Language and Gender

After reading Butler's piece, "On Linguistic Vulnerability,"  some things were stuck in my mind. I found it interesting the ways in which she placed blame on speech, and the particular person who spoke. It is clear that we control our speech, but it is a little less clear the importance of our speech. There are many words and phrases that we do not understand the meaning of, or the negative connotations that go with them. I enjoyed the discussion of name calling. While it is clear that there are many instances of name calling that do hurt people's feelings, etc, it is less clear that "if language can sustain the body, it can also threaten its existence." (Page 5). Many meanings can change over time, and name calling can certainly take a word that once meant nothing negative, and turn it into something that changes what a person thinks of their self. It can give the person speaking a sense of power, as they are placing subordination on the person whom they are directing their speech. 

While much of the speech was interesting to me, it seemed as though it could have been information that was implied from others as well. The most interesting discussion was that of gender. We talked in class about the words "boy" and "girl." In my women's studies class, we discussed gender stereotypes and differences. Within the discussion of Butler's piece, we mentioned that when shopping for baby gifts, the words "boy" and "girl" are of large importance in determining what the gift may be, in terms of gender stereotype. While I had thought about the fact that these stereotypes existed, I never thought about the fact that it was in the meaning of the word, rather than the social meaning. Butler's article allowed me to give more thought to this, and the ways in which other words can change meaning based on the person using it, and the connotation given to it. 

Feminist Consciousness

While I have taken many philosophy courses, and women's studies courses, I have yet to fully understand the meaning of either until reading Bartky's piece about the Feminist Consciousness. Until reading this piece, I would not have been able to define or explain what being a feminist is made up of. This article allowed me to better understand the meaning of feminism, and the ways in which it is necessary to interpret one's own meaning as a woman in American society, through their feminist consciousness. It was important to understand the ways in which feminist consciousness came about in our culture, due to some of the very important historical and social aspects that our society has faced. I think that Bartky was correct in stating that one of the most immediate causes of the emergence of feminist consciousness was the Civil Rights Era. This was an era of striving to achieve equal rights for humans, although it was primarily focused on racial discrimination. This article allowed me to understand the ways in which women were left out of this era, and although it was an issue of human rights as well as civil rights, women, being human, were overlooked. 

I enjoyed the ways in which Bartky wrote her article, although I have a problem with the ways in which it is focused directly at men. I think that it would be wrong to say that ALL men oppress women, although this is the case in many situations, I do not think it encompasses all men in this country. She makes it apparent that it would be very difficult for men to become feminists and develop a feminist consciousness. This would imply that in addition for men not being able to take notice of women's oppression, that the white majority would not be able to take note of the oppression of the minority of human's in our country. While Bartky did make some excellent arguments in her piece, I think that it could have been written towards a more broad audience, to better help let the rest of society understand that they can help in developing a feminist consciousness, and raise awareness for the oppression of women everywhere. 

Against Marriage and Motherhood (Card)

Claudia Card argues against marriage in her article titled "Against Marriage and Motherhood." It is clear that marriage is a three party relationship, including the state (law) as the third party. This makes it extremely difficult for gay and lesbian marriages to exist in our society. Claudia Card argues that there are some things that are inherently wrong with marriage, which with this realization, could lead to one of her suggestions happening. Although I do not completely agree with this suggestion, I think that Card provides some very legitimate reasons for why eliminating the rights of marriage would not be that bad of an idea. She find four problems that are inherently wrong with marriage, the first being the economic benefits that come with a legally married couple. Second, divorce can be hard, and next, legal monogamy. Lastly, the legal rights of access married partners have to one another property, etc. Marriage is clearly an issue that is involved with the state, as exemplified in these four problems. 

Next Card discusses the issue of the family, and the fact that marriage allows the law to decipher who is and who isn't part of a family (ie: marriage, etc.). This is to say that the law is allow to determine who can be married, therefore, determine once children are produced, what parents are actually a part of that family, legally. Parenting is a large part of marriage, and Card argues that parents are not necessarily those that are doing the parenting, rahter babysitters, day care centers, etc. She claims that the so-called access to a mother does not guarantee care taking, therefore the need for parents is not as legitimate. However, I find some things wrong with this situation. I was raised by one nanny my entire childhood. Both of my parents worked, and it was necessary for this to happen. While I was part of a legitimate, legal family, Card would argue that I was not being given love, supervision, etc, from my parents. I would disagree with this, and argue that there are ways to have the best of both worlds. Yes I was raised by someone other than my parents, but that does not go to say that my parents did not raise me as well. It is possible for parents to do all of the above, and maintain a job, and in a society where capitalism prevails all, I think that this is something that is more and more common, and if it has worked for this amount of time, I think that there is nothing, inherently wrong with it, contrary to the beliefs of Card. 

Cultural Phenomenons

After reading Nazneen's article, "Violence in Bangladesh," and Jaggar's article, "Saving Amina," I was shocked to realize the true meaning of cultural phenomenon's. The reality of cultural phenomenon's are actually quite scary, in a sense. Things that would be considered illegal and absolutely ridiculous and morally and ethically wrong in the Western world, are considered culturally traditional in places such as Bangladesh, or other less developed countries. Practices such as FGM, dowry-marriages, and such, are considered normal in these cultures, whereas in America, they would not be accepted. 

Nussbaum does a lot in talking about "fixing" such things, but it is clear that although Westerner's want to help, there is a sense of overstepping boundaries, especially when it comes to the difference of cultures. I believe that it would obviously be beneficial to these cultures to learn more about their practices, and this knowledge would possibly put an end to the harmful cultural phenomenon's. It seems unbelievable that a culture would accept violating women in the ways that they do, especially because women are such an important part of any culture, due to reproduction. However, it has become more and more clear to me how important tradition in ones culture is, and the ways in which it clearly has an impact, even in modern day cultures and societies. 

Medicine and Violence Against Women

Wilkerson's piece "Her own body her own worst enemy: The medicalization of violence against women," left the class discussion in a large amount of debate. I had a lot of trouble wrapping my thoughts around this class discussion and the reading itself. There were a large amount of valid arguments brought up during this class, but I continued to have trouble acknowledging the legitimacy of some of the arguments. We found ourselves arguing mostly in terms of the issue of doctors lack of requirement to report domestic violence. I think that the answer to this should be clear, and I do not think that this was expressed in class as well as it could have been. I believe that in the case of clear domestic violence, it should be the case that the woman is immediately taken to the psych ward, and that the situation should be further investigated. There are obviously going to be cases that are a bit more grey than they straight black or white issues of domestic violence. 

What bothers me about this issue, is that if it were the case of other violence issues, it would be a given answer. In addition, I cannot help but think of other issues of hospital visits. There are many instances where a patient visits the hospital for help, and it involves alcohol. In this case, it is obvious that the hospital will immediately send the patient to get help, in terms of a drinking problem, or a violence problem. In addition, there are times when someone could be injured, and the one who injured them is found out to be drunk. These cases are sent to other levels of authority as well. I believe that cases of domestic violence should be treated just as these cases. While doctors do not necessarily have the knowledge to diagnose someone with an issue such as this, it should be the case that they overreact, just as they often do to a broken arm, or leg. Overreacting could save the future of a person, man or woman, and it could be that extra step that would lead to the end of domestic violence in that particular household, etc. 

Pregnancy and Medicine

After reading Young's piece titled "Pregnant Embodiment: Subjectivity and Alienation," it seems as though there are some conflicts in societies opinion of pregnancy. Throughout many class discussions and readings based on the cultural opinion and ideas about pregnancy, it has come to my attention that one of the sole purposes of women is for reproduction. We have been taught to assume that women are meant to be pregnant, and continue to reproduce, time after time. While this is not the reality of the capabilities of a woman, it is still assumed that women are supposed to produce offspring more frequently than not. 

In Young's discussion of pregnancy, she discusses the medicalization of pregnancy. She implies that the practices of medicine cause a notion of alienation in the pregnant woman. Once medicine and the practices of the institution of medicine are introduced into the topic of pregnancy, according to Young, it makes it as though the status of the woman is that of illness, not excitement. No longer is the woman being viewed as this great reproducing body, rather, it is implied that she is injured or ill, and she needs to be treated differently. I think that this makes it seem as though there are negative connotations which go along with pregnancy. Pregnancy becomes devalued, and the woman is looked at and treated much differently than a non-pregnant woman. I agree with Young's views on this issue, and the ways in which a pregnant woman is viewed goes against many of the ways in which they are intended to be viewed in our society. 

FGM

Female Genital Mutilation is an issue discussed at length by Martha Nussbaum. I agree with many of the issues that Nussbaum draws upon in her discussion of this cultural phenomenon, and the ways in which she views the practice. After reading Nussbaums article, titled "Judging Other Cultures: The Case of Female Genital Mutilation," I have come to realize the reality of the ways in which Westerners view non-Western societies practices as being wrong, and if not for the help of the opinion of the Westerner, it may be the case that these wrongful practices would continue to take place. 

Nussbaum believes that it is wrong to criticize another culture without criticizing the wrong doings in one's own culture. American's display the sense of self-criticism in terms of body image. There are many criticisms from outsiders to the ways in which Westerners view FGM practices. Nussbaum agrees with the first criticism, but disagrees with the next three common criticisms. I agree with her analysis of these criticisms, especially in reference to the fact that many of them compare FGM to American practices. I do not think that it is the case that FGM can be compared to Western practices such as body image or dieting. These practices take place by choice. It is not often that an American woman is physically forced into dieting or plastic surgery, etc. While it is the case that the media does persuade the public to look a particular way, I do not believe that the media is FORCING women to do these things. Contrary to this, FGM is a practice of force. Mothers, grandmothers, and fathers, those who have power and strength in the society, and elders, are forcing the practices of FGM on the young girls of their communities, making it nearly impossible for the to refuse the phenomenon of their culture.