Critical Feminist Studies 2013

            The rise in popularity of social media networks such as Facebook in our generation has sparked a lot of discussion amongst people about its potential for breaking down barriers of self-expression, especially when it comes to gender identity and exploration. As one study quotes, “Online media was cast as a potential agent of social change with respect to gender oppression and discrimination on a number of levels” (Bailey et al. 4). People talk about having the freedom to customize their Facebook profiles to portray the person they believe themselves to be, or aspire to be. It also seems in many ways to be a great avenue in which to explore and express gender identity. I myself have found that I love using my Facebook profile to express my continuously changing gender identity. Though I identify as a woman and have never changed genders, over the past few years the way I express my gender identity has certainly altered. By uploading photos and making posts on my Facebook profile, I have found a way to proudly express my identity to my “friends” as it changes. I even have a good friend who transitioned to a gender-neutral identity over the summer, and they used Facebook as a way to make people aware by changing their name and pronouns on their profile, followed by an open statement about it in a post to clear up any confusion. With all of these positive experiences, it would seem that Facebook is an ideal playing field for social change.

I know a lot of people chose to truly put themselves out there with their anti-self portraits today. And I admire their choice. I would like to speak a few words on why I chose to address myself from a more general view. Because I did not put my name next my anti-self portrait, I shall tell y'all which one was mine. Mine was the one of a faceless person split into four parts surrounded by eyes and hands. My anti-self portrait addresses parts of who I am and parts of my life that I am still trying to figure out myself and reassociate myself with. I was not be as in depth as I wanted to be because I do not even understand who I am, so how can I attempt to portray it to others. But this experience of seeing many others' raw emotions and life experiences has inspired me to do this exercise again in the future, perhaps 6 months or a year from now, to see how I have or have not changed in how I chose to let others see me.

I wanted to share these thoughts with y'all via Serendip because I will admit I felt uneasy in the class with Haverford students because they had not shared in this jounrey we have been taking as a class this semester. I have a level of comfort with y'all as we support each other's explorations in sex, gender, feminism, and beyond.

A friend recently showed me this article, and I thought to share it with you all. It is a review of the book "Love Italian Style: The Secrets of my Hot and Happy Marriage" written by Melissa Gorge (cast member of The Real Housewives of New Jersey). This review is featured on Jezebel so it has a strong feminist bias, but once you read it, you'll know why I couldn't find any reviews that were neutral. 

http://jezebel.com/real-housewife-melissa-gorgas-new-book-advocates-mar-1371722729

Jezebel's main issue with the book is that Gorge advocates for marital rape, saying that a wife should be available for sex with her husband whenever he wants it, whether she wants to or not. Gorge includes other gems like "You can do just about anything for 10 minutes," and that strict gender rolls should apply within a marriage, the wife busy with housework while the husband works. She says, "When gender roles are confused, sexual roles are, too. If he's at the sink and then changing diapers, then who throws down in the bed?"

Last week we talked about accessibility in regards to literature and if books should be less accessible to be effective. I think that it’s interesting to compare Persepolis with The Doll's House in this regard. For Persepolis I watched the movie and read the book and I found it very accessible in both formats. When I read The Doll's House, it wasn’t until class when we discussed it that I began to understand some of the deeper meaning.  I’m not sure if I agree that feminist literature should be less accessible. I think that it has to have meaning below the surface and it should not be dumbed down but it’s also important that it can reach people. I believe both are feminist works but I’m not sure if having one be less accessible makes it more of a feminist work.  Are there negatives to having a piece of work be too accessible?  Does it somehow make it less powerful? Is accessibility a feminist value? 

After our class on Monday i was so interested in learning about the different types of feminism. I was actually suprised about how many different types of feminism there was but the ones that stricked me the most was ecofemnism and multicultural feminism. Multicultural feminism " says that femininity and the struggles of women should not be defined by a specific group. Feminism needs to embrace all types of women, and this may mean creating a broader and vaguer definition of what feminism is." ( http://conflictintervention.blogspot.com/2010/10/multicultural-feminism.html). I completely agree with multicultural feminism.  I believe that all women are different and we can't exclude them from our definiton of feminism. Many different things effect a woman's view on feminism, we have to consider her background, where she grew up, religion, etc. Not all women are the same, we are complex. While ecofeminism which striked me as well puts emphasis on our relationship with nature and creating equality amoung all including animals and plants. I do respect this view but I didnt quite understand it much. Could we really be equal to nature? If we are not vegetrian than are we excluded from ecofeminism. It seems to me that ecofeminism is quite exclusive.  Feminism shouldnt exclude any woman and be the source of their oppression instead of their liberation. All in all, I believe that all types of feminism have a basic message that makes feminism a whole and not seperate theroies.

When Anne read some information about ecofeminism and speciesism, I found myself immediately rejecting and judging those ideas. I couldn't accept that the next step in equality and inclusion was animals. It sounded ridiculous to me. Why and how would we extend rights to animals? And as Christina said, plants are living too. Including certain non human species in equal rights but not others is just another line to draw. After I left class, I remembered learning about the waves of feminism in my women in history class at high school, and the critiques they received. In the first wave, when women wanted to be able to participate in the public sphere, they were accused of trying to wreck the entire structure of the American family, and therefore the country. I think that every new branch or type of feminism is going to have a counter argument. Sometimes other types of feminists are the ones arguing. I don't want to think of myself as acting/being against a group of feminists, like ecofeminists, but I their ideas don't follow what my feminism is. I hadn't heard any categories besides first, second, and third wave until class on Thursday, and I guess the idea of there being new groups still forming confuses me. Feminism as an ongoing movement seems so different from what we read about in history, and I am having a hard time placing myself. I dont want to be in a box for my type of feminism.

One of the questions we played w/ yesterday was whether we are the dolls of the endless, or whether they they are ours (cf. Rose's musing, p. 222, "we're just dolls," with Morpheus' telling Desire, p. 226, "We of the endless are the servants of the living...we are their toys. Their dolls....").

In this context, I thought this story about the Barbie Liberation Organization (just uncovered by my co-teacher in Play in the City, Mark Lord) might amuse/interest/enbolden you. A number of activist-artists attained possession of Barbie and G.I. Joe Dolls, switched their voiceboxes, then re-boxed and returned them to store shelves. So some little girls got Barbie Dolls who talked like men about war and fighting, and some boys got "fighting man" dolls who would say (in a prissy girl voice), "Math is harrrd." Dolls have agency, too!

Here's film:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMHMf9y-27w