Men-Ups

I wish I had thought of this!

http://www.petapixel.com/2011/10/04/men-photographed-in-stereotypically-female-poses/

Men Photographed in Stereotypical Pin-Up Poses 

Michael Zhang · Oct 04, 2011  

Men-ups!” is a humorous project by photographer Rion Sabean featuring men doing pin-up-style poses. It’s interesting how much more absurd some poses instantly look when they’re being done by men.

Who is We?

This week in my feminist theories class, we read five chapters on the history of feminism and the different feminist movements.  There are a lot of things in those readings that seemed blog-worthy, but actually the thing that really popped out at me came from our other readings: in Ms. magazine. 

(View Ms. magazine at: http://www.msmagazine.com/)

One of the articles we read was Ms. Spring 2002 pages 96-98.  The article was a "flashback" from a 1978 piece in which Lindsey Van Gelder shared her experience of the National Women's Conference in Houston.  She used the term "We" throughout the article, suggesting that her article was intending to present the experiences of the collective of women gathered at the convention, in one voice.

Ms. Van Gelder wrote about the celebration of several advances within the larger feminist movement, such as the increased visibility and organization of ethnic minority women and women who love women.  She made reference to some women of color who caught her attention at the convention for speaking up about their feminisms.  It all seemed very celebratory and kumbayaish.  But it struck me as being rife with tokenism.  There are several examples, which I will not belabor (in an effort to keep this post concise)... but the one that bothered me the most was this quote:

Who is "we"?

I found this quote to be very othering toward minorities.  Ms. Van Gelder presents the experiences at the conference through an exclusively white (and maybe straight, since she doesn't clarify who the minorities she refers to are) lens.  The WE that this conference was about... The WE that experienced the conference... in Ms. Van Gelder's mind is a white We, and she tells the reader this while asserting that she has been "sensitized" to the Other Than We.

The other side of this experience is that of the women who LIVE those lives that the We "have only read about."  Were the women on that side of the experience present for the purpose of "sensitizing" the We, and not for the purpose of BEING the We? 

The history of feminism has been full of examples of this.  The readings this week discussed Mary Wollstonecraft's privileged slant on feminism, as she suggested that women have a host of servants to take over the homemaking responsibilities so that women could be free to pursue education and passions. 

But feminism has also been full of intersectionality.  Intersectionality is guided by the assertion that

r & Society, 18, 429–450.

(source: Risman, B. J. (2004). Gender as a social structure: theory wrestling with activism. Gender & Society, 18, 429–450)

As far back as Sojourner Truth and her famous "Aint I a woman?" speech, intersectional narratives have been a part of the story of feminism, and for me, intersectionality is where the heart of my own feminism lies.

On that note, I would like to share one intersectional feminist blog I follow.  Check it out!

http://crunkfeministcollective.wordpress.com/

 

2/3

Welcome to Feminist at The Gun Shed!

What's this blog about?   

This semester in my Feminist Theories class at Utah State University, one of the class assignments is to blog about our reactions to the class.

I've titled my blog "Feminist at The Gun Shed" because the class is held in a building at USU called The Gun Shed.  After the first class period, I posted my reaction to holding the class in that building on Facebook (to the right).

I was joking of course, but as with many jokes there was a tiny bit of truth to it.  My interest in feminism has been met with a lot of different reactions over the years, and I've had many experiences in which people thought it meant I was a "man-hater" or that I didn't embrace being a woman.  Even many of the women in my life have been appalled when I tell them I'm a feminist.  Like it's a horrible thing.  I have always had a hard time understanding where that comes from.  I do not hate men nor do I desire to be one.  I just want the freedom to choose, and I want to be treated as an equal.  I found this blog post that lists what feminism IS NOT, and it resonates with me:

"Feminism is not:

• misandry (the hating of men)
• bra-burning/non-shaving/other like extreme stereotypes
• lesbianism
• “reverse sexism”
• female chauvinism (thinking women are superior to men, or being a woman who emulates male chauvinism)
• advocating a matriarchal world…

It’s true that some of the above things may coincide or dovetail with feminism, but that doesn’t mean they are what feminism is."

(Source: http://mandingueira.com/what-is-feminism/)

Hopefully as I study more, and blog more, I'll spend more time focusing on what feminism IS.

For now, though, I'll talk about how I became interested in feminism.

For me, feminism had a natural draw from the time I was in elementary school.  I remember being very young, maybe about 7 or 8 years old, and questioning why words like "man" and "he" were supposed to represent me, but words like "woman" and "she" could not represent men.  I did not feel any more identified with the male pronouns than a man would feel with the female pronouns, but I felt forced into accepting those pronouns as universally applicable and representative of me.  I have learned that maleness (much like Whiteness, and straightness) are the standard, the supposedly neutral and therefore the "normal" and that femaleness is the deviation from that norm.  In my Psychology of Gender class when I was an undergrad, I shared that observation with the class and a male classmate became very angry about it and argued with me that the use of male pronouns is not othering toward women.  Having never experienced having to apply female pronouns to himself, having never experienced being the 'second sex,' and having grown up in a society where males are the primary form of humanness and this is assumed to be the natural state of things, he had no ability to relate to my experience.  I see it everywhere, though.  

As a young woman, I felt like I was pigeon-holed into one set life path that I would have very little say in creating.  I don't intend to convey that my experiences are universal for all LDS (Mormon) girls, but growing up within the LDS church was a huge factor in narrowing my vision of acceptable life paths for me.  I was socialized to believe it would be a really bad thing if I were to work outside the home, because a woman's place is as a stay-at-home mother.  I prepared myself for a career ONLY 'in case' the absolute worst thing should happen: that I would not get married and have children, or that my family would need my income to supplement my husband's.  It wasn't because I felt free to explore and develop passions.  It wasn't because I felt my intellect was valued.  It was only a back-up plan.  I chose teaching as my career path because it was a job that could work around children's schedules, and that I could easily pick up and follow my husband wherever he needed to go for his work.  I knew that my career would never be primary, or even something that my husband or I would be happy about me having.  But, I didn't like majoring in English and education when I went to school, and I was very grateful when I went away to college and met intelligent, well-rounded, educated women in careers.  I began to expand my horizons, much to the dismay of my grandmother who said that "no man would ever want me" now because I'd be too intimidating.  I can't help but wonder if she thinks she was right, since I am (*gasp!*) 29 years old and still unmarried.  

Doesn't matter. I may be intimidating to a man who is not my equal in intelligence, but so what?  I am not interested in shrinking to make myself less intimidating or more attractive to anyone.  Stepping outside those narrow expectations has opened up my life, and my heart so much. 

I am a vibrant, whole woman and I finally feel free to be who I actually am.  I forge my own path, and do not base my choices solely on how they will impact my desirability to men.  For me, that is a big part of what feminism is about.  Just being free to choose.  Free to Be. It doesn't mean I don't love men.  It just means I don't worship them.

Of course I've gone on to learn about feminism in a more academic setting, but these more personal experiences are what have driven me in that direction in the first place, so they seemed like a fitting start to this blog.

I can't wait to delve deeper this semester in Feminist Theories!

(Source for Hoover pics: http://jskala24.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/stereotypical-gender-roles-in-marriage/)