Guest Blogger: Merrill Amos

What Does a Lesbian Look Like? Gender Expression and Societal Assumptions Regarding Sexuality

We live in a culture that relies on visual cues to classify individuals based on gender and sexuality. It is considered an anomaly if a feminine woman identifies as lesbian or a butch woman identifies as heterosexual. Historically, a woman’s worth or physical beauty has been defined in terms of her attractiveness to men – and that attractiveness is determined by her compliance to social norms regarding femininity. I read a great blog article on Autostraddle, a lesbian culture blog site, about precisely this subject. There was a quote

It’s weird, being part of a self-identified minority with no absolute methods of physical identification.

In other words, even for an individual within the gay community, it is difficult to pick out other gay people and in turn establish a concrete sense of identity within a group.

Even if someone “looks” and is gay, many are closeted and afraid of what others may think and do in response to their sexual preferences. The way we as a society understand gender and sexuality is relative to established heterosexual ideals, and as a result, individuals are placed into a category characterized by both the way they look contrasted with the way they are “supposed” to look, and also the role they take on sexually. Male goes with female. Dominant goes with submissive.

When homosexual relationships are brought to the table, mass confusion ensues. Even our understanding of sex itself is called into question. To end on a lighter note, I would like to discuss this lovely “Is It Sex?” flow chart.

The “Is it Sex” Flowchart

Obviously, it’s meant to be satirical, but I think it does a good job of presenting the idea that there are many different ways to define sex – particularly with the “do you feel like you’re having sex?” option. If we’ve learned anything from the malleable nature of gender identity, it’s that when it comes to sexuality we need to derive our knowledge from an individual basis and not from what are often societal misconceptions.

aw Hells no!

it was bad enough my WMST students conned me into playing this in class today. I think it’s worse that I am posting it on the blog. But this whole commercial is like a car accident…I cannot…seem…to….look away….

Guest Blogger: Sylvia Scheubeck

In recent media discussions, the Islamic religion is frequently mentioned. Especially the role of the woman in this community is striking and contended. The situation of Muslim women depends on the complex of religion, mostly its religious texts, and the culture or rather history, which is shaped around that texts.

Rights and obligations are crucial aspects, which condition their lives in every way. Their position in society is determined by extensive cultural constructions, which imply civil rights, education, work, dress code and life within the marriage.

It is a myth that Islamic woman have no rights at all. And it is also a false statement that they are not worth to gain education or knowledge. In the modern Muslim world, also woman are allowed to get educated. They even get scholarships for extraordinary activities or may become teachers or business women. There is just one instruction they have to follow: The education has to be restricted to their religion. But this doesn’t only proves true for women, this includes all Muslims, men included. Therefore, it is old-fashioned to think that Muslim woman are not allowed to get any education.

Due to their good education, Islamic females have the chance to find jobs in every sector, for example, in the third sector as nurses or doctors. In the textile industry they even hold a monopoly. As a consequence, they have their own financial resources, if they don’t have to deliver their wages to their dominant husband. In employing women, there’s still one thing lacking: special female property rights. This is one thing which definitely has to be improved in the future.

But on the other hand, there is still the shady side of that religious community. Muslim women still have to be liable to historical obligations, which were constructed by men in former times.

A certain behavior and attitude is expected within marriage. For instance, sexuality is a big part of it, although love is often a longsome process of learning. In many cases, especially in former times, girls were agreed by her father to marry strange men, they never ever met in their life until the day of their wedding.

Within the marriage then, it is expected, that the man is good to his wife (i.e. earning money to feed the family) and the woman is good to her husband (doing the household, raising children, having sex with husband). These are standards demonstrated in the Muslim Koran, the “Bible“ of the Islamic world.

Another often disputed obligation female Muslims have to follow is the dress code. Within the Koran it says that women have to lower their gaze and cover their private parts of the body. This also includes the veil, which is probably the most common aspect which comes to mind when talking about disguising Muslim women. Especially in European countries, this is one fact which cannot be accepted. That’s why many Muslims have great problems to get integrated into the Western society.

As the example of the Muslim world shows, gender behavior and culture are huge factors which determine a woman’s life. Although their status in society has visibly improved, there are still great gaps to advance their position considering emancipation and patriarchy.

Guest Blogger: Stephen Raulli

The Gender Gap

Last Spring, Constance McMillen was barred from bringing her girlfriend to prom. The story leaked, and rightful outrage ensued. Now, in the same state of Mississippi comes another story of discrimination. Ceara Sturgis decided to wear a tuxedo in her senior portrait. The school responded by excluding her from the yearbook entirely. Two very interesting cases; the latter is an issue of basic human rights, while the latter covers the much more broad rhetorical term we call gender.

First, let me say this about yearbooks: they’re pointless. If you want to remember those times, then stay in touch with the people who meant most. 20 years down the road, you won’t care about the room you took Spanish in. And as for the submission of senior portraits–ridiculous. My high school would allow nothing besides a professional portrait. So, we overpaid for mediocre pictures. Then, there are the quotes, where seniors are asked to submit a favorite quote to be printed under their portrait. I remember my friend submitted “Murder Lunch,” and it was printed. When I asked him why that phrase, he said, “It’s just stupid. I like to make fun of the people who think they’re so deep, but use the same quote as 20 other people.”

But, back to Ceara’s case. To me, the issue of her wearing a tuxedo goes beyond sexuality and fashion choices. By wearing a tuxedo, Ceara dares to defy the norm, where girls wear pink and boys wear blue. Remember, sex is biological in terms of male/female, but gender refers to the way we act; the debate is whether it is assigned or learned. The moment a baby boy is born, we place a blue hat on him. From birth, we assign babies a gender. If they can break free of it, then good for them. Although breaking the mold isn’t easy.

I was in a Toys ‘R’ Us a few weeks ago helping a friend grab a gift for her little cousin. When I asked what the cousin liked, my friend said, “She’s a girlie girl. Anything pink.” As I wandered around the toy store, I was dumbfounded by how rigid the gender roles are for children. Even in toys, boys are being taught how to be manly and girls are raised to be “girlie girls.”

Let’s look at those toy kitchens everyone had. Of course, they’re much more modern now; some have dishwashers, and stoves that are built into the wall. More interesting is the box. Rarely will you see a boy playing in the kitchen. No, it’s usually a young girl, smiling innocently as she cooks or wash dishes. If you do happen to see a boy, take note of his position: he is usually being served the food, or on a pretend cell phone. Because the boy is supposed to grow up and work, while the girl waits at home for him.

Look at the term “girlie girl.” We as a society come up with new words and phrases to keep the definition of our roles. If a girl plays sports, she’s slapped with the label “tomboy.” Unfortunately it seems the roles for boys are more strict. I won’t forget the day a father yelled at me and my co-counselors at day camp because his son made a bead necklace in crafts. According to the father, he didn’t want his son to grow up queer.

I applaud Ceara for refusing to go home and put on a dress for her photo. It’s blatant discrimination on the school’s part. It is not a school or government’s place to assign gender. We as human beings possess that right to carve out our own identity. We as human beings should be allowed to be who we are. The key word there is “should,” because unfortunately discrimination and hate is a daily thing. But, why don’t we walk towards growth one step at a time: let Ceara wear the tuxedo. Let your son buy a barbie doll or the race cars. Let your daughter choose if she wants to be a stay-at-home mother or kick ass on the soccer field. Hell, maybe your kid can do both! We all should have a choice. It’s a freedom. And until we are able to make our choices freely, can we really call our country the land of the free?

Guest Blogger: Sylvia Scheubeck

More Women in Business

This article deals with the role of the modern woman. It is a brief biographical depiction of a 3o year old woman, called Marie Ostermann, who has to claim her position within a men-dominated world. Her father is the owner of the company she works for. That’s why many people may think, this is exactly the reason why she got that job. But this is one of the daily problems and prejudices women nowadays have to cope with.

Women, being part of the public sphere, still seems to be regarded as “non-conform”, even in modern societies. “Non-conform” in this context means “not/unwillingly tolerated” by the recent culture of the society. But why? The reason for this goes back to even ancient times, where women were considered to occupy the domestic sphere, i.e. taking care of children and doing the household. Men were the responsible ones for feeding the family by earning money (public sphere).

During times of emancipation, this role allocation changes: There are many women who maintain the domestic AND the public sphere or men, which raise children, while their wives earn the money. The second variety is frequently one aspect men don’t want to identify with, because in many societies this is still seen as something female and no (real) man wants to be associated with any female features.

Marie, being the female boss of many men within a big company, definitely shows how gender related behaviour and positions have changed during the last centuries. Women are allowed to chose their own sphere. Men may accept that or not. Fact is, as long as she’s the boss, male opinions and decisions will always depend on her female(!) consent.

Guest Blogger: Jillian McCarthy

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)

I recently encountered the idea of excision, also known as “female circumcision,” or, more appropriately, “female genital mutilation” in some readings for a philosophy class. It is performed around the world, most commonly in Africa, but also in places like the Middle East, Europe, and the United States. 85 to 115 million of today’s women have been excised, according to the World Health Organization, and up to 98% of women in places like Somalia and 93% in Mali have undergone the procedure (May 17).

The process involves removing the clitoris in less intrusive forms of FGM and removing as much as the inner and outer lips, leaving the vagina partially exposed, in its more extreme forms.

The results are a permanent loss of sexual pleasure for the woman. In the short term, women sometimes experience hemorrhaging, tetanus, septicemia, and possible death. In the long term, chronic infection can occur, as well as long-term pain and scars that hinder walking, not to mention the psychological and emotional effects that come as a result of removing a woman’s most personal and fragile organs (Rachels 25). So, the benefits of FGM must be pretty good, right?

Arguments in favor of FGM are that there are fewer unwanted pregnancies when women experience no sexual pleasure, an idea that suggests that it is women who provoke men to sex and not vice versa, that women will be less inclined to cheat on their husbands, and that they will therefore be more attentive to their families, becoming better mothers and housekeepers. These benefits depict women as unable to control of their desires and incapable of caring for their families and husbands if they are distracted by sexual pleasure. Furthermore, according to supporters of FGM, the importance of sexual pleasure is overly emphasized in western media and society. Obviously, this means that women’s sexual pleasure is overly emphasized, seeing as male excision is not a common practice. (This would involve removing most of the penis in less intrusive forms of FGM and removing the entire penis as well as some of the scrotum in its more extreme forms. Think it’s the equivalent of male circumcision? Do you know any men who would be willing to give up their penis? I don’t.)

I knew before reading these articles that FGM is performed throughout the world, but I had no idea how prominent a trend it is. FGM is another way to break down and control women. After all, to take away a woman’s sexual pleasure, which is a liberating experience, is another way to keep her in submission. Removing one of the organs that biologically defines her also removes a part of her identity, which in turn lessens her ability and will to try to overcome the patriarchal structure. Does this make anyone else as angry as it makes me?

Michele’s Note: For those in WMST100, we will be reading more about FGM in Week 11.

Guest Blogger: Stephen Raulli

Like a Rolling Stone

Rolling Stone–the Godfather of music magazines. A sign of making it in the music industry is landing on the coveted cover. The magazine is so iconic that it transcends music borders. It touches politics, the economy, pop culture, and film, among other things. The one consistent trend I’ve noticed, though? Female singers nearly naked should they land the prestigious cover.

In all forms of entertainment, they say talent always shines through. When Gabourey Sidibe broke out in Hollywood she was like a breath of fresh air. But, if talent really is the trump card to everything, why, then, did Christina Aguilera, who at only 29 is already on first-name recognition with Mariah and Whitney with those powerhouse vocals, pose like this?

Actually, this is tame compared to her “Dirrrty” days. Remember?

Aguilera always claimed female empowerment as she was being raked over the coals for her new provocative image. But, “empowerment” has come to mean different things–especially with women. Is taking your clothes off the ultimate statement now?

If so, then what are these women saying? The nearly-nude aren’t much more than reaffirming that sex sells. Fergie, if you read her interviews, is a cool, intelligent girl with a good head on her shoulders. She comes off as genuine and someone you could sit and chat with. But, her ultimate claim to fame? “My Humps.”

The past few years we have seen a number of young women break out quickly in the music industry. This past summer Katy Perry made the blogs explode when she called Lady Gaga’s video for “Alejandro” ‘blasphemous.’ That’s her opinion; her right to speak out. She later said she was a Gaga fan, and had nothing but respect for her. So, here we have a free-speaking woman with a good sense of herself.

It’s a woman’s prerogative to take her clothes off. It is a form of empowerment. It used to be illegal for women to wear dresses above the knees. But is it really shocking anymore? Above, we see Perry sans clothing. Empowerment, or marketing? After all, she was promoting an album.

Then we have Lady Gaga, who has risen further in the music industry faster than any other artist I’ve seen. When she first made it big, we had this:

Both an homage to her iconic bubble dress and a way to draw attention to her sexuality (“Poker Face” would hit airwaves a few months later). I get it. But, two years later, we have this:

Not so much shocking as it is tiresome. We’ve seen this before. What’s the statement? Is she speaking out against Don’t Ask Don’t Tell? I was more offended that the BP oil disaster and the firing of Obama’s general got the prestigious place next to her butt. But then again: sex sells.

Maybe I’m looking too much into it. But I can’t help it. The nearly-naked woman on Rolling Stone has almost become a cliche. But, if it is to happen, let’s get people talking. Remember this?

Try and label her stupid but Britney is in damn good control of her image. Even back in 2007 when she was having the meltdown of epic proportions, she knew how to recover afterwards. Look at this cover, and try and persuade me it’s not her standing strong, taking back her life:

Even America’s sex goddess can make a statement and remain empowered–and fully clothed. I don’t mean to say, ‘women should be clothed!’ It’s their right to do as they please. But look at some covers of men, and you’ll see they remembered to get dressed–even when they’re selling sex.

Guest Blogger: Brooke Nasypany

Bisexual Celebs: Celebrity Stunt or Actuality?

Bisexuality seems to be all the rage for female celebs right now. Big name celebs including Megan Fox, Lady Gaga, Nicki Minaj, Angelina Jolie, Lindsay Lohen, Fergie and many more have all claimed to be bisexual or have had experiences with other females.

What I find most interesting about this list of celebs is most of them are or were in relationships with men. This reminds me of what Michele said in class about bisexuality…Bisexual women know they are going to end up with men (or something along those lines). As we can see here Angelina, Megan, and Fergie all ended up marrying men.

Here is a website that has many good quotes from the celebs who claim to be bisexual:

Hello, good bi – top 10 bisexual celebs

The common theme among interviews with all these stars is they all claim to have had experiments and relations with other women but most usually not a steady relationship. This makes me question if it is a celebrity stunt or fad? Are these women actually bisexual or is it all a way to receive publicity?

119 hours.

yes. I have decided to count it down by hours. As of the moment of this post, the season premiere of House MD is only 119 hours away. as House would say: Oh my GAWD.

[yeah, I know all these House posts don’t do a damn thing for classroom discussion but you know what? it’s MY blog. You don’t like it, git yer own damn blog. Hmph.]

Sugar, spice and everything nice?

I tried to avoid this. Really I did. Because every person on the planet who owns a blog and writes about popular culture spent the summer blogging about Lindsay Lohan. I mean, who doesn’t know the story by now: Linds blew off her probation and court ordered alcohol classes and landed herself in jail for 13 days on a 90 day sentence (oh that wacky California! Unless you actually murdered someone, they ain’t got room for your zaney law-breaking antics! So you’ll only serve about a third of your sentence. You’re welcome!)

And then a 90 day stint in rehab turned out to be only 23 days because—surprise!!!—Lindsey, apparently, is not nearly as addicted as they thought! She is just a regular Hollywood starlet!

So yeah. This summer, I had TMZ on my screen at 4:30 to hear Harvey spew the news about Lindsey. And now, she is out of prison, out of rehab and it remains to be seen if she’ll clean her act up.

But don’t fret, folks. Because while the news on the Lindsey front may be waning while she plays new and improved, we have Paris Hilton’s latest arrest—a felony charge!—on drug possession in Vegas last week. Her (recent) mug shot:

This is all pretty big news. Lindsey’s FUBAR was all over the news for all of summer and her twitter followers grew by a good half million. The mishaps of contemporary Hollywood starlets are a boon for business all the way around; the paparazzi keep us hooked the way we like.

But here is where I have issue: that whole double standard thing. We seem to want to see our young, female stars muck up—who wasn’t rooting for another LiLo stumble so we have even more to gossip about on facebook? I mean, look at this blog post; I knew all the details of Lindsey’s case without even having to look them up.

I struggle with the celebratory moment in our popular culture when we beat the hell out of our female starlets but tend to celebrate their male equivalents. I realized this after I got a glimpse of this headline:

Moviegoers still want to see Mel Gibson films

You should have heard about Mel Gibson’s summer escapades by now. Gibson is heading to court on various charges, one of which is domestic abuse against his ex-girlfriend and mother of his most recent child. There is no denying that Gibson has a temper—various people that have worked with him in the industry have admitted to seeing it come out when he drinks.

Meanwhile, a series of audio tapes have been leaked to the press—who leaked them, is still under investigation—and they are full of hate-spewing, racist and misogynistic rants. So I am not quite sure why a man that is tied to domestic abuse is still lauded by audiences.

Which brings me to a similar Hollywood star that seems to avoid any of the public distaste that the likes of Lindsey and soon, Paris, is facing.

Charlie Sheen was arrested in December of last year for assaulting his wife:

he allegedly threatened to kill her and brandished a knife after she told him she wanted a divorce.

So while Lindsey’s career has taken a nose-dive due to her various illegal activities, Sheen—who has a history of violence against women charges filed—was rewarded with the highest salary paid to a TV star, $1.25 million per episode. That’s more than this guy makes:

The point here is that we seem to have a double standard set in how our female stars are allowed to screw up. Within our ideology, we expect our male stars to be in the news for issues such as arrests due to drug and traffic violations. Because after all, boys will be boys. But not for our girls. We want them much better behaved. Consider another example. Remember this?

Miley Cyrus was only 15 when this photo was shot for Vanity Fair by famed photographer Annie Leibovitz. It caused such a scandal, the starlet ended up apologizing for the shoot. Yet this is a pretty routine pic that has graced the walls of many a tween:

This is Taylor Lautner. He is 16 in this shot. No one seems to have a problem with this. Especially the adult female fans of Twlight.

Just sayin’.