Gender and The Military

I personally do not know anyone that has been in the military recently, but I am aware that there are definite gender biases that are prevalent. Women and gay men are often turned away from joining the military or can even be discharged. This article, "Sexuality, Gender, and the US Military," by Melissa Trible discusses these issues. She points out how unfair and illogical it is to discharge men for being gay when they are fully capable of being soldiers and they need all of the people they can get. It was interesting that the military is alright with homosexual soldiers as long as they don't know about it, so they are more comfortable with someone that covers up and lies about a big chunk of their lives but the people that are true to themselves are kicked up.  Its something that limits the military and even though they say it is for unit cohesion, there will be less people to even fill units. It is also wrong to discharge someone based on their sexual preference. They also are not as comfortable with having women in the military and women are usually in non-combat positions. There is the physical differences in men and women that make less women be able to be soldiers, but there are still plenty that could stand up to the physical task. The article brings up having an all female unit in which they all are physically fit but having them all together takes out the sexual interest that affects the "unit cohesion." I think that splitting up males and females is not going to help the stigma of females in the military and I think they just need to get used to both together. It is something that is rare so it seems weird, but the more exposure I think that it would be less of an issue.

There are also differences with how military wives and husbands are portrayed. I don't think I have heard much of military husbands honestly, but military wives are always talked about. They are usually the doting wives that are strong enough to take care of their own families when their husbands leave. Another thing is that in the media, female soldiers are seen more as the caring figures while the male soldiers are emotionless and strong. There are some strong females soldiers in the media, but they usually have more emotions or represented as more emotional. The military is definitely gendered and I think that there should definitely be a change in that.

"Sound & Fury: Fred Phelps and Life inside Westboro" Summary

Mark David Bradshaw's article "Sound & Fury: Fred Phelps and Life inside Westboro" discusses certain events in which Fred Phelps, the founder of the Westboro Baptist Church, abused his family. Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church are known for protesting practically anything and being very hateful and prejudiced. For me it is surprising that a man so outwardly bigoted can gain a following and then use that to spread the hate. It is interesting to see how his home life reflects his public life and he was always very abusive

First of all there were 4 of the 13 phelps children that left the church and cut all ties with Fred Phelps. This illustrated that he was abusive and that they also did not agree with his beliefs. After reading the rest of the article I was surprised that more didn't leave. He was abusive to all of his children and treated them extremely unfairly. They couldn't celebrate Christmas, chose their own jobs, see whoever they wanted, or do anything without his say. He was so extreme that his children should have been taken away from him, but he was so controlling of them that they ended up lying to cover up his abuse. Two of his sons were heavily bruised and had their heads forcibly shaved but Child Services couldn't do anything because his sons covered for him. It is no way for children to be raised and now those children are his followers because that is all they knew as they were raised. It was especially upsetting to see how his hurtful comments towards his oldest son's ex-girlfriend led to her suicide. This extreme hate is illogical and affects many different people. 

Blog 5: Intelligence vs. Icon

I had previously heard that Marilyn Monroe was actually a smart individual and not just the dumb blonde she was portrayed to be, but it is interesting how despite her not purposefully hiding her smarts most people just assumed she was dumb. They confused her characters with her and thought if her characters were dumb blondes so was she. I also think that because her looks where the main sell of her brand that her intellect was completely overlooked. There was a definite emphasis on how she looked and how sexy she was which made those be what made her special to the public. Her being portrayed as smart wouldn't have helped to sell her movies because smart women were not valued as much back then. But still this is something that still happens today to some extent. There are plenty of celebrities that are known for their pretty faces but they also have big brains.

One current celebrity that completely took me by surprise when I heard that she was practically a genius and had a near-perfect score on the SATs was Ke$ha. An article from ANDPOP discussed how  it is extremely hard to believe she is actually smart and how she is "A smart girl, choosing the write the dumbest songs on the radio." She is portrayed as a partying blonde bimbo that doesn't have a care in the world, but behind all of the glitz and glam she is extremely smart. Ke$ha has been open about her SAT scores and talks about how what her music image is not the only side to her. If I had not known this, I would never have even thought about her as an intellect that was in a gifted program at her school. It is also interesting to think about how just because of how she looks and presents herself many people can't believe she is actually smart. She's talked briefly about how she is not just how she is portrayed, but she also makes sure to portray herself as the dumb blonde to sell her music. Her image matches her music and because her music is mindless, so is she.


ANDPOP: Internet Buzzing: Is Ke$ha Really A Genius?

Chapter 30 Summary: Supersexualize Me!

A lot of what we have been discussing in class is about how women have been portrayed as passive sexual objects of desire, but Rosalind Gill's chapter also discusses how women are now portrayed as sexual subjects. She debates about if this seemingly feminist and sexual power to women in advertising is actually beneficial. Many people see this as giving women the choice to be seen as sexual subjects and that they actually want it, but this still reinforces stereotypes and hypersexualized behaviors.

Gill talks about this type of advertising in relation to the "midriffs" and how it portrays a woman's sexual power. This is problematic because this advertising is primarily displaying young, heterosexual females so it is not inclusive and it tries to make it seem like it is all about the woman's choice. This is still a constructed viewpoint that doesn't actually give women the power. It is superficial and reinforces this concept that women get their femininity from their bodies and how thin they are. This idea has shifted from being desirable for men to being desirable for themselves, and while this can be seen as an improvement it isn't much of a change.

I found it interesting that Gill believes that this midriff advertising does not signify "open or egalitarian possibilities for gender relations" (281). She sees this advertising as re-sexualization of their bodies with the "excuse of a feisty, empowered postfeminist discourse that makes it very difficult to critique." This brings up the important idea that although it may seem like an improvement, it just gives advertisers an excuse to be able to still sexualize women without as much backlash. I found this chapter to be very enlightening and makes me think that it will take a long time to get rid of this sexualization of women in advertising. It is important to be aware that it is still and issue in order to actually have a positive change.

Blog 4: Gendered Language

Often when discussing gender and the difference between men and women, many people forget that even language is gendered. It is something that most of us don't think of because it a such a big part of our daily lives that we are barely aware that there is any issue with it. One of the biggest things that I know that I am guilty of is saying "you guys" when talking to a group of people. To me I am just addressing group of people in a casual way, which is what is means in our society today, but the term guys is another word for men, so it is like I'm saying "you men." I often say this to my friends and many of them are female, which to me isn't an issue, but that is because we are so unaware of the implications. If I said "you girls" to a group of people of different genders many men would be insulted, but on the other hand if I say "you guys" no one even questions it. It would be just as easy to say "you all," but almost no one says this, which is a shame. This is just one of many different colloquialisms that are gendered and just accepted. This is an issue because it reinforces gender gaps and although it may seem tiny, because these colloquialisms are so widely accepted they have greater implications.
   Our language is definitely gendered even though so many people are blinded to this. Often it isn't meant to be derisive to a certain gender, but it is just a part of our history and daily lives. Men were always the more "dominant" gender throughout history and many of our historical documents and laws use the term "men" when talking about all people. Today there would be a lot of backlash if someone decided to do this, but still we accept what was in the past. Certain terms are still gendered like freshman and many others. I was actually surprised when I heard someone discuss how "freshmen" is gendered because I don't think of it as "fresh-men," I think of it as people who are in their first year of high school or college. When thinking about it wouldn't it be just as simple to say first-years? It would be a lot better if these words were gender neutral in order to promote gender equality in all areas. There has been improvements like there are firemen and firewomen and the plural of them are usually firefighters to include both genders. There are many words that are gendered and more harmful thann these, but it is important to see that even in seemingly harmless words there are still gender equality issues.

Ch. 14 Summary: "Hetero Barbie?"

    Mary Rogers wrote this chapter discussing Barbie and how she represents gender and sexuality. Rogers starts the chapter stating that many heterosexual females as they enter their teenage years begin to put men at the center of their lives. Teenage girls begin basing their value on their attractiveness to boys and their relationship with a boy. It is interesting how Rogers connects this to Barbie and although Barbie's looks are very important, she has an "independence that deviates from the codes of mainstream femininity" (128). I never thought of Barbie as being outside of the mainstream, but more of a stereotypical view of how women are "supposed" to look. Barbie has Ken, but even then he is not the center of her life and throughout her existence she has not had a husband or kids. I was surprised when Rogers said the Barbie may not be heterosexual or not even a woman? It is a different perspective, but I don't know if I agree with that. I don't think it really matter it just is nice that Barbie is her own independent woman and has different jobs and hobbies on her own, despite her overly feminine and made-up look. 

    This chapter also looked at how people of different genders and sexuality viewed Barbie. Lesbians are more likely to reject "some of the central features of Barbie's world" and also bisexuals may find her monosexuality "unappealing" (129). The possibility that Barbie is a drag queen may explain why she is so made-up and I don't believe that it is bad that some people view her as that. Barbie is a doll and if people see different things in her that they can identify with then that is great. I always played with Barbie dolls as a kid and recently it seems like there has been so much negative views on her and how she is a bad representation of a woman for young children. 

Blog 3: All in the Family

  Family structure has changed a lot over the years and now there are a lot more different types of families. In the past it was mainly just the nuclear family, which is the family that consists of a mom, a dad, and kids. It is generally what most people think of when they think of a family, but this has changed as more people get divorced, have children out of marriage, and there are also many same-sex couple families. A lot of those different types of families were not accepted in the past, but as society advances and becomes more accepting of people and their situations the family structure has evolved.
   Within the nuclear family structure, there are gender roles for the mother and the father, but this is also something that has been changing. For the most part the father was the breadwinner of the family and the mother took care of the house and the children. The mother was nurturing while the father was in charge. This has changed as discussed by Sara Eckel in her article "Dad-Mom Role Reversals" on the Working Mother website. This article is about how the recession has forced many families to break the gender roles and have the mother be the breadwinner while the dad is more in charge of the children and the house. It seemed like it was difficult for many families to adjust to this, but it was something that had to be done because many men had lost their jobs. This was difficult for them not only financially but also emotionally, so it took time in order to get used to taking over some of the generally female responsibilities. It was an interesting dynamic to discuss and see that there are some obstacles in this role reversal, but it was great to see that for many families it was successful. This necessary role reversal and also society as a whole being more accepting of working mothers and stay at home dads has changed the way we see nuclear families now.
   Gender roles are different in modern families because there may not be a mother and a father in the house. There may just be a mother or a father who has to take on the responsibilities of both or even other family members or friends that take over certain responsibilities. There are also the same-sex families in which there are two fathers or two mothers, the gender roles in these families are very different and the parents don't have very defined roles. Modern families have much less defined gender roles and often have to adapt to what the situation they are in. With a nuclear family there are years of these gender roles, while the modern family is just becoming more talked about and accepted.