Zygmunt Bauman, author of “Liquid Love,” explains this concept in the foreword of the book: “[Ulrich’s] successors today must tie together whatever bonds they want to use as a link to engage with the rest of the human world by their own efforts…None of the connections that come to fill the gap…are, however, guaranteed to last. Anyway, the need to be only loosely tied, so that they can be untied again, with little delay, when the settings change- as in liquid modernity they surely will, over and over again” (Foreword, vii). It is Bauman’s intention “to explore the frailty of human bonds, the feeling of insecurity that frailty inspires, and the conflicting desires that feeling prompts to tighten the bonds yet keep them loose” throughout the book (viii).
In chapter 1, “Falling In and Out of Love,” Bauman begins by examining the relationship between love and death. Just as one cannot learn to die, the author writes, one cannot learn to love. He argues that instead of people rising to the occasion of loving greatly more often, people instead choose to create lower standards. The author contends that love is not a skill to be learned, nor are ones’ skills to be furthered with each passing experience (5). Bauman contends that for some, love is akin to fate. He writes, “To love means opening up to that fate, that most sublime of all human conditions, one in which fear blends with joy into an alloy that no longer allows its ingredients to separate” (7).
After a section on Eros, Bauman writes of the connection between desire and love. He makes a distinction between two by describing desire as the “wish to consume” and love as the “wish to care, and to preserve the object of the care” (9). Bauman believes, however, we should rethink what we mean by desire. He describes desire as a long term situation or experience, and the time it takes to enjoy the investment of desire is “irritatingly and unaffordably long” (11).
Bauman continues on with an investment theme, describing relationships in terms of investments, stocks, and profits. Similar to investments, Bauman writes, is the effort it takes to create and maintain successful relationships, especially when considering the overwhelming doubts and securities both partners feel. However, the success of relationships is that neither person suffers from loneliness anymore.
The author explains “top-pocket relationships” next, named for how one can “keep it in your pocket so that you can bring it out when you need it” (21). The best qualities of such a relationship are that they are short and sweet. To be effective, Bauman writes, both partners must “enter in full awareness and soberly…and keep it this way” (21).
After a digression on a soap show called EastEnders, Bauman describes how affinity can be both positive and negative for one’s relationships. He states, “living together acquires the attraction which the bonds of affinity lack…over ‘living together,’ future kinship, whether desired or feared, does not cast its dark shadow” (29). The author then explains new popular ideologies, such as a substitution of ‘shared identity’ for ‘shared interests,’ ‘imagined communities,’ and technological communications (31-35).
In chapter 2, “In and Out of the Toolbox of Sociality,” the author contends that “homo sexualis” is both “orphaned by Eros” and “bereaved by the future” (40). He illustrates the issue of the modernity of medicine by describing the increasing importance of medicine rather than sex for reproduction. In the beginning over the chapter, Bauman examines how children change the lives of their parents, both positively and negatively. He notes that children, “first and foremost, [are] an object of emotional consumption” and warns “when it comes to objects of consumption, one looks for ‘value for money” (42).
The author also makes not of the increasing impact of medicine on sex by describing the potentially long-lasting consequences from having multiple sexual partners. Alongside issues of HIV or AIDS, Bauman notes that sexual intercourse or “episodes” also may produce increased levels of anxiety. He writes, “What sort of commitment, if any, does the union of bodies entail? Can the sexual encounter be kept in isolation from the rest of life’s pursuits, or will it spill over across that rest of life, saturate it and transform it?” (51).
It is these last questions that I think will be most interesting to discuss for tomorrow’s class. Many college students attempt to keep relationships or “sexual episodes” as informal and frequent as possible. Others seek out a partner they can see themselves marrying in the near future. I would like to discuss this issue in light of Bauman’s earlier discussions on the frailty of human bonds and the connection between love and desire. To what extent do you agree with his assessment of modern relationships? Disagree? In family/frienships/partner relationships?
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Kipnis' "Against Love" chapters 3 & 4
Throughout chapter 3, “The Art of Love,” author Laura Kipnis illustrates different types of affairs, and how adulterers may feel getting into one, being in one, and getting out of one. Kipnis provides a multitude of possible reasons for why people engage in affairs, from boredom to dissatisfaction. She spends more time in the chapter describing what it feels like for people to be in affairs, persuading the reader to believe one can’t achieve this level of happiness/fun/excitement/desirability/love in a state of monogamy. Kipnis illustrates the extent to which adulterers rearrange their lives such as, taking up new hobbies or prolonging the work day, attempting to create satisfactory excuses to keep their actions of their new secret life safe and hidden. She writes of adultery as a way to “experiment with possibilities,” an idea she wants everyone to work with, not merely artists (114).
After providing three different scenarios of adultery, Kipnis begins to explain how adulterers have the great fortune, or misfortune, of being “routinely exposed to the most privy aspects of each other’s primary relationships” (119). While this can lead to excitement for the adulterer, giving him or her inside information and possibly, confirmation that their affair is for the best, it can also lead to a case of too much information and the demise of the affair.
In later sections of the chapter, Kipnis describes negative aspects of becoming involved in an affair, possible negative self-realizations. The most significant, Kipnis writes, is the feeling of self-disgust. The author furthers this section with a discussion on deception, and the potential disastrous consequences of lying to one’s partner. She writes, “The sustaining premise of modern coupled life is that our intimates are those we don’t lie to: we like to think of intimacy as a private enclave of authenticity set apart from ordinary social falseness and superficialities” (127). Kipnis concludes chapter 3 with a discussion on the reasons and potential ramifications of marriages staying together “for the sake of the children” (139).
In chapter 4, “…And the Pursuit of Happiness,” Kipnis focuses on numerous stories of our nation’s politicians’ extramarital affairs, with all of their scandalous details. From former President Clinton to Georgia congressman Bob Barr, Kipnis exposes their stories as evidence of her argument of the erosion of the “public/private distinction in American political culture” (145). I found her argument throughout this chapter that “whoever gets caught, at some level, self-engineers this fate” particularly interesting (147). I can understand how this could both explain and exasperate the sexuality scandals focusing on prominent national politicians. On one hand, when a person in such a famous position in national politics becomes involved in such a scandal, it’s easy to argue they should have known better, being in such a prominent position. Yet if one flips around this argument, it would be easy to claim that such famous figures believe in their own scandal immunity, leading them to participate in a potential scandal. Kipnis continues on to include a discussion on gay marriage, civil ceremonies, and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). I found her encouragement of a civic dialogue on the institution of marriage the most promising aspect of the entire book. We, as a nation, must be willing to entertain the “possibility that marriage was an institution in transition or an institution being redefined” (153).
After providing three different scenarios of adultery, Kipnis begins to explain how adulterers have the great fortune, or misfortune, of being “routinely exposed to the most privy aspects of each other’s primary relationships” (119). While this can lead to excitement for the adulterer, giving him or her inside information and possibly, confirmation that their affair is for the best, it can also lead to a case of too much information and the demise of the affair.
In later sections of the chapter, Kipnis describes negative aspects of becoming involved in an affair, possible negative self-realizations. The most significant, Kipnis writes, is the feeling of self-disgust. The author furthers this section with a discussion on deception, and the potential disastrous consequences of lying to one’s partner. She writes, “The sustaining premise of modern coupled life is that our intimates are those we don’t lie to: we like to think of intimacy as a private enclave of authenticity set apart from ordinary social falseness and superficialities” (127). Kipnis concludes chapter 3 with a discussion on the reasons and potential ramifications of marriages staying together “for the sake of the children” (139).
In chapter 4, “…And the Pursuit of Happiness,” Kipnis focuses on numerous stories of our nation’s politicians’ extramarital affairs, with all of their scandalous details. From former President Clinton to Georgia congressman Bob Barr, Kipnis exposes their stories as evidence of her argument of the erosion of the “public/private distinction in American political culture” (145). I found her argument throughout this chapter that “whoever gets caught, at some level, self-engineers this fate” particularly interesting (147). I can understand how this could both explain and exasperate the sexuality scandals focusing on prominent national politicians. On one hand, when a person in such a famous position in national politics becomes involved in such a scandal, it’s easy to argue they should have known better, being in such a prominent position. Yet if one flips around this argument, it would be easy to claim that such famous figures believe in their own scandal immunity, leading them to participate in a potential scandal. Kipnis continues on to include a discussion on gay marriage, civil ceremonies, and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). I found her encouragement of a civic dialogue on the institution of marriage the most promising aspect of the entire book. We, as a nation, must be willing to entertain the “possibility that marriage was an institution in transition or an institution being redefined” (153).
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
R. W. Connell, chapters 6 and 7
In chapter 6 of R. W. Connell’s “Masculinities,” the author examines the relationship between straight and gay men. Connell introduces the chapter by offering a brief history of society’s public acceptance of homosexuality. In the late 1960s and early 70s, Connell notes a “greater sexualization of the general culture,” providing a basis for the emergence of gay communities in the 1970s and 80s. Social-scientific views of homosexuality began to progress as well, with male homosexuality moving from being viewed as a form of “deviance” to an understanding of a separate identity.
Chapter 6 results from Connell’s interviews with 8 men from the gay community in Sydney, Australia. Ranging from early 20s to late 40s, these men had all had relationships with both women and men. Connell intertwines excerpts from these men with historical and current discourses on homosexuality. He begins by noting that homosexuality was caused by an “abnormality in development,” but that no one had determined what exactly that abnormality was. Distant fathers and seductive mothers were suggested to be the cause, but Connell points out recent studies have found little support. In Connell’s study, all 8 men had family relationships considered to be socially conventional. Their childhoods were also found to be socially normal, as there wasn’t much gender nonconformity (146). Moving into their adulthoods, Connell describes their work lives as socially masculine. With these two possible suggestions for an “abnormality” critiqued, Connell writes of the men’s “moment of engagement,” as stemming from “a sexual experience- the discovery of sexuality, or a discovery in sexuality” (147). The author continues on to describe several men’s early heterosexual and homosexual relationships by referencing that public discourse takes heterosexuality for granted (148). He writes of adult homosexuality, “It is something that happens, that is produced by specific practices, not something predetermined” (149).
Further sections of the chapter focus on the men’s experiences of “realizing” their homosexuality or their “coming out” stories. Usually these dialogues include thoughts of “sexual freedom,” and later, wishing for a long-term relationship. Other stories focus on feelings of “change,” such as change in living situations, or more personal, such as working to change specific parts of one’ s personality.
I was interested in the last parts of the chapter, when Connell focuses on the men’s opinions on feminism, especially when it is noted the their attitude and the level of ignorance of the subject matches those of heterosexual men interviewed. Connell illustrates, “Their usual position is to express some support for feminism, but to qualify it by disapproving of Those Who Go Too Far” (159).
Chapter 7 focuses on hegemonic masculinities, with reference specifically to rationality. Connell introduces, “A familiar theme in patriarchal ideology is that men are rational while women are emotional” (165). By critiquing this in light of men’s experiences (9 men, aged early 20s to mid40s) constructing their own masculinity, especially in the workplace, Connell illustrates the complexity of this issue.
A majority of the men interviewed recount childhoods with a great understanding of distinct gender roles, usually played out by their mothers and fathers. These reflections often connect directly to their current understanding of men and women’s roles, typically very traditional views.
Connell writes of two men’s vastly different job training experiences, with one educationally more advance, and the other having worked his way up from position to position based on previous skill and knowledge. The author goes on to describe how rationality can be “accomplished” in the workplace. One way is a hierarchically organized workplace, where the most knowledgeable people work at the top. In contrast, the other structured workplace focuses on common goals, rather than the authority in control. Connell concludes, “We may argue, then, that the relation between expertise and hierarchy in the workplace is a characteristic difficulty encountered by this group of men” (174). I found this section of Connell’s chapter most applicable to my own understanding and experience in a workplace, and believe many women, and young adults share this problem. Feelings of both inadequacy and, in contrast, superiority, both plague the workplace environment, creating an arena of uncertainty and disinterest.
Connell concludes with a section on the rationality of a workplace and the place the issue of sexuality holds. He writes, “Though diverse in their practice of sex, the men share a cultural experience about sex”(175). This translates into difficult workplace “sexual etiquette,” the next section Connell discusses.
Connell concludes by restating his argument, that rationality “is part of the modern legitimation of patriarchy” (180). However, he notes, this must be examined in light of sexuality in modern practice and in the workplace. He notes that there have, in fact, been attempts at reform and modernization, though still within well-defined limits (181).
I’m curious to hear what the class thinks about these two chapters of Connell. Though chapter 6 focused more on homosexuality and the interplay between sexual orientation and masculinity, I think its interviews were more critical to Connell’s discussion than those in chapter 7. Other points to consider: what did you think of the authority vs. experience workplace debate? To what extent is that problem similar to women’s experiences in the workplace? Women’s sexuality in the workplace?
Chapter 6 results from Connell’s interviews with 8 men from the gay community in Sydney, Australia. Ranging from early 20s to late 40s, these men had all had relationships with both women and men. Connell intertwines excerpts from these men with historical and current discourses on homosexuality. He begins by noting that homosexuality was caused by an “abnormality in development,” but that no one had determined what exactly that abnormality was. Distant fathers and seductive mothers were suggested to be the cause, but Connell points out recent studies have found little support. In Connell’s study, all 8 men had family relationships considered to be socially conventional. Their childhoods were also found to be socially normal, as there wasn’t much gender nonconformity (146). Moving into their adulthoods, Connell describes their work lives as socially masculine. With these two possible suggestions for an “abnormality” critiqued, Connell writes of the men’s “moment of engagement,” as stemming from “a sexual experience- the discovery of sexuality, or a discovery in sexuality” (147). The author continues on to describe several men’s early heterosexual and homosexual relationships by referencing that public discourse takes heterosexuality for granted (148). He writes of adult homosexuality, “It is something that happens, that is produced by specific practices, not something predetermined” (149).
Further sections of the chapter focus on the men’s experiences of “realizing” their homosexuality or their “coming out” stories. Usually these dialogues include thoughts of “sexual freedom,” and later, wishing for a long-term relationship. Other stories focus on feelings of “change,” such as change in living situations, or more personal, such as working to change specific parts of one’ s personality.
I was interested in the last parts of the chapter, when Connell focuses on the men’s opinions on feminism, especially when it is noted the their attitude and the level of ignorance of the subject matches those of heterosexual men interviewed. Connell illustrates, “Their usual position is to express some support for feminism, but to qualify it by disapproving of Those Who Go Too Far” (159).
Chapter 7 focuses on hegemonic masculinities, with reference specifically to rationality. Connell introduces, “A familiar theme in patriarchal ideology is that men are rational while women are emotional” (165). By critiquing this in light of men’s experiences (9 men, aged early 20s to mid40s) constructing their own masculinity, especially in the workplace, Connell illustrates the complexity of this issue.
A majority of the men interviewed recount childhoods with a great understanding of distinct gender roles, usually played out by their mothers and fathers. These reflections often connect directly to their current understanding of men and women’s roles, typically very traditional views.
Connell writes of two men’s vastly different job training experiences, with one educationally more advance, and the other having worked his way up from position to position based on previous skill and knowledge. The author goes on to describe how rationality can be “accomplished” in the workplace. One way is a hierarchically organized workplace, where the most knowledgeable people work at the top. In contrast, the other structured workplace focuses on common goals, rather than the authority in control. Connell concludes, “We may argue, then, that the relation between expertise and hierarchy in the workplace is a characteristic difficulty encountered by this group of men” (174). I found this section of Connell’s chapter most applicable to my own understanding and experience in a workplace, and believe many women, and young adults share this problem. Feelings of both inadequacy and, in contrast, superiority, both plague the workplace environment, creating an arena of uncertainty and disinterest.
Connell concludes with a section on the rationality of a workplace and the place the issue of sexuality holds. He writes, “Though diverse in their practice of sex, the men share a cultural experience about sex”(175). This translates into difficult workplace “sexual etiquette,” the next section Connell discusses.
Connell concludes by restating his argument, that rationality “is part of the modern legitimation of patriarchy” (180). However, he notes, this must be examined in light of sexuality in modern practice and in the workplace. He notes that there have, in fact, been attempts at reform and modernization, though still within well-defined limits (181).
I’m curious to hear what the class thinks about these two chapters of Connell. Though chapter 6 focused more on homosexuality and the interplay between sexual orientation and masculinity, I think its interviews were more critical to Connell’s discussion than those in chapter 7. Other points to consider: what did you think of the authority vs. experience workplace debate? To what extent is that problem similar to women’s experiences in the workplace? Women’s sexuality in the workplace?
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Norah Vincent's "Self-Made Man"
In “Self-Made Man: One Woman’s Year Disguised as a Man,” Norah Vincent becomes Ned, a “regular” man who, in chapters 2 and 3, joins a bowling league and frequents strip clubs. Vincent examines gender identity in one of the most extreme ways possible, with the help of several physical transformations. The first chapter consists of Vincent’s rationale for the research and how she went about transforming herself to pass society’s expectations of how a man should physically look and sound. I was surprised with Vincent’s thoroughness, from the makeup to the weight lifting. It was interesting the extent to which her outward appearances affected her interactions with others. I especially enjoyed the section in which Vincent notes how when after a substantial amount of time of routine contact with certain people, she wouldn’t be as rigid in her physical appearance, such as not binding her breasts, or going for a few days without the makeup, and the people didn’t appear to notice any difference.
Chapter 2 describes Vincent’s experience on a men’s bowling team in a community league. I found her descriptions of how she interacted and the conversations she had with the men on her team fascinating. I was most impressed with this chapter of the three we read so far. Vincent’s descriptions of how nervous she was to even enter the league proved enlightening. She writes, “As a woman, you don’t belong. You’re not wanted. And every part of you knows it, and is just begging you to get up and leave” (21).
Chapter 3 details the experience of visiting strip clubs, both with friends and alone. I found her opinions on the women workers and the clubs’ patrons extremely blunt, and also narrow-minded. Even as Vincent described multiple strippers’ backgrounds and varied reasons for working at such a place, as the reader, I felt pressured to agree with her extremely negative views on the entire place. I felt Vincent believes there is absolutely no single good reason why a woman would choose to enter into the profession of a stripper, and there was no good reason why men should choose to enter such a place. However, as the reader, we weren’t supposed to separate experiences or reasons, just accept her gross overgeneralizations.
Throughout all three chapters, Vincent had me hooked, for better or worse. I am excited to keep reading and look forward to our class discussion. I am wondering whether Vincent’s personal experiences in these situations reflects our own understanding of male sexuality? Does it reinforce what people already believe? Or does it present a different argument? In what way does Vincent’s background and education alter her opinions on the situations she experiences?
Chapter 2 describes Vincent’s experience on a men’s bowling team in a community league. I found her descriptions of how she interacted and the conversations she had with the men on her team fascinating. I was most impressed with this chapter of the three we read so far. Vincent’s descriptions of how nervous she was to even enter the league proved enlightening. She writes, “As a woman, you don’t belong. You’re not wanted. And every part of you knows it, and is just begging you to get up and leave” (21).
Chapter 3 details the experience of visiting strip clubs, both with friends and alone. I found her opinions on the women workers and the clubs’ patrons extremely blunt, and also narrow-minded. Even as Vincent described multiple strippers’ backgrounds and varied reasons for working at such a place, as the reader, I felt pressured to agree with her extremely negative views on the entire place. I felt Vincent believes there is absolutely no single good reason why a woman would choose to enter into the profession of a stripper, and there was no good reason why men should choose to enter such a place. However, as the reader, we weren’t supposed to separate experiences or reasons, just accept her gross overgeneralizations.
Throughout all three chapters, Vincent had me hooked, for better or worse. I am excited to keep reading and look forward to our class discussion. I am wondering whether Vincent’s personal experiences in these situations reflects our own understanding of male sexuality? Does it reinforce what people already believe? Or does it present a different argument? In what way does Vincent’s background and education alter her opinions on the situations she experiences?
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Part 2 of Judith Butler's "Gender Trouble"
I. Structuralism’s Critical Exchange
Friday, March 7, 2008
Allen's "Girls Want Sex, Boys Want Love"
As the discussion leader for today, I have outlined my notes to the article and possible topics for discussion based on people's blog posts and responses.
Louisa Allen -
Research: aged 17-19 males and females
“I propose that some young people speak about their sexuality in ways that both conform and deviate to varying degrees from traditional constructions of female and male heterosexualities.”
-young woman spoke about female sexuality in terms of traditional notions of vulnerability where women’s romantic ideas of love made them susceptible to exploitation by their male partner (219)
-she saw women as less easily sexually aroused and more likely to be stimulated by foreplay than sexual intercourse
-women are constituted as the objects of sexual attention who must be reassured/convinced that intercourse will not have negative repercussions for them
-women don’t always want commitment
-sexual double standard (slut/stud)
-openly expressed desire and need to act on it
-talk occurred in environments where young women felt they would not be negatively stigmatized (exclusively female or mixed gender)
-may be argued that there is a juncture between the feeling of control over contraception in a relationship and actually having access to material power in this situation
-disconnect between women/their sexuality/their realtionship
-traditional discourse: perpetually ready for sex
-most examples of men taking up this position were in focus groups, not in front of their female partners
-emotional detachment; preoccupation with sexual attractiveness
-positioning themselves as traditionally masculine through the constitution of their bodies as “pleasure machines”
-constructing their sexual selves in this way served to establish themselves publicly as “appropriately” masculine within/through the realm of heterosexuality
-to achieve full masculine status young men must separate themselves from homosexual and feminine identities
-“hegemonic masculinity” : a form of power that sustains gendered inequality because of the way it achieves the consent of a majority of men who support it
-denying sexual intercourse as primary motive for entering into or remaining in relationships
-“what I want in a heterosexual relationship”:
-love, trust, honesty, respect, commitment
-importance of friendship, communication, equality within a relationship
-worrying about sexual performance: resists dominant meanings about men as sexually knowledgeable, confident, and always ready for intercourse
-more young men than young women reported wanting sexual activity and sexual attraction in a heterosexual relationship
-significantly more women than men reported desiring caring, support, understanding, and trust, honesty, respect from their relationships
-notion that young women want only love from relationships and young men prefer sex is outdated
-many drew on dominant discourses, some resisted, this was complex however, as it often involved both an accommodation and rejection of subject positions offered by dominant discourses
-young people’s constitution of sexual subjectivity is context bound
What did you think of her research techniques? How important was how they were interviewed? Mixed genders/couples/individuals; age range
-extending discourse into private sphere: potentially destructive (Matt)
-contextualize in 3rd wave discourse
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Feminist Porn: Successes and Disappointments
I have just finished viewing the two documentaries on feminist women in porn and find myself still having conflicted feelings on the industry. While it was great to see such strong, intelligent, and independent women speaking about their experiences both in front of and behind the cameras over the course of their careers, I am still disheartened by the high level of misogyny and violence against females in porn, like the women featured in the films. However, I believe that what they consider the “extreme” in porn isn’t actually the extreme at all, but instead is the vast majority of pornography. The women featured acknowledged it was only after their careers as adult film stars concluded that they ventured into producer or director roles. I think it’s unfortunate that it is only at this point that they participate in feminist porn, though many argue they were feminists in every film, whether the film itself would be considered feminist or not.
The statistic that 1 in 3 viewers of pornography are female is a fact thrown around in many of the posts and films we’ve read and viewed. I’m curious, then, why feminist porn isn’t as successful as it has the potential to be. I wonder what percentage of those women consciously seek out feminist porn. I’m guessing it’s not over 50%.Why would women viewers be interested in promoting non-feminist porn? Do they not realize it’s out there for consumption? Do they not care? Are they not interested? The women profiled in both documentaries insisted that it is up to the female viewers to make feminist porn more prosperous, since the bottom line of the pornography industry is money.
Throughout the blogs, the complexities and controversies of the pornography issue are shown. I was surprised by how long the “porn wars” have lasted, even within this 3rd wave of feminism. Unfortunately, after reading Levy, CAKE, and now bloggers like Ms. Naughty, I will not be surprised if the “war” continues for many years to come. Will feminists from both sides ever reach a consensus?
Thursday, February 21, 2008
The CAKE Guide, Part 2
Part 2 of Cake’s Guide to Female Sexual Pleasure is called “Let’s Get It On” and true to its title, contains chapters on sexual positions, vibrators, dirty talk, exhibitionism, and causal sex. However, the authors continue a linear vision of sexual practices we discussed in class on Wednesday. Gallagher and Kramer write, “All right, girls, now that you have the ABCs of self-lovin’ down, it’s time to share all that good stuff with some lucky, lucky boys” (91). Although one of the book’s overall messages aims to empower women’s sexual experiences by increasing their confidence in the plurality of such experiences, I felt that to be one of their women, you must fit their narrow definition of what they consider a wild, sexy woman to be, and further, act this way in a heterosexual manner.
In chapter 6, “Beyond the Missionary,” the authors discuss oral and anal sexual practices. Gallagher and Kramer argue for women to demand sexual pleasure for themselves as well as their partners, noting, “Real sexual satisfaction includes both giving pleasure and receiving it” (91). Mixed in between personal testimonials, the authors include a small passage on STDs and the Pill. Unlike “Our Bodies, Our Selves,” The “Hot Woman’s Handbook” does not go into great detail about either of these parts of sexual practices, focusing instead on Plan B, or Emergency Contraception. I was surprised to read that “There are 60 million U.S. women of reproductive age, and 7 in 10 (42 million) are currently sexually active and do not want to become pregnant” (113). It made me realize how critical the Plan B issue is in current national policy debates.
Throughout chapter 7 “A Little Help from Our Friends” and chapter 8 “Dirty Talkin,’” Gallagher and Kramer continue discuss sexual matters without flowery illustrations. Although they present multiple scenarios in which women may find sexual pleasure, the authors further their narrow definition of what women should find “sexy.” When describing the possibility of bringing vibrators into one’s sexual practices, they state, “the trick in introducing the vibe with your partner is to make it sexy” (125). While various ways to do this are given, the authors maintain that it is absolutely necessary for a sexy woman to use a vibrator, not only for personal satisfaction, but in conjunction with a partner. Instead of pointing to vibrators as one option for satisfying pleasure, I feel that the authors practically demand its use. In the chapter on dirty talk, the authors write from a more pluralistic vision writing, “Dirty talk can be a touchy topic. “Certain words, like ‘cunt,’ ‘dick,’ ‘pussy,’ ‘fuck,’ ‘daddy,’ slut,’ ‘whore,’ can be one person’s On button and another’s Abort All Activity switch.” (135).
Chapter 9, “Express Yourself,” describes how some women find satisfying sexual pleasure from varying forms of exhibitionism. Although I found their descriptions of the “male gaze” and their own “CAKE gaze” very interesting, I couldn’t help but be put off by some of the personal testimonials. One woman claimed, “Our ability to feel sexy in many ways is rooted in our ability to be desirable, i.e. to play the object role. It is important for us feminists not to condemn women for enjoying this role, because doing so stands in the way of women’s sexual fulfillment.” (144).
Finally, chapter 10 is titled “Causal Encounters” and describes the now prominent practice of causal sex in today’s culture. While the authors note, “sexual pleasure is not limited to monogamous relationships” they also write, “interest in sex for sex’s sake does not prohibit us from enjoying sex for love’s sex” (155, 158). I was bothered by their section on the “boundaries” of this sexual practice, as they argue for setting both emotional and physical boundaries. However, as the practice of “friends-with-benefits” has become more prominent among young adults, especially college students, I would argue that such boundaries are easier created than maintained.
Questions for discussion:
Throughout part 2, it may be argued that the authors use illustrations without thinking of possible patriarchal language implications. When describing blow jobs/hand jobs in chapter 6, the authors argue, “…giving head is pure power exchange. It’s the giver who holds all the power” (98). Also, in another chapter, the authors contend, “role-playing is the power dynamics of domination and submission, and exhibitionism and voyeurism, all rolled up in one game” (138). To what extent do you think such language promotes their narrow view of female sexuality?
In chapter 9, Gallagher and Kramer further the traditional theory of the “male gaze” (females are objects of a male, predatory perspective) by constructing their own “CAKE gaze” (women choosing to be subjects, objects, or both at the same time). I am not convinced that this is the feminist, 21st century woman answer. The authors contend, “We get to be watched, adored, ogled, and above all in control” (144). Is this really different than the original patriarchal implications of the “male gaze”?
In chapter 6, “Beyond the Missionary,” the authors discuss oral and anal sexual practices. Gallagher and Kramer argue for women to demand sexual pleasure for themselves as well as their partners, noting, “Real sexual satisfaction includes both giving pleasure and receiving it” (91). Mixed in between personal testimonials, the authors include a small passage on STDs and the Pill. Unlike “Our Bodies, Our Selves,” The “Hot Woman’s Handbook” does not go into great detail about either of these parts of sexual practices, focusing instead on Plan B, or Emergency Contraception. I was surprised to read that “There are 60 million U.S. women of reproductive age, and 7 in 10 (42 million) are currently sexually active and do not want to become pregnant” (113). It made me realize how critical the Plan B issue is in current national policy debates.
Throughout chapter 7 “A Little Help from Our Friends” and chapter 8 “Dirty Talkin,’” Gallagher and Kramer continue discuss sexual matters without flowery illustrations. Although they present multiple scenarios in which women may find sexual pleasure, the authors further their narrow definition of what women should find “sexy.” When describing the possibility of bringing vibrators into one’s sexual practices, they state, “the trick in introducing the vibe with your partner is to make it sexy” (125). While various ways to do this are given, the authors maintain that it is absolutely necessary for a sexy woman to use a vibrator, not only for personal satisfaction, but in conjunction with a partner. Instead of pointing to vibrators as one option for satisfying pleasure, I feel that the authors practically demand its use. In the chapter on dirty talk, the authors write from a more pluralistic vision writing, “Dirty talk can be a touchy topic. “Certain words, like ‘cunt,’ ‘dick,’ ‘pussy,’ ‘fuck,’ ‘daddy,’ slut,’ ‘whore,’ can be one person’s On button and another’s Abort All Activity switch.” (135).
Chapter 9, “Express Yourself,” describes how some women find satisfying sexual pleasure from varying forms of exhibitionism. Although I found their descriptions of the “male gaze” and their own “CAKE gaze” very interesting, I couldn’t help but be put off by some of the personal testimonials. One woman claimed, “Our ability to feel sexy in many ways is rooted in our ability to be desirable, i.e. to play the object role. It is important for us feminists not to condemn women for enjoying this role, because doing so stands in the way of women’s sexual fulfillment.” (144).
Finally, chapter 10 is titled “Causal Encounters” and describes the now prominent practice of causal sex in today’s culture. While the authors note, “sexual pleasure is not limited to monogamous relationships” they also write, “interest in sex for sex’s sake does not prohibit us from enjoying sex for love’s sex” (155, 158). I was bothered by their section on the “boundaries” of this sexual practice, as they argue for setting both emotional and physical boundaries. However, as the practice of “friends-with-benefits” has become more prominent among young adults, especially college students, I would argue that such boundaries are easier created than maintained.
Questions for discussion:
Throughout part 2, it may be argued that the authors use illustrations without thinking of possible patriarchal language implications. When describing blow jobs/hand jobs in chapter 6, the authors argue, “…giving head is pure power exchange. It’s the giver who holds all the power” (98). Also, in another chapter, the authors contend, “role-playing is the power dynamics of domination and submission, and exhibitionism and voyeurism, all rolled up in one game” (138). To what extent do you think such language promotes their narrow view of female sexuality?
In chapter 9, Gallagher and Kramer further the traditional theory of the “male gaze” (females are objects of a male, predatory perspective) by constructing their own “CAKE gaze” (women choosing to be subjects, objects, or both at the same time). I am not convinced that this is the feminist, 21st century woman answer. The authors contend, “We get to be watched, adored, ogled, and above all in control” (144). Is this really different than the original patriarchal implications of the “male gaze”?
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Levy's Female Chauvinist Pigs, Part 1
In Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture, Ariel Levy argues that empowerment within 3rd wave feminism is no longer defined by a plurality of movements, but narrowly viewed through one type of women’s sexuality. This raunch culture, Levy contends, may be seen in the media, a la “Sex and the City,” and also within our own communities, such as the rise of stripper-cardio exercise courses as the local gym. Levy writes that this faux-empowerment ideal is supposedly the liberation of post-feminism, an ideology long passed its necessity. She writes, “Only thirty years ago, our mothers were ‘burning their bras’ and picketing Playboy, and suddenly we were getting implants and wearing the bunny logo as supposed symbols of our liberation” (3). As someone who is appalled when seeing an 11yr old wearing a tube top and belly-button ring or a 16yr old asking for breast implants for her birthday, I agree with Levy’s conclusion, “It is worth asking ourselves if this bawdy world of boobs and gams we have resurrected reflects how far we’ve come, or how far we have left to go” (5).
In chapter 1 of Levy’s book, the author describes a typical night filming with a Girls Gone Wild crew. With an estimated worth of $100 million, it seems as though GGW is the epitome of this generation’s active interest in keeping raunch culture alive and thriving. This so-called “rite of passage” is also perpetuating a cookie-cutter form of female perfection. According to GGW, a perfect 10 means “100 to 110 pounds, big boobs, blonde, blue eyes, ideally no piercing or tattoos” (12). For every female that doesn’t fit within this fixed feminine ideal, raunch culture says tough luck. Levy writes, “Raunch culture isn’t about opening our minds to the possibilities and mysteries of sexuality. It’s about endlessly reiterating one particular- and particularly commercial- shorthand for sexiness” (30). Such an ideal leaves no room for the plurality of women’s physical attributes, let alone a plurality of sexual experiences. The 3rd wave must remain open to not only to women not holding physical features that stereotypical “sexy” body types, but are also open to different sexual orientations.
I think we must continue to make the distinction between the women’s liberation movement and the sexual revolution, though understand the ways the two overlap. Levy writes, “One of the fundamental initial goals of the women’s liberation movement was to advance women’s sexual pleasure and satisfaction” (54). However, the plurality of this sexual pleasure must be realized as well. I found Hugh Hefner’s, founder of Playboy, overwhelming support of feminist issues like Roe v. Wade and the ERA surprising. Though he may be the “her of the sexual revolution,” Hefner and the Playboy Foundation remains highly controversial. The Foundation gave grant money to NOW’s Legal Defense and Education Fund, but Hefner has also been quoted as saying “I do not look for equality between man and woman…Socially, mentally, I enjoy more being with men. When I want to speak, to think, I stay with men” (59).
I look forward to tomorrow’s discussion on the introduction, and chapters 1 and 2 of Levy’s book. I’m expecting a wide range of opinions on the “rise of the raunch culture.”
In chapter 1 of Levy’s book, the author describes a typical night filming with a Girls Gone Wild crew. With an estimated worth of $100 million, it seems as though GGW is the epitome of this generation’s active interest in keeping raunch culture alive and thriving. This so-called “rite of passage” is also perpetuating a cookie-cutter form of female perfection. According to GGW, a perfect 10 means “100 to 110 pounds, big boobs, blonde, blue eyes, ideally no piercing or tattoos” (12). For every female that doesn’t fit within this fixed feminine ideal, raunch culture says tough luck. Levy writes, “Raunch culture isn’t about opening our minds to the possibilities and mysteries of sexuality. It’s about endlessly reiterating one particular- and particularly commercial- shorthand for sexiness” (30). Such an ideal leaves no room for the plurality of women’s physical attributes, let alone a plurality of sexual experiences. The 3rd wave must remain open to not only to women not holding physical features that stereotypical “sexy” body types, but are also open to different sexual orientations.
I think we must continue to make the distinction between the women’s liberation movement and the sexual revolution, though understand the ways the two overlap. Levy writes, “One of the fundamental initial goals of the women’s liberation movement was to advance women’s sexual pleasure and satisfaction” (54). However, the plurality of this sexual pleasure must be realized as well. I found Hugh Hefner’s, founder of Playboy, overwhelming support of feminist issues like Roe v. Wade and the ERA surprising. Though he may be the “her of the sexual revolution,” Hefner and the Playboy Foundation remains highly controversial. The Foundation gave grant money to NOW’s Legal Defense and Education Fund, but Hefner has also been quoted as saying “I do not look for equality between man and woman…Socially, mentally, I enjoy more being with men. When I want to speak, to think, I stay with men” (59).
I look forward to tomorrow’s discussion on the introduction, and chapters 1 and 2 of Levy’s book. I’m expecting a wide range of opinions on the “rise of the raunch culture.”
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Intro to WS 399: 3rd Wave Discourse
I'm very excited to be in the senior seminar for the women's studies major. I expect to be intellectually challenged by the material and engaged within this diverse community. I am happy to finally be studying alongside other upper-class women studies majors in this capstone seminar. Throughout the semester I expect we will all agree and disagree with each other, enriching our personally held beliefs on feminism and gender issue coursework.
As a senior women's studies and political science double major, I expect to use past courses in both of these areas of study to develop ideas of 3rd wave feminism throughout the semester. I have a strong interest in international relations and often view gender issues through a global lens. I will rely on past travels and study abroad experiences to develop this focus and especially look forward to my classmates' contributions in this area of discussion.
My past women's studies courses have been varied and interesting. I especially remember biology of women, feminist theology, and last year's seminar on women and language as exceptional women's studies courses. I expect my first-year and sophomore year experiences in the American Conversations program to provide additional knowledge for this seminar on third wave discourse.
As a senior women's studies and political science double major, I expect to use past courses in both of these areas of study to develop ideas of 3rd wave feminism throughout the semester. I have a strong interest in international relations and often view gender issues through a global lens. I will rely on past travels and study abroad experiences to develop this focus and especially look forward to my classmates' contributions in this area of discussion.
My past women's studies courses have been varied and interesting. I especially remember biology of women, feminist theology, and last year's seminar on women and language as exceptional women's studies courses. I expect my first-year and sophomore year experiences in the American Conversations program to provide additional knowledge for this seminar on third wave discourse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)