Pink or Blue isn't Black or White....

    A good friend of mine is the mother of two girls and one of them happens to be the same age as my son. Inevitably, when we’re together we compare the ups and downs of being the parents of teenagers and do the boy/girl contrasts and comparisons. Girls are more fun to dress, boys are more mischievous, girls mature faster than boys, parents don’t have to worry about boys as much as they do girls. We assign a masculine or feminine quality to everything they do from the minute they are born. There are boy colors and girl colors, boy toys and girl toys, boy activities and girl activities. As long as our children stay within the guidelines that have been laid out by society, all is well. What do we do, however, with those children that don’t fit so neatly into the essentialist’s vision of male and female?  The attached video is great...it really shows us how difficult we are making it on children who don't really understand what they are going through.

     Feinberg notes “That pink-blue dogma assumes that biology steers our social destiny” (Feinberg, 9). She makes a good point when discussing infants and who exactly has the authority (or right) to determine the appropriate size for male or female genitals. Who sets the standard to begin with? The rationale behind much genital mutilation in infants is that the surgery is far more difficult and holds many more risks if you wait until the child is older. These intersex infants grow up without having had the right to define their own sexuality. Their sex was decided for them at birth, not by nature but by a medical professional so they could “conform to a particular society’s concept of aesthetics and normality” as noted by the group Students for Genital Integrity (SGI, founded at San Francisco State University in 2002).

     As a society we are consumed by the ideology of masculine and feminine. We go so far as to label everything as having a specific gender from boats to tools to weather systems. We do this based on external qualities and neglect to consider the internal attributes. If a person is born biologically a female but chooses to dress and affect “masculine” qualities, is she trying to act like a man or is she trying to act like herself? Does society have the right to make that judgment? We are taught from a young age NOT to judge a book by it’s cover yet we continue to do this every time we force a transgender person to label themselves in one way or another. If sex is determined by biology, as essentialist's believe, how can they demand that a transgender person make a “statement” as to their gender when they are biologically on the fence? 

     I struggle with the concept of linking sexual orientation to genetics. It seems to me that this concept says that if we step outside of the normative ideology, it couldn’t possibly be due to free will or individual choice but rather because of an abnormality in our DNA. As Anne Fausto-Sterling states in The Biological Connection, “In the study of gender (like sexuality and race) it is inherently impossible for any individual to do unbiased research.” (IWS, 42).

Suffering In Silence

Everyday we watch the news or read the paper and find another case of violence against women. This is not to say that there isn’t violence against men, it just seems that typically, when you read about a man being beaten or killed it isn’t because they were targeted specifically based on their gender. Granted there are many cases of violence against gay men, but with regard to Crenshaw’s definition of intersectionality, the fact that the man is gay is just another layer of his identity that makes him more vulnerable to violence; more like a female.

Crenshaw notes “….violence that many women experience is often shaped by other dimensions of their identities such as race and class” (IWS 200). I have been extremely sheltered and never thought of myself as naïve but my eyes were opened after reading, and re-reading, the writings by Allison, Clarkson and Crenshaw. It’s not JUST about race or class or religion, it’s about the privileges and prejudices caused when we mix them all together. In the grand scheme of things, who would imagine that the circumstances of birth would determine the chances of a women being beaten, raped, or killed. It’s easy for me to say “why would you stay with a man who hits or rapes you?”. I have the resources and family support to make sure that it never happens to me or, if it did, that it never happened twice. Women that have not been afforded the support of family or economic security may not have this kind of confidence. Two small but important layers to my identity.

Our identity as a woman is shaped initially by birth (race, economic status, geographic location) and then as we mature we add layers to that such as sexual preference, education, religion and political views. Societal views play a major role as well. How many of us can read The Good Wife's Guide from the May, 1955 Housekeeping Monthly with a straight face? The fact that phrases such as "A good wife always knows her place" and "You have no right to question him" are actually in print is perverse! Unfortunately, there are still cultures that see this as the norm. In many cultures, women’s fates are perpetuated because they aren't educated enough to KNOW they have basic human rights. While the continued oppression of women in many countries is a popular topic, we have the same things happening in areas of the United States that go unnoticed. Dorothy Allison wrote of the abuse she experienced at the hands of her stepfather but she suffered in silence for years before coming to terms with it. She came from a poor family that, like many in the Carolina regions, believed that without exception, the man was the dominant force of the household . “I am not supposed to talk about hating that man when I grew up to be a lesbian, a dyke, stubborn, competitive and perversely lustful” (Allison, 45).

Rape and violence are used as forms of control; take away someone’s dignity and you take away their self respect.

Fear of Differences

Why are we, as a society, so afraid of anyone who isn’t just like us? At the end of each of the three articles I was left with the same feeling – what kind of amazing strength these people must have to endure the bigotry and prejudice they constantly face when all they are looking for is acceptance, a sense of belonging. It’s natural for people to gravitate toward things they are familiar with – we’re all guilty. I noticed as people walked into the classroom Tuesday that generally men sat with men, older students sat in the same areas, even the young female students grouped themselves together. But is it necessary to ostracize those that are different? Is there a reason we are unable to embrace the individuality of others? “We must reconstruct “belonging” to embrace the experiences of all human beings” (Alsultany, 294). It sounds easy enough but most of us are controlled by a fear of what we don’t understand and that fear keeps us from taking the steps necessary to engage in true acceptance. I am baffled as to why it is necessary to make people choose a culture. If we want to teach our children about the glories of diversity, we need to start by letting them be who they are rather than making them choose to be black OR white OR Asian OR Jewish if they are, in fact, all of the above. If we begin their lives by teaching them that there is a stigma attached to being multi-racial or multi-cultural then we are starting their lives promoting prejudice rather than fighting it. It is unreasonable to make them pick one culture to belong to when they were born into many. I found (what I think) is a great response to this...see video below.

Alsultany, Clare and Martin have all experienced the pain associated with being different due to lifestyle choices, disability and even skin color. All three are strong and outspoken which gives them an edge that many don’t have. I don’t want to say that their strength gives them tolerance but I think it does give them an insight as to the ignorance of people who perpetuate these fears and prejudices. If our society continues to be intolerant of people who are outside the norm, whether by choice or birth, it will never be truly diverse. Diversity isn’t just about being different; it’s about embracing those differences. And who decides what the “standard” is for being normal or different? Clare makes a good point – “It usually only takes one long glance at the gawkers…….and they’re gone” (Clare, 227). A line from Gawking, Gaping, Staring I thought served all three well, “My best heroes and teachers don’t live on pedestals. They lead complex, messy lives, offering me reflections of myself and standing with me against gawkers” (Clare, 226). These are extraordinary people who just want to be treated ordinary. They don’t want to be treated with special courtesy, just with the same courtesy and respect you would want for yourself. There shouldn’t be any fear involved in putting everyone on equal footing.

I know we aren’t supposed to say “loved the readings”…but I did.

Random Stuff