/

What Would You Do

Over Thanksgiving Break, I was watching television and I saw a commercial for a new television series called What Would You Do?  Now I just came across a short article about the show. The purpose of the show is to see how the average American responds to others in a crisis or need. In one episode, a father and son are at a restaurant and the son tells his father that he is gay. The father responds terribly and tell his son he can't be gay, because being gay is wrong.  These two men are actors and the point is to see how others in the restaurant respond to this situation. The article describes the audiences response:


"Patrons are noticeably uncomfortable — two so much so that they get up and leave the restaurant. But will any of them actually step up to the plate and confront the father?"


I am not really comfortable with this scenario. If there was girl about to get kidnapped, then I would expect others to jump in and help her. But this is a private conversation between a father and a son.  And although it is wrong of the father to not accept his son's sexuality, I do not necessarily think it is the duty of those around them to step in and correct him. The show is implying (I think) that the others in the restaurant should intervene and support the son.  However, its not anyone else business and the most that others can hope for is that the son and father work it out.  I think a better solution to destroying homophobic attitudes is education, not intervening in a conversation between a father and son at a restaurant. 


Thats just my thoughts though, what do you think?


http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/12/02/What_Would_You_Do_Features_Gay_Son,_Antigay_Parent/

Morehouse Bans Crossdressing

I just read this article Morehouse Clothing Policy, which is about Morehouse ( an all male, historically black college) and it's new ban against wearing any women's clothing and makeup, etc. The vice president of Student Services, Dr. William Bynum said this ban is targeted for a minority of students who are dressing in women's clothing and who are apparently "living a gay lifestyle that is leading them to dress a way we do not expect in Morehouse men". 

I know that gender conformity is extremely important in the black community, especially for black men.  However I am still surprised that Morehouse would go so far to actually create a school policy to ensure that the men attending their institution would look a certain way.  In fact, any student that breaks this policy "will not be allowed to go to class unless they change. Chronic dress-code offenders could be suspended from the college".

Apparently, the reason behind this policy lies within the vision of the president of the college who  "wants the institution to create leaders like notable graduates Martin Luther King Jr., actor Samuel Jackson and film director Spike Lee". However, who said dressing a certain way meant that you couldn't be an activist like Martin Luther King Jr. or a famous film director like Spike Lee. I don't understand why what you wear would have anything to do with your potential to become a leader. This is clearly about maintaining a certain idea of masculinity. I understand that they want to uphold a legacy, but this policy is just reinforcing the boxes that black men are "suppose" to fit into.

Spike Lee vs Tyler Perry

After watching Ethnic Notions, I've been thinking more about how African Americans are portrayed in our media today. I had always thought that if more people of color owned parts of the entertainment business, that we would be happier with the images depicted of us on television.  With this in mind, I immediately thought of the feud between the directors Spike Lee and Tyler Perry. Spike Lee criticizes Tyler Perry for his movies that display "Coonery Buffoonery" in an interview.  I seriously recommend that you watch him speak here: Spike Lee talks about Tyler Perry.

Although, Lee was harsh (and has gotten a lot of backlash for his criticism), I agree. In this age of Obama, the message should be progress, not the same old stereotypes and its always especially sad when they are perpetuated by those who are members of the Black community.  I am a huge fan of Spike Lee because of his representation of black people in his movies.  He is really careful about the issues he films as well as the characters in his film.  The characters in his movie reflect regular African American people, instead of the typical stereotypical depictions we often find in our movies.  I also really appreciate his documentaries on New Orleans.

Also, I really liked how Spike Lee said that part of the issue was the consumer/the audience.  He says that "we vote with our wallets" and when we support these movies we support the stereotypes.  Since majority of Tyler Perry fans are African American, African Americans are the ones supporting these stereotypes.  I believe if we starting thinking like Lee, we might realize how much power we actually have in controlling the depictions of people of color on television.

Lastly, I think its important to take Spike Lee's criticism as an opportunity to better ourselves. I know a lot of people defended Tyler Perry because they thought Spike Lee should be a little bit more supportive of another African American director.  In the clip, Spike Lee says "we could do better". That's important, because although Tyler Perry does have some good message and positive moments in his movies, he could still do much better. His character of Madea can be funny of course, but she still embodies the stereotypes we saw in Ethnic Notions. Shes always really loud, angry, a-sexual black woman.  Tyler Perry defended his character saying, well these people exist and Hollywood should know that. Well I think Hollywood does know that, considering historically movies have excluded African Americans or portrayed them in such demeaning ways. I don't think I'm so upset by the existence of these characters as I am with the lack of variety and the lack of characters that portray blacks in a positive way.

Pre-Homosexuality

An American Scientific blog site posted an article about how it is possible to predict adult sexuality from an early age. I was really shocked to see that the picture used for this article was of a girl in jeans, with a hat, baseball, and baseball glove. The implication of this picture is that when if a young girl rather wear jeans than a dress or play a sport rather than ballet, it only means that she is on her way to becoming a lesbian as an adult. It's really ridiculous that people think they can predict sexuality based off of what kind of activities children may.  Also, this article only demonstrates what the consequences are when one doesn't conform to society's gender expectations. Young girls are expected to be gentle and play with dolls.  However, if they don't but instead play sports it is quickly assumed that they must be lesbians. Sports do require some level of aggression, but since it is only acceptable for boys to be aggressive, they are the ones expected to play sports. Being aggressive isn't feminine and apparently what isn't feminine means it is an indication of homosexuality.
Lastly, what do these scientist have to say about girls who just like to play sports, because well, they like sports? I played soccer, field hockey, and lacrosse but I am not a lesbian. Am I the exception to their rule? I really doubt it.

Harassment on Oxy's Campus

"Diversity is a fundamental part of academic excellence at Occidental, not something separate and apart. Diversity of race, of income, of religion, of nationality, of viewpoint-all these challenge our students inside the classroom and out, preparing them to thrive in an increasingly complex and intertwined world"-Excerpt from Occidental's website
With the recent harassment on Oxy's campus, its good that the school has taken the initiative to hold a campus wide discussion about discrimination against the LGBTQ community. I hope that during this forum, we can come up with some ways to make the LGBTQ community feel safe and comfortable on our campus. However I am still not convinced that this discussion supports Occidental's statement of being an institution that values diversity.
It wasn't until after the harassment on our campus, did we realize that discrimination against the LGBTQ community is alive and well and something that we should talk about. We should have been having these discussions/panels well before these incidents happened, not only educate ourselves about their struggle but also to expose ourselves to the diversity of sexuality. Actively talking about LGBTQ issues (or any other social justice issues) could help expose this diversity and challenge students about their own biases outside the classroom as the excerpt says.
Also, these frequent discussions/panels woul also show the student body what kind of institution Occidental really is. It would prove that Occidental is an educational institution that not only cares about these issues, but also wants to be a hate free zone.
I guess in short, my point is that it does bother me how we never seem to want to talk about these issues until it happens too close in our space to ignore. We should not wait until the damage has been done to start talking.

Salient Social Identities

This post doesn’t necessarily have to do with any of our specific readings, but instead the essay prompt about our most salient aspect of our social identity.  For my essay I wrote about my race and gender.

It was interesting to actually decide that my race and gender were the most salient aspects of my identity.  I’ve just recently been interested in gender issues, but as I was writing the paper I could remember other instances where gender has mattered way before I acknowledge that it did. Therefore I’ve been wondering what does that mean? It took me a lot longer to acknowledge my gender as a salient aspect of my identity than it did with race? At first I thought maybe I was too young to understand gender issues, but I decided that couldn’t have been it.

Gender roles are heavily enforced but subtly. I work for a sociology professor who has a blog. Part of my job entails reading the comments posted, but in order to understand what they are talking about I read the blogs first.  I am always a little surprised by the blogs that my professor post about gender norms, just because I am learning about how gender norms are subtlety embedded in our American way of life. For example Amazon has a line of products for babies and the name of their line is called Amazon mom. At first most people would not have a problem with the name Amazon Mom, but it reinforces the notion that the woman is responsible for childcare. This is related to one of our first readings about the way gender is constructed. Judith Lorber points out how seeing father taking care of his children creates such a scene in New York City:

            Today, on the subway, I saw a well-dressed man with a year-old child in a stroller. Yesterday, on a bus, I saw a man with a tiny baby in a carrier on his chest. Seeing men taking care of small children in public is increasingly common-at least in New York City. But both men were quite obviously stared at-and smiled at, approvingly.  Everyone was doing gender-the men who were changing the role of fathers and the other passengers who were applauding them silently.

I’ve noticed this happen in New York City and I also been guilty of being part of those who stare and applaud them silently.  We have internalized this attitude that the women take care of children that when we do see a father take care of his children like a parent should, we are all thrown off. Yet Amazon Mom seems completely normal to us.  I believe it might have been hard for me to recognize these gender norms because they are so embedded in our social lives since we were children that you forget to question it.