I recently got an iPod Touch, and have been a little App obsessed. Needless to say I have been browsing the App Store constantly. This morning I came across the first application that pissed me off! The application is called iGirl - She Obeys. I hit the button immediately to see what kind of non-sense passed through Apples rather arbitrary seeming application process to get apps into the store. Below is a review / tutorial on how to use the very sexist application -  iGirl, just so you get a sense of what the program looks and feels like.

Part of my frustration comes from the fact that I know Trent Reznor tried to get his new app update into the store and it did not pass because of one of the musical tracks in it, yet something degrading like this application can slip through the cracks (or maybe they thought it was perfectly fine). I understand that a simulated girlfriend (where is the boyfriend?) might be a fun gag app to have, but there is only one type of girl being displayed here. Even the guy in this video says “let’s switch from the chauvinistic bikini outfit to the chauvinistic school girl outfit”. There are also not a lot of ethnic choices, which just juxtaposes the exact kind of thinking that goes along with misogyny. Now, i’m not explicitly saying that this is racist, but it just nods to an ethnocentric viewpoint. The girls can only speak English and Russian (not sure what this means or why, but interesting to note)

Wow, so many options, these are all the dynamics of a girlfriend.......

I’d say the other part that frustrates me is the popularity of the application. This app was featured by PCworld, Macworld, Techcrunch (”i’m sure it will quickly become a best seller - Erick Schonfeld) and WorldofApple. This app is advertised as fun and entertaining, but what message is that saying to put a girl on a screen and be able to control her with your hands and angle her for your own pleasure. The implication is almost more extreme than some of the feminist thought on pornography. Don’t forget, though, you can also shake the iPod/iPhone to make her react (shake her booty, for example). Another gimmicky feature is the ability to blow on the iPhone in order to have the classic “Marilyn Monroe” flying dress pose appear. I guess I am happy that the iTunes ratings speak for a demographic of thinkers who feel that this kind of application is totally inappropriate (although many are probably female, but rightfully so) because the overall 5 star ratings are 2287 compared to the 1 star ratings at 9012.

One of my absolute favorite parts is that the developer posits this “Our own rating for this application is PG-13. There is no nudity or bad words in the app. The app has mildly suggestive themes that are akin to what you might expect from a PG-13 movie. This app will never have any nudity in it.” then goes on to suggest that the app is similar to cheap thrills like iBeer or iFart. I call malarky on this statement. Objectification of women is not the same as a beer application. Although the gender implications could be correlated in certain realms of thought, the direct implication is nowhere near as powerful.

I find it hard to place myself in the shoes of the developer here. I could think someone having a thought, “It would be fun to have a virtual girlfriend”, but nothing about this application is about having a girlfriend (although I do love my Apps, it’s just not the same). There is no relationship, there is no communication, it is a person controlling the scantily clad girl on the screen. The fact that you can search : sexy ladies women girls boobs babes guns hunting fishing jokes — proves that there is so much more to this conversation : Fishing and Hunting/Guns — it shows that this is a hyper-masculine and overly-chauvinistic joke on women and their expense.

There are over 16,000 reviews for this application running the gamut from disgust to adoration. One reviewer explains, “elegant way of putting the girl into an iPhone. I had fun showing it off to my friends yesterday. Will keep playing with her and waiting for the future releases”. The more I read the descriptions, I was hoping this was some kind of sociological project, but even if it was (which is clearly is not, as it has not even a hint that something like this is going on), the people who like this application get to propel their misogyny on the go.

I really want to develop and application now that does the opposite or exposes this app in some way. An app where two people relate to each other with respect, and fun. Don’t get me wrong, I have a pretty p0litically incorrect sense of humor, but there is a time, a place, and a context for it, and coming across this application under the “TOP PAID APPS” really kind of pisses me off. I also saw Peekababe, which is pretty much just pictures of women in swimsuits, which is also degrading, but the fact that you control iGirl sets up a whole other range of discussions.

My only saving grace of thought is the reviewers reaction. Although this is a top paid app (at .99 cents), I am glad the average rating is a 2. You think guys would see that and see that “those are probably women rating this application” and have some empathy about putting them on their phone and pinching, skewing, blowing, and shaking them all over the place. I can’t see how this is not a metaphor for misogyny and control.

There she is.

(although this post is not regarding gender specifically, it is an important issue)

So, tomorrow I am taking off from work and class to go down to Augusta, Maine where a hearing about marriage equality will take place. If you live in Maine, it is really important to get down there to be supportive. They are bussing down people that are against this issue. If you are going, wear red to show support!

http://equalitymaine.org/marriage-and-families/come-the-public-hearing-the-marriage-bill-ld-1020

Come to the Public Hearing on the Marriage Bill (LD 1020)

(Runner-Up That is!) And this could be why it lost her the crown. If you have not heard about this yet, watch this video below.

A friend on mine posted a blog this morning about the issue. In response to her blog someone said ::

You believe your friend’s choice to be gay is okay, but contradict your self by judging other’s choices and are wrong and should be banned. It’s her choice to do whatever she wants to do with her body. Everyone has the right to do whatever they want right? Everyone can have their own truth? That’s what I’m getting from your post.

to which I replied ::

Karen isn’t debating CHOICE here, obviously it is every girl’s little choice to fall victim to the countless images that tell them they are not good enough each day. It’s not a secret that advertisers pinpoint children (read “packaging girlhood” or watch “Killing Me Softly” or any of the social research on the subject). Our gender construction is the single most powerful thing we are taught from childbirth, and as much as it seems like a “choice” that a person will proceed doing the things they want, often times the norms that bog us down get in the way, so maybe a little girl who wants to run around in the dirty playing baseball instead starts putting on make-up and dresses. I realize this is all very extracted from the situation, but it is a part of the overall picture. ….I pose the question that : If beauty pageants and MAXIM and playboy and all these other ‘beauty-centric’ (and my problem with them is that they only consider beauty as ONE THING, being bigger is only one thing that is not part of this equation.) It oppresses people who do not fit into this category, as we hold it to such high pride in our society. Karen never said that people cannot do what they want, but the implication of what women do by getting extreme surgery and wading around half naked on stage poses a larger societal question, and really cannot be compared to homosexuality (another minority). Also, your assumption to say that Karen said that it was Phil’s CHOICE is a little off radar, most supporters of gay rights do not feel it is a choice. ….Finally , if it is all of the pageants “truth” to bow down to an impossible image so that people can judge what they look like in a swimsuit, and devalue intelligence and progressiveness, then that is a truth I certainly do not feel has a place in a society where we should be valuing each other regardless of vapid norms. ..

I wish people would open their minds, stop hiding behind their religion to gait forth their own intolerance. My friend Karen didn’t think that Carrie was homophobic per se, but that she wasn’t the poster child for morals either. I find what Carrie says to be interesting on a variety of levels. She details that “she grew up that way”, which is just as shitty as an excuse as “my religion tells me to feel that way”, people need to take responsibility for their own values. I realize it creates family tensions when you do not have the same belief system, but it also does not constitute holding people back.

Onto the gender issue (what this blog is all about!).

Miss America banks on gender norms to be successful. Does the girl look like the impossible images that we tote throughout society in movies and magazines. It sends the wrong message to 5 year old girls who insist on watching it because its on prime time and their mothers secretly always wanted to be in the pageant but ate two much (like a granola bar), didn’t vomit enough, didn’t have enough surgery, so they live vicariously through the idiot box and string their children into the same setting. I realize this is harsh and generalizing. It’s obviously only one scenario behind the scenes, but does not make it less credible. At what point do women have to stop emaciating and cutting themselves up to please general audiences. Now, I agree, there is a CHOICE, but I also think it is important to see how those choices become limited in the view of society. Beauty pageants send the wrong signal, period. They value looks above all else, and send the message that this is the only type of beauty that matters to be reigned “Miss America”.

Okay, I am going to break my own rule today about splitting gender and sexuality (although i’ve done it before to) because I found this article (from a Dr. nonetheless) to be rather on the ridiculous side. I will post it, and write my comments within the article itself (as quoted text)

Gay Marriage: Why Would It Affect Me?
Ten Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage
(This is a synopsis of the new book by Dr. James Dobson, Marriage Under Fire.)
Argument #1.

The implications for children in a world of decaying families are profound. A recent article in the Weekly Standard described how the advent of legally sanctioned gay unions in Scandinavian countries has already destroyed the institution of marriage, where half of today’s children are born out of wedlock.

• Out of wed-lock, well it seems as though it would be better to be in a committed couple regardless of their sexual orientation, yes? NO? Hmm…that’s some ill logic.

It is predicted now, based on demographic trends in this country, that more than half of the babies born in the 1990s will spend at least part of their childhood in single-parent homes.

Social scientists have been surprisingly consistent in warning against this fractured family. If it continues, almost every child will have several “moms” and “dads,” perhaps six or eight “grandparents,” and dozens of half-siblings. It will be a world where little boys and girls are shuffled from pillar to post in an ever-changing pattern of living arrangements-where huge numbers of them will be raised in foster-care homes or living on the street (as millions do in other countries all over the world today). Imagine an environment where nothing is stable and where people think primarily about themselves and their own self-preservation.

The apostle Paul described a similar society in Romans 1, which addressed the epidemic of homosexuality that was rampant in the ancient world and especially in Rome at that time. He wrote, “They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless” (v. 29-31, NIV).

• Bringing religion into the argument, hmm.. that doesn’t so much “AFFECT ME”. It also does not affect all of the other religions that do not use the bible are their book of choice.
  

It appears likely now that the demise of families will accelerate this type of decline dramatically, resulting in a chaotic culture that will be devastating to children.

• Children do tend to feel devastated when they are in a home of loving parents who care for them, the kinds of intentional families that gay and lesbian parents are trying to provide to their children, rather than the millions of children in broken homes, foster homes, and orphanages around the world in abusive and less than perfect conditions, that is a lot better!

Argument #2
The introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions.

• The last time I remember, the gay marriage debate was about allowing 1 person marry 1 other person of the same sex, not 2 or 7. This argument is not an argument at all, just subterfuge to battle tangent hypothetical that have no place in this debate.

In Utah, polygamist Tom Green, who claims five wives, is citing Lawrence v. Texas as the legal authority for his appeal. This past January, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of another couple wanting to engage in legal polygamy. Their justification? Lawrence v. Texas.

The ACLU of Utah has actually suggested that the state will “have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society”-as opposed to the polygamists having to prove that plural marriage is not harmful to the culture. Do you see how the game is played? Despite 5,000 years of history, the burden now rests on you and me to prove that polygamy is unhealthy. The ACLU went on to say that the nuclear family “may not be necessarily the best model.” Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia warned of this likelihood in his statement for the minority in the Lawrence case.10 It took less than six months for his prediction to become reality.

• none of this even relates to this debate (and again does not affect me - other people’s marriage does not specifically affect me, or at least their ability TO marry, if anything the lack of ability affects me more because it is filled with intolerance and tries to sanctify marriage with hate).

Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people.

• OH I FOUND THE LOGIC! here it is right between murder and rape, why did I not see it!

After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their wretched work, the family will consist of little more than someone’s interpretation of “rights.”

Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two, or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against those of us who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to “civil rights” will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed.

• If people wanted that, they would be fighting for it, and they are not.

Argument #3
An even greater objective of the homosexual movement is to end the state’s compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriages have been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver’s license or a hunting permit. With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore associated with it.

• The addition of gay marriage does not change the process of marriage, so this is again illogical. They are not being redefined as a process, but as the boundaries that are allowed to be contained within the parameter of it’s definition. Divorces will not be instant, again side logic that is thrown in to make people think that would happen, when does not relate or part of the debate at hand. Also, “with the family gone” that also makes no sense, redefining something does not destroy the spirit of the (in this case) institution.

Argument #4
With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach that this perversion is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Textbooks, even in conservative states, will have to depict man/man and woman/woman relationships, and stories written for children as young as elementary school, or even kindergarten, will have to give equal space to homosexuals.

• You are right it is a HORRIBLE idea to show people that come from all walks of life, why don’t we just ban all minority groups from having a place in the classroom or education all together. This kind of logic suggests that Abraham Lincoln fought in vein as well as any other person fighting against opression. “Equal Space” — that is not an ARGUMENT, that is unadulterated intolerance for a group of people that this author does not like. That would be like saying, “The Mentally Handicap should not be allowed to be in regular classes” because you have a problem with them as a group of people, it has nothing to do with an argument of how it affects me , unless of course I adopt an intolerant and hateful attitude like these “arguments” are portraying.

Argument #5
From that point forward, courts will not be able to favor a traditional family involving one man and one woman over a homosexual couple in matters of adoption. Children will be placed in homes with parents representing only one sex on an equal basis with those having a mom and a dad. The prospect of fatherless and motherless children will not be considered in the evaluation of eligibility. It will be the law.

• That is another horrible idea — the law being tolerant to minorities. It would suck if people’s status and positioning in this society as part of this hierarchy was broken down so all people could have equal opportunities. This argument assumes that 1 mother and 1 father (despite any other factor other than their GENDER — not their sex in this position - because it’s about the way the child is raised - showing proper norms in society) is superior than 2 same-sex (engendering) parents. Look at the statistics of single parents, they are only getting one gender perspective as well, so then in this case the fact that homosexual activity is involved becomes part of their “argument”, but the fact is homosexuality is in our society, and it’s not going anywhere, they will learn about it whether they have 2 dads or whether they watch will and grace or they ….. are gay.

Argument #6
Foster-care parents will be required to undergo “sensitivity training” to rid themselves of bias in favor of traditional marriage, and will have to affirm homosexuality in children and teens.

• Again - lack of tolerance is not “an argument” - it is prejudice and hate is illogical by nature. Even if you DO NOT accept homosexuality as a lifestyle, it does not make it right to actively hate any person in this life, and I know at least potential adoptive parents are asked about their views about certain issues. But, to hop on the gender wagon - it would be atrocious to teach people to be sensitive to other’s depending on their situation - we really SHOULD be teaching hate and opression so some people are better than others. Now, I won’t try to battle this by being just as irrational (on the liberal side of things) and say “I JUST DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW THEY COULD BE THIS NUMB” (although the thoughts are there), but when someone has power over another group they will have status in our society, and “to have a higher social position than ’some gay’” is not really a good “arguement” against gay marriage. This argument wants some people to have power over others, and makes it seem like those people should be wiped off the earth (or saved by some religious context) - and i’m sorry, genocide or mass injection of religious ideology is never a good argument.

Argument #7
How about the impact on Social Security if there are millions of new dependents that will be entitled to survivor benefits? It will amount to billions of dollars on an already overburdened system. And how about the cost to American businesses? Unproductive costs mean fewer jobs for those who need them. Are state and municipal governments to be required to raise taxes substantially to provide health insurance and other benefits to millions of new “spouses and other dependents”?

• LOL. Okay that isn’t a good counter-argument, but let’s be serious, it would be in the same vein as these other arguments. This provides that one person’s love is better than another’s once again (even if they are a murdering rapist), and if our government is going to adopt a policy that allows people’s love to have legal council, then that should not be part of a discriminate policy because marriage is a religious concept, and the government adopted it, so the government could just as easily abandon that concept, vote for civil unions for all people, leave marriage alone, and give benefit based on peoples habitation status. It digs deep into irony that atheists can get married (mind you atheists are the #1 most hated group in America - above homosexuals) and enjoy benefits that two same-sex people in love cannot. The “argument” seems to break down again. Survivor benefits should be able to be chosen by the person in my opinion - if i want to give my benefits to my best friend, i should be able to.

Argument #8
Marriage among homosexuals will spread throughout the world, just as pornography did after the Nixon Commission declared obscene material “beneficial” to mankind.11 Almost instantly, the English-speaking countries liberalized their laws against smut. America continues to be the fountainhead of filth and immorality, and its influence is global.

• “Filth and Immorality” — not an argument again, but an opinion based in intolerance and religious opinion. I would really love to see a non-religion-centric argument against gay marriage (and not marriage in general - as I have seen a lot of those). I suppose America would rather be the leader in hate and inequality rather than “United We Stand” — (I call poppycock on that one).

The point is that numerous leaders in other nations are watching to see how we will handle the issue of homosexuality and marriage. Only two countries in the world have authorized gay marriage to date-the Netherlands and Belgium. Canada is leaning in that direction, as are numerous European countries. Dr. Darrell Reid, president of Focus on the Family Canada, told me two weeks ago that his country is carefully monitoring the United States to see where it is going. If we take this step off a cliff, the family on every continent will splinter at an accelerated rate. Conversely, our U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that it looks to European and Canadian law in the interpretation of our Constitution.13 What an outrage! That should have been grounds for impeachment, but the Congress, as usual, remained passive and silent.

• Not every country has America up their ass, but the one’s that do look to America as a role model, it’s nice we want to be the bully on the playground saying “no you can’t use this swingset because you have cooties” rather than the one that gets off the swing so that others can have a turn.

Argument #9
Perhaps most important, the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed. The family has been God’s primary vehicle for evangelism since the beginning.

Its most important assignment has been the propagation of the human race and the handing down of the faith to our children. Malachi 2:15 reads, referring to husbands and wives, “Has not the Lord made them one? In flesh and spirit they are His. And why one? Because He was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth” (NIV).

That responsibility to teach the next generation will never recover from the loss of committed, God-fearing families. The younger generation and those yet to come will be deprived of the Good News, as has already occurred in France, Germany and other European countries. Instead of providing for a father and mother, the advent of homosexual marriage will create millions of motherless children and fatherless kids. This is morally wrong, and is condemned in Scripture. Are we now going to join the Netherlands and Belgium to become the third country in the history of the world to “normalize” and legalize behavior that has been prohibited by God himself? Heaven help us if we do!

• I’m sorry, the arguments have been pretty weak up until now, but I refuse to consider any arguement fueled by religion in an article entitled “Why would it affect me”. This does NOT affect me as I do not believe this, but the fact that they use terms like “God-fearing families” allows this to fall apart on it’s own. Now, I don’t want to totally disregard religious reasoning because it is the majority in our country, but I am sick of people throwing their bibles at every piece of society they choose to hate. All I have to say is that if we want to believe all of this above, then we better get out our stones and start throwing them at hookers — literal interpretations of the bible get old, fast.

Argument #10
The culture war will be over, and I fear, the world may soon become “as it was in the days of Noah” (Matthew 24:37, NIV). This is the climactic moment in the battle to preserve the family, and future generations hang in the balance.

• Two great points in one — religion returns and this time we want to perpetuate WAR! That has nothing to do with marriage. War does not preserve families. I think this last war proves it rips them apart, kills members of them, and severs the bonds that create close and loving families.

This apocalyptic and pessimistic view of the institution of the family and its future will sound alarmist to many, but I think it will prove accurate unless-unless-God’s people awaken and begin an even greater vigil of prayer for our nation. That’s why Shirley and I are urgently seeking the Lord’s favor and asking Him to hear the petitions of His people and heal our land.

As of this time, however, large segments of the church appear to be unaware of the danger; its leaders are surprisingly silent about our peril (although we are tremendously thankful for the efforts of those who have spoken out on this issue). The lawless abandon occurring recently in California, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Washington and elsewhere should have shocked us out of our lethargy. So far, I’m alarmed to say, the concern and outrage of the American people have not translated into action.

This reticence on behalf of Christians is deeply troubling. Marriage is a sacrament designed by God that serves as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and His Church. Tampering with His plan for the family is immoral and wrong. To violate the Lord’s expressed will for humankind, especially in regard to behavior that He has prohibited, is to court disaster.

• More religious banter that is not a reason how this affects me, and it doesn’t really affect Christians either because I know plenty of good (liberal) christians who somehow find it in their brains and hearts to accept gay marriage, weird, and contradictory.

~~~

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You should read the post just before this one as a precursor to this posting.[ here ]

I thought I would “take the study” that I talked about in my last blog post.

APPENDIX A: SENTENCE COMPLETION ITEMS

(answers in bold)

1. The sex of the boy is ________. male masculine

2. The girl’s gender is ________. female feminine

3. “Feminine is an adjective that best describes a person’s ________. sex gender

4. The ________ of the cat is male. sex gender

5. The woman decided to change her _______ with surgery. sex gender

6. The man decided to wear makeup, an evening gown, and high heels to the dinner. In doing so, he was able to convince people that he was a woman and in effect changed his _______. sex gender

7. ________ differences in the blood pressure readings of heart disease patients. sex gender

8. Youth and aggression: A study of _______ differences. sex gender

9. The first few days after she gave birth, relatives and friends wanted to know the _______ of the baby. sex gender

10. ________ is biologically determined. sex gender

11. The boy’s gender is ________. male masculine

12. The sex of the girl is _______. female feminine

13. “Masculine” is an adjective that best describes a person’s ________. sex gender

APPENDIX B: GENDER BELIEF ITEMS

1. The word “gender” can be used as a synonym for the word “sex.”

No, This cannot be true because gender is a term used for the social construction of how men and women should act. There needs to be a seperate term than sex that implies the social norms and rules of the sexes, which subsequently becomes “gender”. Because someone is born with a penis or vagina does not dictate (inherently) that they will wear certain clothing, play with certain toys, act in a certain way, treat others a certain way, or any of topic that can be explained through “gender”.

2. It is always correct to use the word gender when describing a person as male or female.

Well, male or female (to me) dictates biology - the pronouns used for having a certain type of genitalia, whereas the terms masculine and feminine describe the connoted actions of males and females (sex) to a social standard (gender).

3. Each person has a sex and a gender.

Sex - Yes
Gender - let’s get into tricky territory here. Although I don’t agree that anyone has to IDENTIFY as a given gender, I do believe that one cannot escape gender since it is the construction of social behavior. Regardless of whether I choose to do something in a purposeful manor or not, those actions are determinately gendered. Although there are many facets in life that can remain gender neutral, so much of our world is already gendered, and the choices we make reflect a “choice” that we have taken to fall somewhere on a gender spectrum. Now, just like with sexuality, there is a fluid gauge on a number line where you can be (gay / straight) masculine or feminine (and there are many gender lines - how you act at work, school, home, etc. could all portray different gender points). Using this argument and metaphor though, I could say that someone could choose to live without a gender because if pomosexuality (not identifying a sexual orientation) exists, the same could for gender. In this arrangement, though, just because one does not choose to identify does not mean that they do not have a sexuality or a gender. There is always gravitation. Because we live in a culture with so much information, how we act in accordance fills up the capacities of our gender tanks. Personally, I am always trying to stay away from stereotyping and worrying about doing something because it is “gendered”, which could be called gender bending, but because those predetermined lines are there, and gender is involved in EVERYTHING in our society, I would find it hard to say that a person doesn’t have a gender (as most of the time gender is given TO US).

4. A person’s sex does not necessarily match stereotypical gender assignment.

True. I think between the last blog, and the study, it is apparent that because someone has a certain biology it does not dictate their social actions and reactions.

5. There is something wrong or unhealthy with a male who does not possess a masculine gender.

False. Those are social weights put on men to act a certain way, that is often times very scary to deal with since it is a dominating and often oppressive radical view. The system of masculinity and femininity are truly only useful to determine suitability for someone to find a mate. Past gender as a “useful” tool for seeking out a mate, it serves little purpose other than social control. I have had a lot of debates about the “USE” of gender, and the only valid point I can accept is that it allows people to visibly know a potential mate, but there are problems with this too : the judgment of first impressions, the assumption that people do not gender bend, the superficiality of dating based solely on your containment of the visual aspects of others, etc. It’s obvious that if I see someone who looks like a “feminine” human, I will be able to note that they are a candidate for myself, but then this assumes that the only reason we interact, look, or seek out people is to mate with them, or within masculinity - to find “bros”. This is all very assumptuous, but I find little use in the concept of gender (which is ironic that I am so interested in it), and if others think it is unhealthy to not adhere to strong tendencies of masculinity (or femininity) , then I feel really bad that they feel that gender is that important to care about.

That was fun, feel free to post a comment with your version of the survey!

I was at work the other day, and I was fixing up a form that our office uses. When looking it all over, I came across two key points that separate two points of interest about our language about gender.

The first point comes directly from the fact the form said “gender”, and having taken classes and done a lot of research, I said to myself, “do they really want to know how you identify, behave, think, and express yourself, or do they want to know what organs you have”. In this moment, there was some self-sarcasm, in that, any type of office doesn’t really care about your expression. So, I changed “gender” to “sex” after having a conversation with a co-worker about it, which led to my second point.

Everything on this form was a check for something else. Their birthday verified who they were, their student number verified their accounts, and all of the other information on this form was essential to the process of our office, minus gender. My co-worker said “well, why do we even need it?”. Great point. When I brought it up to my supervisor, the only legible answer that could be brainstormed is that it could be embarrassing to say “he” when it is a “she”. I rebutted that you could use the pronoun “them” or “they”. I felt good enough that I got the form changed to sex because the reality is that if they had “gender”, a number line (1-10) would better suit the term.

At first, I wasn’t sure which term should be used because subconsciously I guess I was thinking “why is it even there”. If it is a pronoun indicator, is that really grounds for inclusion, when sex and gender expression can be such complex identities. What they really want to know is ANATOMY (maybe I should make an argument for that), but even then, we assume that those born with male genitalia wish to be called “he”. Anyways, I was doing research about whether or not “sex” or “gender” should go on legal paperwork. I couldn’t come across anything definitive. I did, however, come across this study [visit]. The study circumvented how people view the definitions of sex and gender.

To people who study it, gender indicates something about socialized behavior patterns. So when we read about gender differences, we may assume that the authors are focusing on social behaviors and psychological aspects of their participants. But when people are grouped into gender categories based on their sex, the study is just as likely to be about sex differences–perhaps more likely. It is not that the researchers are deciding to measure biological aspects of behavior. Yet, when the measurement of gender is equated with sex, the sex of the participant is all that is known. Still, it is often called gender. “Gender” sounds better to people. Using “gender” allows researchers to believe that they have realized that not all differences between males and females are determined by biology. But the measurement of gender by way of sex doesn’t acknowledge the multitude of individual responses to being born a particular sex. In this situation, there is no thorough assessment of gender.

I find this paragraph to be very telling. There seems to be a fallacy inherent in using gender because it sounds better to people — “researchers to believe that they have realized that not all differences between males and females are determined by biology”. First of all that should sort of be a “duh” moment for everyone reading. It’s obvious that women do not wear make-up because they have female genitalia, and although I think the progress shaping this language in a way that people can understand is a positive endeavor, but it seems like changing terms to gender (when it is apparent people do not know the differences) is falsely boosting-egos. I think about when someone put gender on the forms here at work, what were they thinking : nothing (probably). They probably thought, “gender sounds better than sex” (if they even considered it that much). The big joke people use when you write down sex is “often”, but have we really shifted the language to move away from juvenile thoughts about sex? I don’t think so, I just can’t offer any other explanations.

It might even be argued that simply replacing the term “sex” with the term “gender” is misleading. By discussing all research in terms of gender, “gender” becomes just another way of saying “sex.” Even if “gender” is used to convey the idea that all of the differences between men and women are the product of social meanings (Kessler & McKenna, 1978), it is possible that the biological distinctions communicated by the word “sex” are still being communicated by the word “gender.” To the uncritical eye, “gender” may become simply an indication that male/female difference is being discussed. And if psychologists want “gender” to convey meaning different from or without “sex,” then it is important that “gender” is not forever paired with “sex” in people’s minds. The meanings people glean from words are bound to influence both their understanding and their subsequent communication. [2]

This is the very next paragraph in the article, which seemingly tries to back up and explain some of the things said in the previous. The last sentence is really what this topic comes down to “the meanings people glean from words are bound to influence both their understanding and their subsequent communication”. In some ways, that is what I try to alleviate. I suppose this is where the road splits and the difference between what psychologists or sociologists want to study versus what should be on occupational paperwork portray differences. When I was talking to my supervisor about changing the form to “sex” with my explanation, she thought “i never even thought about it before” because she viewed them as synonyms.

It does seem like a minute point, but I think the above paragraph really nods toward why it can be detrimental to make words synonymous that really should be separate conceptually. For me, that is a large part of what I hope to achieve in whatever I end up doing. Although sexuality, sex, and gender are all very closely tied, I think it is important to take them in their given categories : health, orientation, biology, and sociology/psychology, and I think it’s important because :

Research and theory on the influence of language and word use suggest that the way in which people listen to and speak about a particular topic can influence their thoughts and beliefs about that topic.

The article later goes on to talk about their study between sex and gender (their main goal : finding out whether or not people view them as the same concept or not), which was fueled by a curiosity that nonpsychologists and even biopsychologists use sex and gender interchangeably.

Their study hypothesized :

1. most participants would use the words “sex” and “gender” interchangeably in a structured sentence completion task;

2. when asked what they thought of when they saw the word “gender,” many participants would respond with “sex;

3. participants who had not had much exposure to gender theory (through college classes in women’s studies or psychology) would confuse the terms more often than people who had had some exposure to gender theory.

The only thing that worries be about this study is that the respondent rate is only 54.8% (250 recruits). The total amount of completed surveys tallied at 136, but considering this is just a small scale research to see how people define the terms, it gives some insight at the very least.

I won’t go on too long about the actual survey they gave, as you can read that yourself, but i thought their questions were done very well (even though I feel they were a little more guided than they should be).

(e.g., “The sex of the boy is_____. Male/Masculine”; “The girl’s gender is_____. Female/Feminine”; “The_____of the cat is male. Sex/gender”) (Appendix A provides a full listing of the 13 items).

The interesting part of this for me is “The ____ of the cat is male”. I think they were going for “male and sex” go together, but I have never thought about animals having “gender”, that is a side thought, but something interesting to think about (maybe another blog!). The funny thing is that at the end there is an appendix of all of the questions, and I viewed it more as a QUIZ than a SURVEY, but that is just because of my position on gender (i think i got 100). Right after this I will post another blog with my answers to the survey! (and if you want you can comment with yours!)

I will let all of you read the results, but the results are wired with connections. I found this piece of explanation especially interesting considering their fill in the blank portion of the survey where “The Sex of the Boy is MALE, would be the ‘correct gender/sex language choice”), but look at this :

Several correlations were found between participants’ Sexual Identity Scores (SIS) and their answers on items 4, 5, 6, 9, and 11. Table IV displays the correlations for these items. The SIS scale creates a masculine/feminine continuum, so scores on the low end (100) are considered very masculine and scores on the high end (500) are considered very feminine. The more feminine participants rated themselves on the scale, the more they agreed that sex is not required to match stereotypic gender

Notice, the two words I bolded? Their scoring system falls into the same trap. They are saying Sex = Masculine and Feminine. This should obviously be the “Gender Identity Score” (GIS). I guess this goes to show how ingrained the language of sex and gender actually go.

Aside from that, the results were that feminine females felt aspects of gender might change and masculine males found it appropriate to define gender in coordination with “male”. That kind of scares me, because it places a deep emphasis that those terms should not be separated, and really roots out a ostracizing attitude towards those who do not fall distinctly as 100% male or female.

The good thing is that they found that most people used gender in the appropriate places and sex in the appropriate (biologically cued) places.

I suppose my greatest critique with the study is that I think people deep down know there is a difference between gender and sex because sex does imply biology solely, and there are so many things in our societies that are based on paradigms not presented in reproduction, but to most these are nuances, minutia, centimeters between each other, but if you CUE THEM, then I would assume they would get a majority of those cues correct (even if they were based on forms they have filled out in their life). I do think they study was well put together and that there were interesting and unexpected results to a degree, but I guess my concern lies with not knowing when to use the correct terms (it seems base-level and everyone should know the differences — and I realize they do not, which is why this study was conducted), but really a comprehension of the differences. I do appreciate that this is the first step in that direction because if people know the difference between biological cues and sociological cues, then they will be able to discern that G.I. versus Barbie is a gender concern, not a sex concern — in which it does all come back to language.

Overall, I thought the study was great, I wish they had send it out to 10,000 people! (time and money, I know!) because I am sure a lot of those participants that did choose the right answers were using the terms interchangeably beforehand, and it may have probed them to use these terms in their ‘appropriate’ places.

Let me know what you think about the study or just about the terms in general. I know one pet peeve I have with MYSELF in gender language (and another key point to this study is that it was very basic between sex and gender, and not even specifically talking about ‘gendered terms’ per se). For example, I often say “hey guys”, regardless of the group - males and females, all males, or all females. Every single time, after, I think to myself “i wish I had said something else”. It’s something I work on, but I never say “opposite gender/sex” anymore because I really don’t see men and women as opposites (inspired by a sociology professor). I guess it all boils down to just understanding the language we use and when we use it!

I could not live without music, but better yet I couldn’t live without music that truly makes me think. Of course, we listen to music on the radio, in our car, while we work, while we eat, etc., but when I listen to music, I normally listen to the lyrics — what is the message the song is sending. This is one reason I really cannot relate to mainstream music, I feel the messages are bogged down with oppression for individuality. I cannot relate to a lot of mainstream rap because I feel it degrades women (and over-emphasizes a capitalistic lifestyle), so I find my range of music adjusting into indie a lot of times. Even though this happens, there are usually decent messages, but every so often, very progressive messages comes along. Now, one has to be careful with messages of progression because they could just be subterfuge to get people to think one thing but are really prescribing to another (see my post about Avril Lavigne), and although I am not sure the background of Saving Jane, I really liked this song when I found it. I have done some work with gender roles in fairy tales and how our culture still is creating the “same ole fairy tale”, and this song a girl (princess) realizes she does not need to live in that fairy tale!

BETTER DAY 

I have been asleep so long now
All locked up without a key
I have tapped my feet impatient
For a change to come to me
I’ve been hanging my hair
Outside this tower
Waiting for a savior
When all along I had the power to save myself
And I can tell
It’s gonna be a better day
I think I’m gonna be okay
Got a little air to breathe
It’s allright with me
I got a little light to shine
You can’t take what’s mine
I’ve been down so low
Nowhere but up to go
So go ahead, bring on the rain
It’s gonna be a better day

Every princess has a castle
Some kind of honor to defend
I would rather fight my battlews
Than hide behind a thousand men
I’ve been hanging my hair
Outside of this tower
Waiting for a savior
When all along, I had the power to save myself
And I can tell
It’s gonna be a better day
I think I’m gonna be okay
Got a little air to breathe
It’s allright with me
I got a little light to shine
You can’t take what’s mine
I’ve been down so low
Nowhere but up to go
So go ahead, bring on the rain
It’s gonna be a better day
I gotta make my own luck
I gotta find my own way
I gotta see that there is more to life than just existing
I wanna be living
It’s gonna be a better day
I think I’m gonna be okay
Got a little air to breathe
It’s allright with me
I got a little light to shine
You can’t take what’s mine
I’ve been down so low
Nowhere but up to go
So go ahead, bring on the rain
It’s gonna be a better day

I think Saving Jane has been on some Disney album before, so I think this is a nice message to be sending young girls, that they have the power to be who they want. She also has a song called One Girl Revolution. Although a few of her other songs take on messages around addiction (nicotine, alcohol), there is something to be said about breaking away from the fairy tale (reference to Rapunzel in this song). I find it interesting that so often parents do not question “traditions” that have been around for ages to pass along to their children, like fairy tales. There is so much gendering that happens in fairy tales, which is just one of a hundred ways parents subconsciously gender their children. I know if I ever have children I am showing them Free To Be You And Me (see my post here : http://www.wavinghand.com/gender_relations/?p=13). There is some great alternative media / stories if people were to seek them out, and I think this song helps get at breaking the helplessness of females in fairy tales! 

I have been reading “The Body Adornment Encyclopedia”, and there is just a load of great information in it (I suggest reading it to anyone - even if you aren’t overly interested in the topic of body modification), and like with any subject there are gender implications to some of the information. I haven’t read the entire thing yet, but I will post some more gender related comments as I go through! For now, I have two main comments!

• In the book it was talking about “Beauty” (B) - and how the standards for women are much higher for men and much more unobtainable and a lot of the things I think a lot of people would agree with. Then they went on to talk about how a common feminist philosophy is that women are supposed to be thin for a very literal and figurative reason - to take up less space. I had never thought about beauty standards being so literal before - that the skinner women are the less room they take up on earth (and on the other side that men are bulkier because they can / should take up more room). Whether it is a stretch of a metaphor or not, there is a valid passing thought to be considered that asks what other reasons is skinny so popular. I mean obesity could just as easily be considered the standard under different social perceptions? Regardless, interesting metaphor to think about.

_

• The other point I thought was just flatout disgusting was under Australia (A). Talking about native tribes and traditions (in relation to rites of passage) the author describes the male maturity process. The male (usually 12 years of age) goes into the forest alone (separated in a very direct way from his mother), and must find his way back to the tribe. Waiting there will be his male blood relatives as well as his future ‘in-laws’ (as the bride will be picked for him - also around the age of 12). From there, they circumcise the boy and make him eat his own flesh. The circumcision is a very direct metaphor for bleeding out any signs of femininity that the boy may have left (and at times later on they will make an incision under the shaft of the penis in order to make sure the boy has drenched out all femininity). Thinking about cross-cultural perspectives of gender always opens a whole new bag of worms because there are different customs all over the world. In America we go about gendering in such an overt way (comparatively). I just find it rather depressing that some cultures find that having qualities of other genders / sex to be such a demoralizing stance, that they must cut it out of themselves. I wonder where that intense segregation comes (in other cultures). It is different from country to country and even tribe to tribe. I do get glimmers of hope when I hear about a lot of Native America tribes and how they treat their women. For example, when women are on their “moon” (period), it is a time for them to relax, and men see it as a cycle of wisdom. Now, that is a much different interpretation than this Australian tribe. (There is a great article called “If Men Could Menstruate” - but i’ll save that for another time!)

Those were two pieces of the book that really shouted out “GENDER ALERT” to me. There is some great info about Betty Broadbent in the book too (the first women to be fully tattooed). She was a pioneer for the tattoo culture bad in the day (she had 365 - one for each day). It was nice to read about a woman from a long time ago becoming part of a culture that was mostly started by sailors, then advanced by bikers (and carnival folk).

Well, hopefully you found those points of focus interesting as well, if I see anything else of relation in the book, i’ll be sure to post!

REMEMBER TO VOTE TOMORROW NOV. 4th!

This election has very apparently been on that has been shrouded with gender opinions across the board. From Hillary’s crying game to Palin’s moose shooting tactics, the battles of gender have been brought into the spotlight of politics more than ever (at least at the presidential level).

In a recent article on Galesburg.com, it was suggested that gender does play a role in this current election. One older woman in the article suggests that Palin has murky views on the role of women, thinking they should just sit in their homes all day. This, too, is what bothers me about Sarah Palin. Going back to the idea that she believes that women should have to pay for rape kits, her views on femininity feel overflowed with contradiction. On one hand she lives the very stereotypical ‘beauty’ role of women in society (pagent, etc.), but then on the other hand is a women who ‘could be’ a strong politician (with more experience), and is very pro-gun (a typical male recreation). The point is that even though she sits back and defies some gender roles, she is quick to throw other women even further in the bucket of their ‘place in society’.

Not A Kiss I Want

One point of take-off that I find very interesting is that men and women are voting rather equally in this election. 52% of women projected for Obama and 49% of men for McCain. Although my tendencies would be to lean that women are more liberal (historically more oppressed groups are more liberal), but it seems pretty even. I just find it very hard to believe that women could vote for an administration that would make them pay for a rape kit. The very notion of such a law is a slap in the face to victims, which surprises me the % of women is not higher as women statistically care more about health care in this election. Even though I feel like the divides should be bigger, it is kind of nice to see women and men equally thinking the same about the issues.

I also read a recent article about women in politics and how they may need a little extra than a good platform to win over the people (i.e. a good looking face or body). A study done by Northwestern University found :

• Voters perceived the faces of male politicians as more competent and dominant relative to female politicians.
• Female politicians were perceived as more attractive and approachable relative to males.
• Candidates who were perceived as more attractive by men were more likely to win votes in the actual Congressional election.
• Gender stereotypes may bias voters to value male politicians over female politicians because they possess facial features associated with effective leaders.

Although, I take a very sociological stance on just about everything I read, watch, or observe, the last point sends out an interesting psychological message as well as one that could be contradictory. It may be true that we associate male facial features with success, which may aide to some of the discrimination that Obama has faced. We have to wake up to our biases because they are holding down people who can create change for us. Just because Sarah Palin has a pretty face does not mean she has any competence. I would argue the contrary — That women who meet the standards of beauty for our society are less percieved to do a good job because women in this setting are percieved to have lower intelligence. Even though this is not true, it seems to be antithetical to the logic behind the facial arguement.

Although I am sure Sarah Palin being VP would raise some interesting gender issues for politics, I can only hope that she does not make it to that seat because this would mean setting the thoughts of feminism back moreso than the counter-party.

As a follow-up of my last post on “vagina dentata” in a film (Teeth), I want to address a real life example that works with the implications of the film. South African inventor, Sonnet Ehlers created a “toothed-condom” called Rapex to protect women against the horrors of rape. If anyoneknows anything about how women are treated in Africa with female genital mutilation as well as other forms of abuse and inequality (cutting of breasts, etc.), this toothed condom cannot really be considered extreme or a joke.

The condom (which I am a little unsure of why it is called a condom) can only be removed by a doctor once inserted because of the dangers it could produce.

There is a lot of controversy surrounding this condom (that was announced some years ago), but women who suffer from sexual assault need a way to fight back (especially in a culture that does not govern these assaults). The biggest controversy is over how the medieval nature of this “barbaric” vagina suit remains. Once a man is inside of a woman the teeth surround the penis and wrap themselves around the head of the penis. The only way to remove the condom at this point is for a doctor to surgically remove it (as the barbs embed themselves rather deeply). People are saying that this is barbaric, but if it can help thousands and thousands of women who are raped annually, why is this such a bad invention?

Some say women could use it as a revenge tactic, but why even go that route when a woman could just as easily use a knife to cut off a penis if she was out for revenge rather than but her own safety in danger? I can’t imagine a lot of women would want to put a toothed condom in themselves unless they were extremely worried about the possibilities of being raped. I agree that some percentage of women could use this as a tool to claim rape as a revenge tactic, but I think the percentage would be lower than 1% of rapes. Plus, having this toothed condom is not an indictment to the court, as much as it is a piece of evidence. Regardless, I highly doubt women would go around putting toothed condoms in their vagina to hail revenge against men. We are forgetting that we live in a world dominated by patriarchy — not matriarchy.

Another piece of the contraversy is that this is a tool of male hating. Ehlers says she does not hate men, but rather wants to protect women from the degradation of rape — a tool of empowerment.

Personally, I see the fact that someone had to invent such a device as the saddest part of this story. Why do we live in a world where a woman has to put teeth inside her vagina in order to keep away from misogyny-centric behaviors. If this is a way that women can prevent the horrors of rape that can lead to severe mental and emotional problems as well transmittance of STI’s and risk of pregnancy - then that is the world we live in.

SOURCE
http://news.softpedia.com/news/A-Toothed-Anti-Rape-Condom-for-Women-49893.shtml