Yves Saint Laurent Exhibit: Women's Bodies in Fashion

This past weekend I went to the Yves Saint-Laurent exhibit at the Denver Art Museum, (http://www.denverartmuseum.org/exhibitions/yves-saint-laurent-retrospective). The exhibit had dozens of original Yves Saint Laurent designs and many interactive video’s and recorded speeches by Saint Laurent himself, who died in 2008. I was fascinated by Saint Laurent’s unique take on the female body within the world of fashion. Saint Laurent insisted on designing his clothes on an actual female body, rather than adhering to an unrealistic mannequin, so that his clothes fit to flatter a real woman, rather than a mold of unrealistic proportions. Saint Laurent often said that the most beautiful thing in the world is the naked body, and was known for his controversial use of lace and see-through fabric in the late 1960’s.

It seemed that Yves Saint Laurent was able to more accurately design for a female’s comfort, style and individual sexuality of the woman wearing the clothes, rather than the sexuality imposed upon a woman’s body by men. Many of the designs were rather unflattering on the mannequins, but once on a woman’s body in photographs and magazine spreads, the garments came alive, and many famous women of the last fifty years raved about the comfort and femininity of Yves Saint Laurent’s style.

He is also known for introducing the first ready to wear clothing line; a haute couture fashion line that was affordable for the everyday woman. Yves Saint Laurent is known for introducing the safari jacket, but particularly the smoking jacket for women. He stylized the suit and man’s tuxedo for a woman who is strong, confident, and beautiful. This exhibit was really interesting because it brought the issue of women’s body and who “owns” them into the forefront in a completely different way than I’d ever considered it before. This exhibit is incredible, I highly recommend it whether you enjoy fashion or not!

denial of constitutional right to vote

While checking my facebook feed, I saw a post from one of my professors from undergrad. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/05/27/491012/exclusive-florida-ineligible-to-vote/?mobile=nc here is the link for the article he posted.  While reading the article one of our class discussions very quickly came to mind.  When Maria asked us to think of a time that a right was taken away.  The article pointed out that many citizens in Florida may be denied their constitutional right to vote for their president.  The only refuge these people have for the time being is to respond to a letter mailed to them “within 30 days”.  Knowing that things get lost in the mail and how many things accidently can go unopened until the time is too late this seems crazy to me.  Perhaps the most outrageous part that the article brings to light is that “an excess of 20 percent of the voters flagged as “non-citizens” in Miami-Dade are, in fact, citizens.”  How can a state get its numbers so incredibly wrong? According to the article “Hispanic, democratic and independent-minded voters are the most likely to be targeted.”  Why do you think it is that Hispanic and democratic voters are more likely to be targeted than white people or republicans? Knowing there are so many errors in their lists I do not understand how things were ever allowed to get to this point.  I can only hope that the legal team in charge of fighting against this will prevail to prevent the injustice that could happen to many US citizens.  

Argentina Approves Transgender Rights

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/gender-identity-law-argentina_n_1505093.html

This happened about a week ago and I thought I would share it as the article connects to some of the issues surrounding transgender/transexual identity that were mentioned in class today!

Obama speaks to graduates at Barnard

My mom was watching MSNBC, like she does many mornings. This particular
morning I tuned in with her and we heard President Obama give a speech to
Barnard College in NYC.

http://barnard.edu/headlines/president-barack-obama-addresses-barnard-class-
2012

If you want to hear his whole commencement speech it is currently the
first video on the link above. As Barnard College is an all girls’ school, it was very
interesting to hear the president speak to the graduates. The president mentioned
that there was much in common with the graduates that sit before him as when he
graduated in 1983, as at that time the country was recovering from an economic
recession as well. He added that as women graduating, there is even more that
needs to be dealt with like “whether you will be able to earn equal pay for equal
work… whether you will be able to fully control decisions about your own health
and while opportunities have grown exponentially for women over the past 30
years as young people as many ways you have it worse than we do.”

He continued on that people will try and convince you that “change is
impossible; that you cannot make a difference, that you won’t be able to close
that gap between life as it is and life as you want it to be… my job today is to tell
you don’t believe it because as tough as things have been I am convinced you are
tougher.” The part that caught my attention the most came slightly later in the
president’s speech. His statements made me think of one of our class discussions
with Maria about women going into office and having power not only for women
but also for the people of their countries. The president said, “after decades of slow
steady extraordinary progress, you are now poised to make this the century where
women shape not only their own destiny but the destiny of this nation and this
world.” He said that the women in front of him need to “Fight for a seat at the table.”
I find it interesting that he brought up our history in that there were no women
who signed key historical documents such as our constitution. He echoed a point
that was made in one of the imaginary letters that we read though that although a
woman may not have signed it “we can assume that there were founding mothers
whispering smarter things in the ears of the founding fathers.”

He continued on to encouraged women to stand up for their rights and what
they believe in. I feel that the speech the president gave to this graduating class
sums up very well much of what we have discussed in class. His speech brings home
the idea that although we have come a long way, there is still more that can (and
needs to) be done but we must keep pushing forward and keep working.

The War on Women??

For weeks, if not months, there have been references in the media to a Republican “War on Women” that is manifesting itself in legislation that seeks to limit access to contraception and legal abortions. Additionally, there’s been a right v. left, liberal v. conservative kerfuffle surrounding comments made about whether Ann Romney is a working woman with a ‘real job’ or simply a stay-at-home-mom, as well as the recent Time magazine article that asked women if they were “Mom Enough” to subscribe to attachment parenting.

 From my relatively liberal, feminist viewpoint, concerns over access to reproductive health are valid and I, too, fear what will/might/could happen if contraception and abortion become increasingly inaccessible. Yet, I know that for everyone who shares my opinion, there are others who find my interpretation of feminism distasteful. Last semester, I researched Concerned Women for America, which is a conservative women’s organization with membership larger than NOW (National Organization of Women). They too define themselves as feminists and as working for women’s issues, but this takes a very different form as they fight the conservative side of the War against Women.

I find this article interesting because it illustrates the simple fact that despite having certain biological similarities, women cannot be addressed as an ideologically-unified block. (As a caveat, I’m posting this article not because I subscribe to any of its viewpoints, but because I think it’s important to understand the arguments made by those on the other side of any argument).

Women's art worth less?

Art and women have always gone together. I remember as a child walking aimlessly through the St. Louis Art Museum. Seeing those renaissance portraits of women moved me. Those stoic and scantily, clad women introduced me to the true form of beauty, away from the hypercritical eye of today's advertisers. It is interesting then, that women have seemed to always have a place in art on the canvas, but not necessarily in front of it.

This article in the economist highlights the vast differences between the price of art by male artists and by female artists. The differences are shocking. If you look at the bottom of the article, there is a chart that maps out the top ten highest paid artists for female and males. The most a female artist earned from a painting is around 10 million, and a male in comparison 8 times that. This correlates with the video we watched last class, but with a twist. This is a subjective worth, so why do people think that a piece of art done by a female is worth less than a piece of art done by a male?

The article highlights that there is change underfoot. Female artists are now included in exhibits and some avid collectors are now female and interested in the female perspective. But does this really indicate permanent change? Or does it indicative of the present and future struggles of women in an industry that has been dominated by men?

Gender in the Workplace

This New York Times article delves a little into some of the changing gender patterns in the American workforce, highlighting the growing population of males entering into previously female-dominated positions. The NYT conducted an analysis of census data from 2000 to 2010 that shows "occupations that are more than 70 percent female accounted for almost a third of all job growth for men, double the share of the previous decade." I felt this article shows an interesting perspective, particularly in addressing the "male" aspects of gender relations like many of us voiced in class as being a piece that often gets left out of discussions about gender in general.

However, I think the article also cheapens female-oriented work in the way in which it gets compared with male jobs ("prestigious" for male positions vs. "occupations that their fathers might never have considered" for female positions but no mention of 'prestige' or anything of the sort for those). I don't know exactly how to articulate it, but I feel there is a definite notion that they are creating more of a hierarchy of importance with their word choices, even if unintentionally.. almost as if women are now vying for male jobs while men are just settling for female jobs, if that makes sense.

I think it's interesting the connection this article makes to "women's jobs" being, in the long-run, more stable and capable of growth both professionally and monetarily yet today's women are competing for the "prestigious, high-wage professions dominated by men." I feel like this connects to the ideas Professor Suarez-Toro presented in class (and the documentary she showed) about what is and is not considered 'valuable' or "productive" in terms of the work women do, be it in the domestic realm or elsewhere. It seems like this article is showing the importance of and perhaps commending the strategic moves made by women to provide long-term support for their families, yet somehow works to challenge their motives and capabilities at the same time when talking about a male assuming such roles.

Do you know of any peers that you feel have broken the normative gender roles in their professional fields? If so, what kind of backlash or support have they felt? And what might that say about inside/outside the box social constructs? How do you think NYT could have changed their story to better demonstrate the "value" or "productiveness" of the positions historically deemed female-specific? Or, do you think they do a good job and I am just being too critical?

When not wearing make-up becomes a news story…

During a recent trip to Bangladesh, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton created quite the media buzz – not over her successful negotiations with China and India, but for wearing glasses, little make up, and naturally loose hair during one of her public appearances. The images of her went viral and hundreds of news outlets commented on her appearance. The Drudge Report labeled the image as “Hillary Au Naturale” and Fox News questioned whether Clinton simply “forgot” to put her make up on and claimed she “appears tired and withdrawn - far from the well-coiffed image she has maintained over the past two decades in politics.”

It is infuriating that even a woman as powerful as Hillary Clinton – fourth in line to the presidency – makes headlines for her appearance, but not for her diplomatic successes. As one journalist noted, “The continued focus on women’s appearance is just depressing for parents trying to teach their little ones that smarts and kindness and achievement matter more than an outfit or hairdo.” For women leaders, their appearance is somehow always linked to their job performance. It didn’t matter that Clinton had successful negotiations in China and India the day before, because by not wearing make-up everyone assumed that she must be “tired” or “burnt out.” Never mind the fact that in three years the woman has traveled 777,721 miles to over 96 countries – that, somehow, is less newsworthy.

Although she never should have had to in the first place, Clinton defended herself to CNN, saying, "I feel so relieved to be at the stage I'm at in my life right now. Because you know if I want to wear my glasses I'm wearing my glasses. If I want to wear my hair back I'm pulling my hair back. You know at some point it's just not something that deserves a lot of time and attention. And if others want to worry about it, I let them do the worrying for a change." And this is yet another reason why I love her.

Surviving Progress

Hi class! This is the trailer for the Surviving Progress. I thought the parallels were interesting between the hunter/gatherer society that drove mammoths off cliffs and the economic progress that we view as beneficial in society today. This reflects quite nicely to today's documentary, specifically the comments made about economics having no basis in reality. As I commented in class, the role of international lenders in the exploitation of resources in developing nations is highlighted in the documentary. It's also worrying from a development standpoint -where do we as development workers go from here? I think much of it comes down to civic response and activity, and relates to the Occupy movement quite nicely. We have money and a unrealistic view of the economy controlling politics and allowing for the destruction of our planet in more ways than one. One of the interviewees in the documentary stated that if just for the purpose of self-interest, we need to reform, use less and transform the oligarchy system of government back to the democracy it's supposed to be.

Migration, Development, and Ciudad Juarez

This article by the New York Times illustrates several interesting intersections between globalization and migration and their affects on daily life in Ciudad Juarez, arguably the most dangerous and most trafficked Mexican border town through which Latin Americans immigrate to the United States. When NAFTA opened borders to lessen restrictions on legal trade across the US/Mexico border, illegal trade markets increased as well. As such, violence and danger associated with drug trade/other types of illegal trafficking (human, organ, etc) skyrocketed, particularly through the immigration hubs like Ciudad Juarez. I feel like this article is interesting because it not only acknowledges some of the negative consequences of neoliberalism (about which Maria spoke about in class last week), but it also portrays the way in which individuals on the ground level are trying to maintain hope and resume daily life activities in the face of the violence that has infiltrated their city for the past 10+ years. I just think that people often forget that innocent civilians who cannot uproot must live among these types of conditions day to day and maintain some sort of life for themselves. While several circumstances play into the situation in Juarez, some of the foundational problems, I would argue, do stem from the onslaught of the neoliberal era. Can you think of any positive stories that have run lately that come out of the borderlands? Why might the American media shy away from covering 'new angle' stories about situations happening at the border? Do you think this is a 'new angle' or at least coverage of a legitimate 'positive' situation, or do you think it's just a fluff piece that ignores the glaring issues?

worst place to be a woman

Thanks to my husbands mom posting a link on facebook I saw a video by PBS on Eastern Congo, which according to the article the UN named the worst place to be a woman.  

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/globalhealth/jan-june12/healafrica_03-07.html

When I originally saw the posting I did not stop to really listen to it.  After class last week I realized that unlike what we watched in class, a woman from Congo got to speak for herself about what happened to her.  This is a nice contrast to what we saw in class, the woman’s face was covered because of an attack to it, somehow I think the fact that you could not see her mouth move as she was speaking made it more powerful.  I could not understand her until the translator repeated what she said but the emotion she spoke with came through without an actual understanding.  The respect I have gained for this woman that I have never met and most likely never will is indescribable.  Her lips were cut off after being hit in the head for not bringing her daughter back to militia.  After all she has been through she is afraid to go to the police.  This is an extreme example of the government not having the power to stand up for womens rights or more importantly for the human right to be safe from attack or at least be able to punish those who have wronged you.  

Personally I feel that this PBS story did a better job at engaging you with the story as we know exactly what country is being spoken about and we are getting stories from people who live there as opposed to the general story with no voices from the people who live there.  It does bring home the point that Maria Suarez made in class though, that women’s rights are not the main concern when human rights and just living are on the forefront.  

Shawn Johnson... fat?!?!?!?!

I fail to understand where these people are coming from.  While going through Yahoo news the other day I came across this article: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/olympics-fourth-place-medal/shawn-johnson-lost-25-pounds-hurtful-fat-talk-211635709.html  

It contains both a before and after picture of Shawn Johnson, apparently in the first picture she had gained weight since the last Olympics.  She has subsequently lost it but it is amazing to me that of all people someone who has won gold medals in gymnastics could have been questioning her body as she was.  I think the important point to make here is even in her “heavy” picture she looks amazing, she does not look overweight at all from what I can tell.  It does not seem possible that a girl who has the guts to perform in front of so many people could possibly still be questioning if she is pretty or good enough.  According to the article she was saddened by the fact that she was questioning herself.  

Although I am glad that she seems to be starting to realize just how crazy it was to question her looks, she does still have a little way to go.  She has to realize that her body is one of an athlete and being too skinny is not good for her muscle strength.  On top of that as an Olympic Gold Medalist she has many young girls who are looking up to her.  If she is too fat imagine how the girls who do not have her body hearing her say that she is too big.  How are those girls to ever feel that they are pretty enough especially, when hearing skinny girls talking about being fat? I will add here that body image should not be based on just what we see and hear from the media.  I was lucky enough to be one of the few girls who felt good about their body at impressionable ages and while knowingly not having a perfect body.  I know that this is not the case for so many young people and this article brings home just how important it is for girls to start having better impressions of themselves.  

Land Matrix

This article was published by the International Land Coalition América Latina, covering a new data base on global land purchase (http://americalatina.landcoalition.org/node/2874).  The Land Matrix (http://landportal.info/landmatrix) is a web site that contains information about the global phenomenon of land acquisition on a large scale.  It offers different resources, like interactive maps, information on regional land acquisition and even individual purchases.  One of the main objectives of the project is to show that this trend continues around the world, although it peaked in 2009, and that it is not merely a “bubble”.  Another important objective is to promote transparency and accountability in decision-making around land issues.  Since the year 2000, most of the over 1,000 transactions related to agriculture have been concentrated mainly in 11 countries in East Africa and Southeast Asia.  At least half of the acquired land is already in use, which means an increased competition between investors and small producers.  According to their research, a lot of the land that is being purchased has high population densities, and are not “vacant lands”.  This may have short and long-term effects on local and regional conflict, environmental degradation and the sharpening of economic fluctuations.  This and more information can be found in their report, “Transnational Land Deals for Agriculture in the Global South”.  Main questions such as who is investing, where and why are answered, visually and in written manner as well.  The website also offers information on partners and organizations, and many of them are women’s organizations, such as, Association for Women’s Rights in Development (AWID), Asian Rural Women’s Coalition (ARWC), Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), Gender Action and many others.  The International Land Coalition is one of them, and in the issue of women’s access to land, they work on three main issues: knowing your rights so you can exercise them (as citizens, community members, and society members), deepening the knowledge about rural women’s realities (including access to land, peasant economies, and organizations working towards these goals), and recognizing women’s contributions to society (campaigns and policy making). 

Time Cover

There has recently been a huge controversy over Time Magazine’s recent cover displaying a young mother with her almost four year old son standing on a stool, breast feeding. The article is about attachment parenting.

            I was initially very confused about this cover, and had no idea what attachment parenting was. After reading a few articles and hearing about the controversy, I recognized that the only concept I had of attachment parenting was from a film released a few years ago called Away We Go where the main character’s cousin has become an “attached” parent, condemning strollers, breast feeding their child until beyond a “normal” age, and co-habitual sleeping habits between the parents and their children.

            Whether or not I agree with the parenting practices exhibited by “attachment” parenting, I was intrigued by the controversy involving this cover, and indeed my own aversion to the photo.

            It seems to be no stretch to assume that people are offended by not only the large child still breast feeding, but by the blatant presence of a breast on the cover of a magazine as well. Women’s bodies are often portrayed as highly sexualized, and therefore this shot should not seem anywhere out of the ordinary.

            My theory is that its upsetting factor is more in the fact that this woman is not being photographed as a “sexual” object. She’s being photographed as a mother, and that disturbs people because the female body is generally seen in media either as a sexual object, or not to be seen at all. I’d be curious to discuss the way women’s bodies are used to portray different “womanly” values, virtues, and ideologies. This woman’s body is being used, after all, to delve into the attachment parenting issue, which has many other ways to be represented. This is a controversial cover for many reasons, all of which I can assure you the Time editors were aware of. They seem to also be commenting or questioning what it is that offends us so about the female body being exposed in a more natural manner than that of a highly subjectified photograph. Here is the Photo 

Whitewashing in Hollywood

This was an interesting/funny article by Aasif Mandvi (many of you have probably seen him on the Daily Show) who was "channeling" the persona of an important studio executive to give the Hollywood point of view on the issue. http://media.salon.com/2012/05/whitewash_rectangle-460x307.jpg

If you watched "Reel Injuns" then you heard a little about this; white actors being painted brown to resemble a Native American...as opposed to just hiring a Native American to play the part. It isn't just Native Americans though. This has been happening in Hollywood forever...white people playing the roles of Asians, Native Americans, Mexicans, Arabs, etc. This made me think of that movie with Robert Downy Jr. where he plays an actor who is playing the role of a black man; an instance where Hollywood is actually mocking the ridiculousness of this tradition of casting white men for the roles of other ethnicities/races. 

The article is interesting because the author...channeling the studio executive...explains a few reasons why Hollywood NEEDS to do this; much of which revolves around the needs of the white audience. For example, "there's nothing that white people like more than seeing other white people in movies and on television," or in the Mickey Rooney/Breakfast at Tiffany's example, "It's so much funnier than finding a real Chinese actor just talking like himself. Then you'd have to get a screenwriter to actually write genuinely funny lines for that character. You get so much more comedy bang with buckteeth and a funny accent." This quote also points out another problem; Hollywood perpetuating stereotypes of other ethnicities by making fun of them...when in reality it's not even someone from the actual ethnic group...it's a white guy! That's not to say that white people stereotypes and jokes aren't made (ditsy blondes, hillbillies, super conservatives like Jack on 30 Rock, and super liberals too...so much more!). The difference here is Hollywood doesn't have a black guy dressed up as a white guy (oh well there was that one movie with the Wayans brothers dressed up as white girls...) ...it's white people making fun of themselves as opposed to someone from one ethnic group (such as the dominant White) making fun of another ethnic group. 

There's some other interesting and funny points the author makes, and a slideshow of some white actors playing the part of other ethnicities. It's interesting that the ones they show are from older movies. I was sitting here trying to think of movies from more recent times and if this is still being done or if it was more of something from the past...and honestly I'm drawing a blank just because it's been a while since I've seen any movies! If you guys can think of any it would be interesting to hear about them. 

Forbes Highlights 3 Career Lessons ...From Women!

Forbes posted this great article, which covers the most recent TIMES list of 100 most influential people: http://www.forbes.com/sites/work-in-progress/2012/05/08/3-things-you-can-learn-from-the-women-of-times-100/

The author of the article writes, "The list contains influencers from countries all over the globe, and features both men and women. But in a world where patriarchy can often inhibit women’s progress, many of the women on the list particularly stand out for their achievements." The acknowledgement of women's efforts and advances in the workplace and the world overall such a great thing to see and to encourage other women. 

Particularly interesting to some of the conversations we've had in class are the two women listed under the lesson that "standing up for what you believe in is always a good career choice." Dulce Matuz, a 27 year old Latina (inspiring too because women our age are making a difference!) began the Arizona Dream Act Coalition after her status as an undocumented immigrant prevented her from pursuing her dream of being an electrical engineer. Now she fights for other people like her dealing with citizenship rights issues and helps others reach their goals. Then there is also Maryam Durani, a broadcaster from Afghanistan, who owns a radio station which focuses on women's issues. As the article explains she's faced a lot of opposition, including assassination threats, but she just keeps going and working towards her cause. 

All of the women listed in the TIMES 100 most influential people list are examples of what women can do today with motivation and perseverance, that once may have been thought of as impossible. Even starting a business is something that is fairly new for women. Women in the science field, such as the Nobel prize winner, also historically face traditional patriarchy similar to the way Einstein's first wife did. I expect we'll continue seeing more and more references to women's achievements as the years go on and maybe one day even in the political arena where, as we saw with Hilary and Sarah...it's still very much a man's world and women who try to enter are made to feel they don't belong. 

You Don't Have the Right

The concept of human rights has always been a topic of particular curiosity for me. I hear people saying, "I have the right," or, "They have no right," or "It's within my rights." Well I hope I do not disappoint anyone with my opinion, but there is no such thing as rights; They're imaginary, we made them up, like the boogie man, or the three little pigs. Rights are an idea, granted, a cute idea, but that is all, they are imaginary and fictional.

But if you think you do have rights, allow me to pose a question: Where do they come from? Some people say God; they are God-given rights. Well, ignoring (and actually avoiding) my stance on religion, I still think that is BS. I honestly think that if rights came from God, he/she would have given everyone the right to food everyday and a roof over your head. In other words God would have been looking out for you.

But for the sake of argument, lets say it's true. Let's say God really did give us our rights. Allow me to pose another question: why would God give us a certain number of rights? The US Bill of Rights has 10 stipulations; ten rights, and apparently God was doing sloppy work that day because the Bill of Rights has had to be amended an additional 17 times! So it seems that God forgot a couple of things... like slavery. I guess it just slipped his mind.

But lets say God gave us the original ten. He gave the British 13. The British Bill of Rights has 13 stipulations. The Germans have 29, the Belgians have 25, the Swedish have only six, and some people in the world have no rights at all! What kind of God-given deal is that? No rights at all?

So for the sake of argument I'll pose another question: why would God give different people in different countries different numbers of different rights? Boredom? Whatever the reason may be, it just doesn't seem like divine planning to me, it seems like human planning; like one group of people trying to control another group of people.

Now, if you think you do have rights, I have an assignment for you. Go to Wikipedia.com and type Japanese Americans 1942 into the search field. There you will learn all about your precious rights. In 1942 there were 110,000 Japanese American citizens in good-standing, law abiding citizens who were thrown into internment camps simply because their parents were born in the "wrong" country; that's all they did wrong. They had no right to lawyer, no right to a fair trial, and no right to a jury of their peers, no right to a due process of any kind. Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most, their government took them away. Rights are not rights if someone can take them away, they're privileges. It seems like that is actually what our Bill of Rights actually is, a bill of temporary privileges.

Some day, it seems, that the people of this country will realize that the government doesn't really care about you. It's interested in its own power; That's the only thing, keeping it, and expanding it wherever possible. As far the answer to the problem, I have no solution, but I believe it is important for our reason to transcend the BS and see the illegitimacy of governmental social order as far as this topic is concerned.

I ENJOY BEING A GIRL, SORT OF

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/99/transcript

This was a radio show aired on This American Life (several years back) that I heard recently and though it was very relavent to some of our class discussions about gender, and the pressures put on modern women to conform to societies construction of beauty. There were several acts that were especially interesting to me.

In the first act of the radio show, David Sedaris adresses this idea through the story of a girl who goes against her father's wishes for her to be thin and pretty and focused on marriage by wearing a suit that made her look 80 pounds overweight.

In act two, Writer Sarah Miller attends a class in NYC that teaches women how to walk, talk and act masculine and how hard they find it is to "cross the gender line" convincingly.

And in act four, a polygamist wife who describes herself as a "modern working woman" argues why having eight women married to one man is the ultimate feminine lifestyle.

It's interesting to hear stories of people's personal experiences with their gender, and to see how gender constructions and the pressure to look and act a certain way effects people so differently.

Fulla Doll

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WqmCAzxUxI

In Rice's article “Between body & culture: Beauty, ability and growing up female”, she discusses the confusing messages that we are sending young girls in Western culture that can have an extremely damaging effect on their body image growing up. When I first read this article, the first image that the words "damaging" and "body image" brought to mind for me was Barbie. I just came across this youtube commercial about the "Fulla Doll", and I found it to be very relevant to Rice's article, and many of our class discussions. 

The Fulla doll is a popular barbie-like doll marketed to Middle Eastern girls created to represent Muslim identity and values, and display how Muslim parents would prefer their young girls to dress and behave. Physically, Fulla  has long dark hair, dark eyes, and a darker complexion. She is wearing a hijab (Muslim headscarf), abaya (Muslim overgarment), and a pink felt prayer rug. She also has another set of clothes that are more similar to Barbie's to give girls the option to dress her in more popular fashion trends when she is not somewhere like work, or in a public space where girls know women are expected dress more modestly. Fulla is said to spend her time with her friends (not her boyfriend, unlike Barbie and Ken) shop, read, cook, and play sports. She upholds traditional Muslim values and girls are told she is honest, loving, devout toward her parents. 

Arab girls have shown that they much prefer the Fulla doll to the American Barbie, and she has replaced Barbie altogether for many girls. I feel a reasonable explanation for Muslim girls preference to Fulla over the once popular American Barbie is because girls can relate better to her appearance and lifestyle. This concept is really interesting to me, and it makes me wonder why Mattel can't follow suit. 

Over the years, Barbie has set an unrealistic standard of beauty for young girls all over the world.  Many of her actions and different personas have caused huge controversy, and do not represent the values we should be teaching young girls to uphold. Almost all women would agree that she is a bad role model for young girls. However, we keep buying and buying Barbie and Barbie merchandise, knowing full well that Barbie represents a lot of what is wrong with the way women are perceived in our country.

Mattel has made some progress over the years to change Barbie's image and make her into a more positive role model for young girls, but I think a lot of their efforts are only to make up for past scandals so they can continue to sell dolls and merchandise. 

The success of the Fulla doll proves that it is possible to create a doll that acts as a real role model for young girls that girls will still love and admire. 

U.S. Drops Deportation Proceedings Against Immigrant in Same-Sex Marriage

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/us/30immig.html?_r=3

This article tells the story of a same-sex couple, an American man and a Venezuelan, who were ecstatic to finally be legally married in the state of Connecticut and start their lives together.

Normally, under immigration law an American citizen can petition for legal residency for a spouse. However unfortunately for this couple, this only stands true if the spouse is not the same sex. After being denied legal residency under the Defense of Marriage Act, they now faced the threat of deportation.

I came across this article and guest speaker Jordan Garcia’s lecture about GLBTQI issues and immigration came to mind. Before this lecture, I had never considered how many people identify as both GLBTQI and as an immigrant to this country, and the added discriminations that they must face. This article was particularly interesting to me because it brought to life the scenarios and issues we discussed during class that seemed so unbelievable and shocking to me at the time they were difficult for me to fully comprehend.

This story had a happy ending, as federal immigration officials agreed to his request to close the deportation proceedings. Immigration lawyers and gay rights advocates said the decision in this case could open the door to the cancellation of deportations for other immigrants and represented a significant shift in policy. This article reassured me that we are making positive changes in this country, and these changes are being recognized and celebrated by many people, and how people like Jordan Garcia and groups such as CFIR really are making a difference. However, although this couple’s story has a happy ending, it served as a reminder to me that although we are making some progress, we are still not addressing the underlying issue of whether same-sex marriages should be recognized by the federal government. 

 

 

 

When will these women truly see justice?

After doing a lot of research on rape as a weapon of war in Bosnia last quarter I still have some google search notifications coming in and came across this article on NPR.

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/30/151688541/peace-justice-elude-rape-victims-of-bosnian-war

I think this situation is the perfect example of the dominant patriarchal paradigm being in place and acting as a barrier to the rape victims of Bosnia getting true justice for the crimes that were inflicted upon them. Yes, the international community did finally establish rape as a crime against humanity after the genocide that ended in 1995, and yes a number of Serbian men have been charged for the crimes they inflicted on these women and the women's voices have been heard through their testimonies. But now what? As the article explains, women have received little help from the government and only 40 men have been charged with this crime ... although thousands of women were raped. The women also suffer with PTSD issues and very little has been done to address that too. It seems that by simply stating that rape is officially a crime and prosecuting men (whose trials have been going on for far too long as many keep finding ways to postpone hearings, etc.) this is supposed to make up for what these women went through. And what efforts are being done to prevent this in the future? Once again, this issue, just as many other issues pertaining to women's rights, safety, health, etc., remain on the back burner.

This is something we've talked about and read about quite a bit this quarter, especially in a number of testimonies discussed in Maria and Margie's FIRE readings. It's great that the international community is addressing women's issues such as rape during war, which has for far to long been ignored, however this doesn't mean that the job is done. I think the biggest problem here is the question of what will be done to prevent this in the future? Is it fair to say that the prosecution of a couple men will deter others from committing these crimes? We would be crazy to say yes to this question! So what's next. What else will be done to stop the targeting of women during conflicts. There have been some studies that have found a correlation between domestic violence and the use of rape during war, and I personally feel that more focus should be placed on domestic violence in peaceful times as a mode of prevention. Obviously women being abused and raped is not something that only occurs in times of war and it deserves attention for the simple fact that domestic violence is a terrible thing, but I wonder if addressing a problem that is happening in times of peace may also act as a preventative measure for possible conflict situations that may encourage rape as a weapon. 

Alina Fernandez: Castro’s Daughter

For my last blog post I wanted to write about International Celebration Week’s keynote speaker, Alina Fernandez. On Monday, April 20, 2012, Fernandez came to DU to discuss her experience as Cuban leader, Fidel Castro’s, daughter. Her experience gave me firsthand insight on what it was like growing up as part of the Cuban elite in the 1960s and 70s. I believe that her experience as a woman, however, made her the activist she is today.

For those of you who do not know, the mother of Alina Fernandez met Fidel Castro right before he was imprisoned. During Castro’s imprisonment, the two fell in love through writing letters, despite both being married to other people. When Castro was released, he ended his current marriage and started the Cuban Revolution. Fernandez’s mother remained married to her previous husband but became pregnant with Castro’s child, Alina. When Castro came into power, Fernandez’s non-biological father fled to the US, while she remained in Cuba with her mother. A few years later, Castro was identified as Fernandez’s biological father.

Once this became national news, the remainder of Fernandez’s childhood was a constant stream of letters and people coming to her for help. As an 8-year-old girl, Fernandez was seen as the country’s only means to speak to Castro. She said that people would line up outside her house to beg her to ask her father for change—a very big message for such a young girl. The stories she heard from her fellow citizens never changed the country, however, they changed her. In her late teens she became part of the political dissident movement and in 1993, she was forced to flee Cuba for her political views.

Tying to last week’s class, Fernandez’s story is a great example of violations of human rights. On an institutional level, the Cuban government, with out a doubt, is in violation of the UDHR. During the Q&A portion of the lecture, there were some audience members who thought that “everything was fine” in Cuba and the anti-Cuban movement was just a result of American propaganda. Fernandez clarified by speaking about the inequalities that citizens face compared to tourist (i.e. different currencies, controlled areas where tourist can go, etc.). The country hides the inequalities by silencing its citizens. Additionally, the vagueness of the UDHR is meant to be interpreted, therefore anyone who questions the violations will be silenced by simply saying it was misinterpreted. Another audience member questioned Fernandez with the CIA fact book’s statistics on Cuba’s high literacy rate, and standard of living, etc. She responded by saying that Cuba reports these statistics to the CIA, and they are false—just another way human rights can be violated through deception. And just in case you were wondering, Cuba has signed the UDHR.

Alina Fernandez’s experience as a woman, I believe, is the reason she became the activist she is today. Because of the gender stereotypes of women, the country saw her as being compassionate, understanding, community-oriented, and therefore, more likely to sympathize with their stories. The stories she heard helped her see the disparities within the country, and led her to join the opposition, despite becoming estranged from most of her family (which is very rare in Latino culture). Additionally, her gender made her able to see the violations that men could not due to the shared experience of womanhood.  Like we saw with Maria’s lecture, the interpretation of rights is usually left for those who already have a voice. Fernandez, despite being part of the elite, had to leave her country in order to have a voice for herself and her fellow Cubanos.  

George Takei on Interment Camps

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yogXJl9H9z0

George Takei was a young child when taken from his home and brought to an interment camp during the Second World War.  He remembers the day the soldiers came to his home armed to bring him to a horse stable until a camp was ready then he was moved Arkansas until he was later transferred to Northern California.  This second camp was heavily guarded, as people who were transferred here were considered dangers to the state based on a survey that had a trick question.  The survey was called the “Loyalty Questionnaire”, how interesting that they question the loyalty of people who they forced to move and be treated like prisoners.  The fact that they got anyone willing to say they would still fight for the country is nothing short of amazing that even after being treated like a villain for no reason they were still willing to lay their lives on the line for a country that disrespected them.   Yet, if the two most important questions in the survey were not answered correctly you would be labeled a traitor.  The first asked about bearing arms for America.  The second and the trick question was: “ will you swear your loyalty to the united states of America and forswear your loyalty to the emperor of Japan” George makes the point that if you said no to this question because you could not foreswear a loyalty that you did not have to begin with, this would label you a traitor or possibly just as bad that if you answered yes to this question that you were saying that you used to have ties and gives them reason to have put you in the camp to begin with. 

This relates back to the video that we saw before class along with the discussion with Margaret and Vicki Taniwaki.  Where Margaret may have been luckier than Mr. Takei as she was not old enough to remember being moved out of her home to one of the camps.  Although this point is questionable: which is worse?  To be a young child and remember vaguely being free before seeing the armed guard at your doorstep or to have your first memory be of life in one of these camps?