Gender and the Global Economy: Moghadam

As has been recognized in recent years, gender and economics are not independent of one another. Women are playing an ever-larger role in the economy at the same time as we acknowledge that much of their work goes unrecognized in the economy. Moghadam discusses economics using a gender perspective and brings up some interesting points. One point which is very important is that, while women are gaining employment in many fields, this has not occurred in conjunction with a redistribution of domestic and child-care duties. At the same time, many of the jobs that women take on are of the type that maximizes profits for employers (while not necessarily benefiting the worker in the same ways as would normal, full-time work). For example, women are more likely than men to work in “temporary, part-time, casual, and home-based” jobs. Therefore, I would argue that women’s employment is still namely used to benefit men. Women must still serve men by undertaking the unpaid household labor, which requires them to also take the paid positions which have the least power and status but are at the same time beneficial to their (usually male) employers. In addition, since women are certainly still receiving less income, due both to the wage gap and to the fact that women are somewhat limited to part-time and other lower-status work, they earn lower wages and salaries than men and therefore remain subjugated in their marriages and other relationships with men. This is just an expansion of some of Moghadams’s points that I found most interesting.

White Privilege and Male Privilege: McIntosh

As women, we often like to think about how men are privileged and we consider ourselves the victims, the powerless. However, as we discussed in class today, people are members of many different groups and categories, and are likely to be privileged in some and oppressed in others. For many women such as myself, we are also highly privileged in that we belong to the white racial category. Peggy McIntosh holds a very interesting discussion about the parallels between male privilege and white privilege. In the end, though, she questions why privilege is even termed a positive concept. I would have to agree with her that, while privilege does afford countless opportunities and that most people, myself included, would certainly rather be part of the privileged, empowered group in any given situation, there are so many negative aspects to privilege too. Of course, privilege leads to many people treating others carelessly, inconsiderately, and even violently. These are actions that we have control over and that many people do not participate in on a conscious level, although those who are privileged may not always recognize when they act in such ways. As McIntosh mentions, when you recognize your privilege you are faced with the quandary of what you can really do to change the situation, and the challenge of what is the most moral and reasonable way to approach your privilege. Would you turn down a job if one of the other candidates were from the unprivileged group? This seems impractical, and certainly there is no way to know who would have gotten the job without privilege. This is especially difficult considering that privilege has effects on us all through our lives, affecting our chances and opportunities from the very start. What then, is the best way to strive for equality once you have recognized your own privilege? This is one of the big questions I was left with after reading this article and certainly one I will continue to grapple with.

Oppression By Choice

Ann Cudd writes that women are indeed oppressed, but as a result of their own choices. Although Cudd concludes that these choices are rational based on the situations women find themselves in, one of the biggest questions in her article is how much of a choice women actually have. That is, while women always have a choice, all of women’s choices tend to have negative outcomes, and they are usually coerced, in one way or another, to choose the one that has the least negative repercussions for others, but the most negative repercussions for themselves. As an example, Cudd discusses the situations of a woman who must stay at home and take care of the children while her husband works. Although the woman and her husband believe in equality, the choice is rational as a result of the wage gap. The long-term consequences of this action, and the fact that oppression is still so prevalent economically, really got to me the most. It seems like what needs to happen is a legal, structural change in which employers are required to pay women the same amount as men. The interesting part about this? There is a law, its called the Equal Pay Act and it was signed into law way back in 1963!!

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/equalpayact1.html

Oppression: Marilyn Frye

Marilyn Frye discusses how the term oppression applies to women and refutes some popular claims for why women are not oppressed. I really enjoyed her discussion of why men opening doors for women is not a favor but is actually a form of oppression. I, like many women, tend to perceive men opening doors for women to be a polite and, in today’s society, even chivalrous deed. Although I would never want someone to believe that I could not open a door for myself, I generally take the deed in a positive manner. However, Frye explains the phenomenon in a different way. She says that, because men do not help women in situations where they actually need it, and because the act of opening the door is not determines by practicality but are a symbolic gesture that belittles women by casting them as incapacitated. Although I can see Frye’s point and I especially agree that it is curious how men rarely (although, I would argue, certainly not always), fail to help women when they actually need it, I am somewhat skeptical of her argument. I did a couple of internet searches to explore some other points of view and it became clear that while some individuals perceive chivalrous acts as sexist, others see them as a sign of respect for women. Although I, as a feminist, agree with many aspects of Frye’s argument, I also think that one could easily make a convincing argument of how opening doors for women and other such actions amounts to respect. After all, if women are so busy constantly cleaning up after men in the home, it only seems right that men should sometimes do something for women!

Western Bangladesh and Microfinance

I can’t decide how I feel about microfinance after Thursday’s class. Before, everything I had read about microfinance made me feel that it was a really great method for development and empowering women on a grassroots level. It seemed like such a simple and logical approach that I was always amazed at how well it seemed to work, but never really challenged those perceptions.

The movie we watched about women’s microfinance in Bangladesh only solidified my opinion. Then Dr. Pelkey was kind enough to come in and talk to us about some of his own experiences with microfinance projects. Based on his knowledge, microfinance is actually successful in only a select few cases, and in most situations, the moneylenders get rich off the money they loan the women while the women just become indebted and fearful of their moneylenders (usually men). At first I really did not appreciate my perceptions of microfinance being trumped on, considering that the women may be better off than they were originally, and are at least being challenged to empower themselves. It does raise the question, though, if women are told that this is guaranteed to empower them and then it only makes them feel more endangered and helpless, maybe it will discourage those women from ever stepping out of their traditional gender roles again.

I think it may be possible that microfinance is a good thing when it is combined with the correct oversight and leadership training programs, and especially when the moneylenders are not looking to charge exorbitant interest or get rich off of the loans of poor people. It would be interesting to see how these projects are different from ones in which women have the group among themselves and all contribute their own money to a savings that they can each loan from as needed.

How Feminism Transformed Advertising

This article discusses the ways in which feminism has changed modern-day advertising. I found the article especially interesting because, for my GRE Prep course, just yesterday I wrote an essay about the media creating, rather than reflecting, the values of a society. This article is taking the opposite approach, and after thinking about both perspectives, I believe that the media takes a balanced approach, with television, movies, and books shaping our values to some degree, by gradually exposing us to new ideas and values, while advertising is more likely to reflect those values we hold. After all, for us to buy their products, advertisers really have to focus on those ideals that we find attractive or desirable.

This article makes some really good points about how woman are now seen as more independent than in the past. I thought the examples about female hygiene products, and how advertisements for these are now aimed at independent, active women rather than women concerned with only their role in the home, were especially effective. One piece I thought the article failed to recognize was the detrimental effects of the sexualization of advertising directed towards or portraying women, and the strict beauty ideals reinforced in these images. Often, these advertisements do not reflect the values of individuals but reflect an aspiration that is valued by our society as a whole. This advertising tends to objectify women rather than empowering them.

Gender, War and Militarism: Making and Questioning the Links

I love how, in this discussion of women in the military, specifically in Israel, there is a quote from Idan Halili of New Profile that brings up the very interesting and new notion that men can be refuser-heroes instead of soldier-heroes. She is discussing the concept of refusal to serve in the Army, and the fact that is not only women who are morally opposed to serving, that peace is not just a feminist movement. This is really important because labeling peace-making or peace-seeking as a feminine role limits the ability of the world to live in peace, hurts men physically, emotionally, and spiritually, and leads to the needless harm of so many men and women both. If you consider the men who tried to refuse the draft in the US, or the men who went to war but hid instead of shooting their enemies, and consider even further those men who may be morally opposed to the idea of war but feel that it is their duty as a man to serve in the armed forces, I would imagine there are many fewer men than it appears who are interested in using war as a means to resolve conflict. In addition, we might consider women who fight in an effort to change gender expectations, or to gain power or respect, but not because they actually believe in it. There are also many men and women who join the Military for financial reasons. Offering alternatives to these situations where people see their only or best answer as joining the Army is an important step towards a more peaceful world. By changing the gender expectations for men so that they do not feel obligated to fight, we would be taking a first step towards a more peaceful and more equal society.

Women and War in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

“War also destroys the patriarchal structures of society that confine and degrade women. In the very breakdown of morals, traditions, customs, and community, war also opens up and creates new beginnings.”

This quote from Meredith Turshen, referenced in Nadine Puechguirbal’s Women and War in the Democratic Republic of Congo, was very refreshing to me after all of the negative things I have been reading about what happens to women, their bodies, their power, and their lives as a result of war. I think that what Turshen says is very true and that we are seeing it more and more in the world today, where violence creates solidarity between women who recognize that the only way to protect themselves is to stand up together and be heard. While it is certainly shameful that this is what we have let it come to for so many women, it is true that war is often a catalyst for women’s rights movements, and the great obstacles that women often overcome in these situations only serves to illustrate the true strength of so many women around the world. As nations try to rebuild from catastrophes such as civil war and large-scale violence, it is the perfect chance for women to show their power, leadership skills, and indispensability to society. In addition, as the readings for today discuss, many women are the glue that holds their societies together, on many levels, in wartime. This experience must bring women around the world to see how strong and capable they are, and to desire the ability to effect change and meaning in their world even in times of peace.

Spiking the Punch (Woman Ch 15)

In this chapter Angier continues to discuss why and how everyone is naturally aggressive. Everyone knows that women are more likely than men to channel their aggression through language. That’s why I was so surprised to read that studies have actually found that boys and girls engage in equal amounts of verbal aggression, such as insults or pointed facial expressions. Overall, boys and girls engage in the same amount of aggression, with boys’ being physical and verbal and girls’ being indirect (ie, cold shoulder) and verbal. I thought this was a really interesting way of categorizing aggression and explaining how we all fulfill our aggressive tendencies, but the downside is that it all really depends on how one defines aggression. For example, there are many researchers who might agree that verbal aggression is indeed aggression, since it is still direct, but indirect aggression is just a sort of coping mechanism and not violent at all. In this analysis, boys would appear to be much more aggressive than girls.

Another part of this chapter I found interesting was how she traced the female bond back through history and explained it using the social structures of our primate ancestors. She even went so far as to show the change from matriarchy to patriarchy in the Bible! That men learned the benefits of befriending one another and banding together from women is certainly worthwhile to consider.

Wolf Whistles and Hyena Smiles (Woman Ch 14)

Today, Angier makes a really interesting argument about why biological-based arguments concerning the origins of gender differences are just plain wrong. She insists that women are innately aggressive, in fact, that women are naturally just aggressive as men. I think one of her most interesting arguments is that aggression is for those without real power. This is a really great point. After all, we are usually violent because we are frustrated or we feel that our voice is not being listened to. Even in war and terrorism, the violence usually occurs because the parties feel that they do not have enough power to get where they want (or need) to using only their words. Another example is a child throwing a temper tantrum. When the child has asked her or his parent for something and the parent’s response is not what the child desires, then the child turns to violence. Of course, women do not want to be likened to tantrum-throwing toddlers, but thinking of these examples really solidifies for me the truth in her claim.

It would be interesting, however, to examine why some women, or women in certain situations, feel that it is acceptable to use aggression whereas other women in the same situation might not. For example, some girls are more likely to resort to violence while others are more likely to keep quiet when they cannot make their point. Were these girls raised differently? Do they have different amounts of power to begin with? Or, is it just like with boys (who, of course, face societal pressure to resort to violence and appear “masculine”), that girls, all humans indeed, express varying levels of aggression depending on their personality and other factors.

Cole: Commonalities and Differences

This is an interesting challenge to the idea that all women are the same and takes a look at the ways in which culture, class, race, and gender (specifically femininity, it doesn’t really look at the experiences of men), intersect. One of the most interesting aspects of this for me was the recognition that women stereotype against other women based on their class, race, or other factors. It is interesting to me that most people are victims of stereotypes and yet still impose them on others. To me, this says that we as a culture choose not to recognize the power stereotypes have over us but instead accept them to some degree, as if both giving and receiving of this phenomenon sets the scales to even. After reading this I thought of some examples, for example working women stereotyping upper class women who play the suburban housewife role as snotty, lazy and materialistic while these upper class women might stereotype the working class women as, ironically enough, lazy or unintelligent. The strangest part is, these women likely put some of the same stereotypes on one another. For example, the working woman might say that the upper class woman is lazy because she doesn’t have a job, while the upper class woman might retort that the working class woman must be lazy or she would have a better job, or more money. These are pretty simplistic examples, but really show how wrapped up we are in all of stereotypes, to the point where we hardly notice them or their foolishness until they are holding us back. I’m really glad I got to read this and think about stereotypes in this way!

Gendered Treachery

This article takes a look at how gender as a dichotomy and as an integral part of our personal identity is the underlying cause of homophobia. The main issue is that those with masculine identities feel threatened by homosexuality because it goes against the traditional roles for men. One piece that I found really interesting was that masculinity is paradoxically defined as “natural” and also something that needs to be guarded against “losing.” Obviously, something that is natural does not require an act or performance to uphold. In my opinion, this really shows that there is no one, true, natural masculinity but that masculinity, femininity and personhood itself come in countless forms that differ from one person to another. The author suggests that eliminating the distinct categories of “male” and “female” is the best approach for getting rid of homophobia. Although I can see his point, I think this is a challenge that seems, to most people at least, unrealistic. I feel that it would be interesting if this author expanded on his ideas by discussing how the elimination of dichotomist genders might occur.

Boys Do Cry

This excerpt is a discussion of how feminism can help men and also why they might feel threatened by it. This really goes back to one of my favorite things about feminism, which is that it can really help everyone by giving us all to develop every part of our selves as people, to do what we are truly good at and enjoy without the boundaries that gender tends to impose on both men and women. The author makes some really good points about how difficult it must be for men to not show their feelings unless it is through violence, which is of course not a natural state for women or men. Whenever people ask me if I would rather be a man if I could choose, this is always the point that I remember and that makes me say “no.” I like that I, as a woman, am “allowed” to truly feel, experience, and express my emotions.

The author also discusses masculinity and the military, which is the topic Lauren and I are exploring for our literature review. I think that one interesting point she makes, which I have never considered before, is that the military is innately sexist since they feminize the enemy in order to dehumanize them. This is much the same as male sports teams do when they are trying to pump themselves up for a big game. It is quite sad to think that what is perceived as the best way to make men feel strong (and capable of killing), is making them think of their enemy or competitor as feminine.

Safe Boys, Safe Schools

This article reflects on the ways in which stereotypical masculine qualities can make our schools more dangerous by teaching boys to express themselves in violent manners. It makes some good points about how the acceptable norms for girls have expanded in recent years while the acceptable behaviors and attitudes for boys have remained fairly static and narrow. Also, the author touches on the fact that not only are boys encouraged to be emotionally disconnected, they are also given a sense of privilege. Taken together, these factors create the perfect conditions under which someone might act out with violence. Allowing boys to express their emotions could conceivably help with this because it gives them the ability to talk out their frustrations instead of using physical means. Despite the thoughtful issues the author raised, I did have problems with a couple of points. For example, he states, “teenage boys of all racial and ethnic groups are more likely to die from gunshot wounds than from all natural deaths combined.” I found this a little difficult to believe and it would be interesting to look at the source of this information to see if it was based on an inner-city study or something of that sort, and also what is defined as a “natural death.” He also discusses sexual harassment as a “miscommunication” where the harassed and the harasser simply have different perceptions of the situation. This made me angry as it used men’s emotional ineptitudes as an excuse for sexual harassment.

Multicultural, Global, and Postcolonial Feminism

This is a discussion of women’s diversity, its challenges, and potential ways for handling these differences. These feminists encourage women to speak for all women, not just privileged women, which is what often occurs in the developed world. Of course, this is easier said than done, because we must think about how these other women feel about different issues instead of just imposing Western values on them.

There were a couple of points in this chapter that I found especially compelling. For example, I never realized that most women in third world countries do not consider themselves feminists because they are more concerned with the economic and political consequences of poverty than with reproductive and gender issues. Because of this, it is important to understand how women in all parts of the world are suffering but also to recognize that, although both men and women in third world countries are suffering from poverty, women are often hit the hardest and that initiatives aimed at them, such as micro loans, can be helpful in improving the economic situation of families as well as the status of women.

I think another really important point that Tong makes is how women in the developed world rely on women in the third world for our own material comfort. For example, we might say that women in the third world should receive fair wages, but these wage increases would make it more difficult for us to afford the excessive clothing and other material goods we consume. This makes for a difficult situation for many feminists (including myself), who are unprepared to make drastic changes in their own lives to effect such change.

Care-Focused Feminism

Care-focused feminism focuses on why society labels some values as inherently feminine or masculine. This school of thought also values the caring qualities typically attributed to females and thinks that conflicts would be better handled if men were encouraged to embrace caring and if caring were valued in the public as much as in the private sphere.

Tong discusses Kittay’s idea that humans are fundamentally equal because we all rely on each other when we are the ones needing care. This relates back to the first chapter, in which we discussed treating men and women equally based on their humanness. From Kittay I understood that when a woman needs to be cared for, her husband or another man will do it rather than let her suffer, even though in most cases a woman is the caretaker. This is really important because it shows that men are capable of caring and that it is our society that holds them back from caring except in very limited circumstances.

I think sometimes the idea that maternal tendencies can prevent violence gets carried too far. For example, there is a discussion about Algerian women attacking the French, even when children were in the bombing locations as well. Suggesting that the reason men are on the battlefield is because they do not see their enemy as someone’s children and that women do not fight because they do perceive them this way seems to me to be a broad generalization. It undermines the deep love many men have for their children and forgets the violent roles women play in many conflicts, as suicide bombers and the like, precisely because many people make these same assumptions.

Tong: Ch 1

Chapter one in Tong’s book gives a fairly comprehensive look at liberal feminism and includes the history of the movement and the various sects within it. Tong covers a lot of very interesting and different perspectives. For example, she discusses Harriet Taylor Mill’s idea that society imposes ethical double standards on women. This means that the very qualities women are expected to have also prevent them from reaching their true potential. We talk a lot about society’s unreasonable expectations for women, but this is a different and very frank way to discuss how those expectations are holding us back. It is also very interesting because she notes how these apply to traits that are perceived as both negative and positive. As women, it is important that we allow ourselves to grow into our true natural traits and to develop from there into our full potentials.

Tong also discusses how the liberation of women can liberate men. For women to have the capacity to develop their career and other activities outside the home, men inherently also get the chance to develop their personal and family relationships and to spend time outside of the office, at home relaxing or enjoying hobbies. I think this is a really important point of women’s rights that isn’t often acknowledged. – It creates a more egalitarian society, which also expands the scope of which behaviors are acceptable for men. Already today, more men take part in childcare, cooking and housework than in the past.

The Conservative Legacy

This reading talked about how conservatism, both sociobiological and moral, opposes feminism and its objectives. This reading actually made me kind of angry. Although I was glad that the author provided criticism of the viewpoints at the end of the chapter, I found the arguments from moral and sociobiological conservatives to be frustratingly simplistic and naïve. The idea that men should be dominant over women because it has made them historically more successful seems to me like a fear of change and progression. The statement that feminism “weakens” society and makes a healthy masculinity more difficult (and unlikely) for men to achieve seems like an excuse for patriarchy. It saddens me to think that some people truly believe the most beneficial role a woman can play in society is staying in the home, thereby “controlling” men, and it upsets me even more that some conservatives would even term this the most “rewarding” role to have, so women are lucky. If the role is so rewarding, why don’t women reap material benefits and status for what they do? Is healthy masculinity really so unstable that giving some recognition or respect to women will topple it?

I probably sound a little fired up. I hope I wasn’t the only one.

Feminist

This piece discusses multiple perspectives on how gender relates to war. While I appreciate that Goldstein certainly provides a wide range of viewpoints, I have to admit that I found some of them too radical and feel like he really focused on the extremists from each school of belief. He related to a claim that the “feminization of world politics” over the past 100 years has created a “democratic zone of peace.” I found this ironic because I had learned in the past that the reason for peace between democratic nations has nothing to do with women in politics (especially since so few women hold elected positions), but has to do with the obligation leaders in democracies have to their constituents – so it is more difficult to enter into war, since you need the support of the people. While women technically have more rights in democracies, this does not mean that a “feminization of politics” has occurred. Further, when women do hold elected office, one might surmise that they will overcompensate for their feminine tendencies towards nonviolent methods by still engaging in violent conflict, in order to keep popular support, especially of other (mostly male) politicians and male citizens who will be waiting for her to look “weak” or put the nation in danger.

Towards a Gendered Understanding of Conflict

This article discusses how gender is an issue in both conflict and development and how recognizing and dealing with the effects of gender in either arena can make the situation in developing countries better. I found this article very interesting because I am really interested in issues with development and foreign aid by NGOs. Since I will be focusing on war for my literature review, I was also interested in the differences between fighting in conflict for men and women. I thought a really important point the authors made was how it is not necessarily that men want to fight in wars, but that they feel obligated to do so and know they will be punished if they do not “prove” their masculinity. They are also made to feel guilty if they do not protect their community and their family. Women, on the other hand, are usually defeminized when they take part in battle, and often have to worry about being raped or taunted. It turns out that going through all of this in the name of serving alongside men and making equal sacrifices for one’s society does not pan out with the benefits women may hope for. In other words, women are not “rewarded” for taking part in armed conflict. Once the battle is over, there is often no change in day-to-day gender norms. I thought this was really interesting and just shows how constrained we are in our gender roles and how set in stone our societies and ideals really are.

Women and Peace: The Meaning of Peace for Women

This chapter focuses on the specific questions we need to ask when thinking about both positive and negative, organized and unorganized peace for women. It encourages thought about how and why peace is a different concept for women than it is for men. The author talks about the difference between personal and structural violence in negative peace, in the difference between one women being beat by her husband versus a million women being beat by their husbands. This reminded me of the “personal as political” idea we discussed in class on Tuesday, and how feminism can help women to realize that their personal struggles are shared by others and give them the unity and conviction to work towards change. I think that one important, if tricky, part in giving women this feeling is not undermining their own personal struggle in a way that makes them accept it or feel that it is acceptable because it is “normal.”

The author also discusses the differences between direct and structural violence, giving the example of women being kept in ignorance versus not having enough to eat (even when men do), and says that direct violence such as starvation is of course more deadly. I think it would be interesting to discuss in class how direct and structural violence interact to reinforce one another. For example, are woman who are kept ignorant more likely to starve to death? Are starving women more ignorant? Do they accept direct violence because of structural factors, or is it the structural factors that create or worsen the direct violence?

Hooks: Feminism is For Everybody

In this piece, Hook discusses the need to return to a clearly and simply defined feminism, based on ending “sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression.” My favorite part of this chapter is that he says what many others forget: women can be sexist too! Sadly, its true that many women, in fact, most of us in some way or another, support the sexist behaviors and structures that make up our society. Even women who are supportive of feminism often forget the underlying ideal of feminism, which is, of course, equality. I was shocked to read about the various instances in history where women have selfishly perpetuated inequality by doing to other disadvantaged groups (racial and ethnic minorities, those of a low socioeconomic status), the same disfavors that sexist men and women have subjected us to in the past. I found it really sad that to some degree, equality for women was achieved at the price of, for example, racial equality. This caused me to wonder how we might have achieved both simultaneously and whether our social structures could even handle such change all at once. I think another very good topic to consider that goes hand in hand with Hook’s ideas is how sexism affects men, whether it be through stereotypes or disadvantages in certain situations.

Hatty: Bodily Harm

In this chapter, Hatty discusses what is defined as violent by society and under what circumstances violence is viewed as appropriate. She especially discusses how societal ideas about gender roles can influence our perceptions about the appropriateness of violence or the need for legal intervention in violent situations. One concept that I found particularly insightful is that naming actions as violent is a political process. To me, this means that our societal stereotypes and norms are also institutionalized into the legal framework for dealing with violence. This is dangerous because whether something is labeled as “violent” determines what the “appropriate” reactions to and feelings about that behavior should be. For example, if our legal system, either in actuality or de facto, does not take domestic violence seriously, this could eventually mean that physical harm inflicted by a romantic partner is no longer viewed as a violent act and reinforces the common notion that it is normal, “not a big deal,” or something that should be dealt with in the home.

Another concept I found interesting is that there are significant gender differences in the perception of aggression and violence. While for men violence is seen as necessary for maintaining control, for women violence feels like a loss of control (over themselves). These fundamentally opposite viewpoints lead to a lot of misunderstandings between the sexes and may point to a need for education between men and women that explains the differing perceptions and helps us to communicate better and work together more productively, whether it be in personal or professional relationships.

Making Gendered People

The author discusses how gender influences our daily lives, bodies, identities, and sexualities. Throughout the discussion, the author tries to define what exactly gender is and to introduce different theories about how gender relates to each topic. One of my favorite things about this piece is that culture is also taken into account. This is very important because the author acknowledges gender as a socially constructed concept. Therefore, seeing the differences in gender expectations and gender roles between societies is a good way of proving this point.

One topic discussed was homosexuality, including “another pattern of male-to-male sexuality” and “development of gay sexuality on the North American model.” While this discussion intrigued me, I was unsure whether I misunderstood the author’s intent. Was he really saying that the way homosexuality is acted out is cultural, versus biological? I think that in many ways this is sensible and goes along with the idea that heterosexuality is acted out according to societal “rules.” Still, it would be interesting to discuss how others in the class feel about this idea, especially about what we should take away from the reality of different sexual customs in other countries and the fact that developing nations especially model their behaviors after Western norms. This was a theme seen more than once, as when the author discussed general changes in sexuality (and, I would argue, also in gender roles and identities), as countries experience capitalist development.

27Aug09

In the chapter Issues of Subjectivity and Identity, Barker discusses subjectivity and cultural identity, with a particular focus on why the western idea of identity as something that individuals can create for themselves, free from political, cultural, and social restraints, is often wrong. From this reading I learned new ways to think about identity, as something that is changing and influenced heavily by culture and social structures. I thought that one of the most important points made by the authors is that the meaning and substance of any given identity vary from culture to culture along with practices and language. This is important in studying gender and conflict because it means that we cannot assume women who are part of a conflict in another country or cultural environment have the same feelings and ideas about the situation as we do. The conflict may also affect them differently because of the way others in their society view them (their social identity) and the roles they fulfill (mother, worker, victim, rebel, etc.).

One of the biggest questions this text raised for me is how much control we actually have over our own identity. The authors say that our identities are “structured” by our social systems, our language, and other such factors, but it is unclear exactly how much control we exercise over our own identities. I think this would be an interesting topic to discuss in class. It seems to me that, although everyone has unique factors at work in their lives, two people who grow up in the same cultural, social, and political environment could still have both self and social identities that are quite different from one another. I would think that we still have some degree of control over our own identities and that biological and genetic factors, as well as our family and peers, also play a role in the formation and changes in our identities.