Sunday, March 27, 2011
The Way I See It #5
Jesus ate with tax collectors. He said, let he without sin cast the first stone. He overturned the tables of corruption. He fed the hungry. He loved his neighbor. He preached forgiveness. If Jesus were alive today, he would be called a socialist and a liberal extremist. I am truly honored to be called the same.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Blaming the Victim
When reading the articles this week about violent and victimized bodies, I was surprised at the lack attention given to the phenomenon of blaming the victim. Two articles in particular stuck out to me as overlooking this important theme. Jocelyn Hollander discusses in her article, “Vulnerability and Dangerousness: The Construction of Gender through Conversations about Violence,” that everyday conversations reinforce views of women as vulnerable to violence and men as potentially dangerous. She points out that though men are most often targets of violence, women fear being a victim of violence much more than men. She claims that this is because widely shared conceptions of gender associate femininity with vulnerability and masculinity with dangerousness. In her discussion, however, Hollander fails to consider that this fear of victimization is exacerbated by the knowledge of the blame that will be attributed to a woman if she is victimized.
Hollander points out that women who are seen as being at the peak of sexual desirability are considered the most vulnerable. She does not, however, consider that this may be due to the fact that society is likely to blame women for being raped because by being sexually attractive or dressed too provocatively they were in some way “asking for it”. Angela, a participant in Hollander’s study highlights this in her statement, “I have a feeling for these young girls, when they’re running, and they wear this little provocative stuff. And I make [my daughter] cover up.” This shows that Angela is not only fearful of her daughter being victimized, but also that she knows that society places fault on women who decide not to “cover up.” Women in this study also frequently mention walking in groups, avoiding sketchy areas at night, asking men to walk them to their cars, and practicing other protective measures. While these examples support the author’s point that women feel more vulnerable to violence, they also speak to the idea that women are required to take these steps in order to avoid double victimization. In other words, women that do not take precautionary steps are often blamed for any violence directed towards them. Women should not walk alone at night, wear tight clothing, travel alone, and go running by themselves, along with a multitude of other constraints. Women know that should they violate anything on this expansive list of restrictions on their personal agency, they are not only more likely to be victimized, but also blamed for their victimization.
Brent Staples article, “Just Walk on By: A Black Man Ponders his Power to Alter Public Space,” also neglects this theme of blaming women for their victimization. In this reflection, Staples discusses his experiences as a black man walking the streets of Chicago. He explains the multitude of constraints placed on him to give other pedestrians, especially women, a great deal of space so that they do not feel threatened by his presence. We see through the eyes of a young man facing the stigma of discrimination, and fearing that one false move might set off an altercation. Throughout the article, however, I could not help but consider the perspective of these women walking the streets late at night, clutching their purses close to them and crossing the street. Just as discriminatory beliefs create a societal fear of the young, black man, these beliefs also tell women that they should not be walking alone at night, flashing around their money, and talking to strangers. Women are not only fearful that they may be victimized by some strange man on the street, but also that they will be blamed for their victimization. It seems, then, that it is not just discriminatory beliefs about young, black men, but also sexism and blaming of the victim that is causing women to cross the street.
Hollander points out that women who are seen as being at the peak of sexual desirability are considered the most vulnerable. She does not, however, consider that this may be due to the fact that society is likely to blame women for being raped because by being sexually attractive or dressed too provocatively they were in some way “asking for it”. Angela, a participant in Hollander’s study highlights this in her statement, “I have a feeling for these young girls, when they’re running, and they wear this little provocative stuff. And I make [my daughter] cover up.” This shows that Angela is not only fearful of her daughter being victimized, but also that she knows that society places fault on women who decide not to “cover up.” Women in this study also frequently mention walking in groups, avoiding sketchy areas at night, asking men to walk them to their cars, and practicing other protective measures. While these examples support the author’s point that women feel more vulnerable to violence, they also speak to the idea that women are required to take these steps in order to avoid double victimization. In other words, women that do not take precautionary steps are often blamed for any violence directed towards them. Women should not walk alone at night, wear tight clothing, travel alone, and go running by themselves, along with a multitude of other constraints. Women know that should they violate anything on this expansive list of restrictions on their personal agency, they are not only more likely to be victimized, but also blamed for their victimization.
Brent Staples article, “Just Walk on By: A Black Man Ponders his Power to Alter Public Space,” also neglects this theme of blaming women for their victimization. In this reflection, Staples discusses his experiences as a black man walking the streets of Chicago. He explains the multitude of constraints placed on him to give other pedestrians, especially women, a great deal of space so that they do not feel threatened by his presence. We see through the eyes of a young man facing the stigma of discrimination, and fearing that one false move might set off an altercation. Throughout the article, however, I could not help but consider the perspective of these women walking the streets late at night, clutching their purses close to them and crossing the street. Just as discriminatory beliefs create a societal fear of the young, black man, these beliefs also tell women that they should not be walking alone at night, flashing around their money, and talking to strangers. Women are not only fearful that they may be victimized by some strange man on the street, but also that they will be blamed for their victimization. It seems, then, that it is not just discriminatory beliefs about young, black men, but also sexism and blaming of the victim that is causing women to cross the street.
The “Ideal” Body Type
In, “Women and Their Hair: Seeking Power through Resistance and Accommodation,” Rose Weitz explains that the body is a site for struggle over power, especially between men and women. Women use their bodies in ways to gain power either by accommodating conventional ideas about beauty or by resisting these norms. Weitz claims that hairstyles are a prime example of this power struggle. Some women seek to gain power by embodying cultural norms about hair, while others seek less feminine, professional styles so that they will be taken more seriously. Similarly, Evelyn Glenn argues in, “Yearning for Lightness: Transnational Circuits in the Marketing of Skin Lighteners,” that light skin operates as a form of symbolic capital, and that women use skin lighteners to climb the social hierarchy. She stresses that women use these skin lighteners in an attempt to achieve conventional ideas of whiter skin color to gain power. While both articles state that ideas of attractiveness vary by region, class, ethnicity, and country, they still operate under the assumption that there is some “ideal” conventional view of beauty. Weitz claims that the traditional view of attractive female hair is long, curly, blonde, and intentionally styled hair. Glenn claims that women seek to achieve white skin. By assuming, however, that there is an “ideal” beauty type, the authors are insinuating that some females could possibly possess these ideal traits and embody this powerful, self-confident woman who has no insecurities about her body. This seems highly unlikely. Instead, I argue there is no sole ideal body type for women, and that beauty is sought by altering one’s natural appearance.
Weitz claims that women with long, curly, blonde, styled hair best fit the conventional idea of beauty. If this were true, it would seem that women with curly hair would not have to do much to style their hair. This is not the case, however. Many women with naturally curly hair spend hours applying straitening lotion and flat ironing their hair until it is strait and smooth. Many females with straight hair, on the other hand, spend money on perms to give volume to their so called dull hair. It does not seem that there is some “ideal” hairstyle, but rather an idea that hair in its natural state is not beautiful. Glenn explains that darker women use skin lighteners in order to achieve this ideal image of whiteness. She briefly mentions tanning, but then quickly moves on saying that this was a craze in the 30’s and 40’s but has largely gone away since the 80’s when sun rays were found to be damaging. Glenn dismisses tanning too quickly without considering how many women still go to tanning beds, as well as products geared toward darkening the skin like spray tans and lotions. Again, it seems that there is no ideal skin tone, merely the idea that one’s natural skin tone is not beautiful enough.
It is obvious that certain norms about beauty do exist. Being overweight, being a minority, and having acne are obviously strikes against ideas of feminine beauty. It is also important not to overlook historical context in which whiter skin has been valued at the expense of those with darker skin. To suggest, however, that there is some ideal type of female beauty suggests that some women are safe from scrutiny. This, however, does not seem to be the case. It is more plausible that there is a looser framework of ideals of femininity, and while some may fit these ideals better than others, no female can be considered the ideal type. Instead, females are conditioned to believe that they are not beautiful naturally, and must substantially alter their bodies in order to achieve this elusive “ideal” type.
Weitz claims that women with long, curly, blonde, styled hair best fit the conventional idea of beauty. If this were true, it would seem that women with curly hair would not have to do much to style their hair. This is not the case, however. Many women with naturally curly hair spend hours applying straitening lotion and flat ironing their hair until it is strait and smooth. Many females with straight hair, on the other hand, spend money on perms to give volume to their so called dull hair. It does not seem that there is some “ideal” hairstyle, but rather an idea that hair in its natural state is not beautiful. Glenn explains that darker women use skin lighteners in order to achieve this ideal image of whiteness. She briefly mentions tanning, but then quickly moves on saying that this was a craze in the 30’s and 40’s but has largely gone away since the 80’s when sun rays were found to be damaging. Glenn dismisses tanning too quickly without considering how many women still go to tanning beds, as well as products geared toward darkening the skin like spray tans and lotions. Again, it seems that there is no ideal skin tone, merely the idea that one’s natural skin tone is not beautiful enough.
It is obvious that certain norms about beauty do exist. Being overweight, being a minority, and having acne are obviously strikes against ideas of feminine beauty. It is also important not to overlook historical context in which whiter skin has been valued at the expense of those with darker skin. To suggest, however, that there is some ideal type of female beauty suggests that some women are safe from scrutiny. This, however, does not seem to be the case. It is more plausible that there is a looser framework of ideals of femininity, and while some may fit these ideals better than others, no female can be considered the ideal type. Instead, females are conditioned to believe that they are not beautiful naturally, and must substantially alter their bodies in order to achieve this elusive “ideal” type.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Double victimization
Today, I read that a girl had been sexually assaulted at an FSU frat party. This information was disturbing enough, but what I read after that was even more disgusting. The writer directed this statement to the victim, “you went to the party, what did you honestly expect would happen?” I can guarantee you that the victim was not expecting to get raped. I am sick of hearing crass and untrue statements such as this that only perpetuate the idea that somehow rape is the victim’s fault. “She was wearing revealing clothes, so even though she said no she really meant yes.” “She didn’t lock all of her doors and windows at night so it’s her fault.” “She was walking down the street at night by herself, she was asking for it.” We never hear these statements about men. Men are allowed to wear what they want, walk where they want, and forget to lock a door without fear of being blamed for any mishaps. If someone robs them, the robber is at fault. Why is it not the same for women? Women are expected to live in this sheltered, cautioned world with a fraction of the freedoms men get. Yet, when something goes wrong, we instinctively blame them. “They weren’t careful enough,” or “they should have known.” Until we, as a society, start pointing our fingers at the real perpetrators, the rapists, nothing will ever change. We have laws against rape, yet so many women are afraid to press charges because of how they will look. The one’s that do press charges have the added burden of proving there was no consent. Because of our hostile view of victims, many rapists simply get away with it, and are free to continue their heinous behavior. It is time for a societal shift in view point. We need to stand up and point our fingers where they truly belong; at the rapist.
Monday, May 10, 2010
The Way I See It #3
I’ve never really subscribed to the notion that there is one person out there, made just for you, and that you must find this person in order to be happy. You may be thinking that I am a terribly jaded person, but hear me out. Love, to me, is about compromise. Love is caring so deeply for someone else that you see past their flaws. The beauty of love is in its unwavering forgiveness. The idea of having a ‘soul mate’ diminishes the power of love. If there is truly someone out there who is perfect for you, then you never have to make compromises, or learn to forgive. You will never grow as a person discovering how to love an individual despite his or her faults. No. Love is much more powerful and transformative than that. Love is caring so much for someone that you both grow together. You compromise, forgive, and laugh together. And though the two of you were not ‘made’ for each other in the beginning, through love, you are perfect for one another in the end.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070
It is astounding to me how many people actually believe that our country is beyond racism. It is easy for whites, including me, to forget all the privileges we receive daily solely because of the color of our skin. It is much more difficult to recognize that our power and privilege comes at the detriment of others. People who do not discuss race relations and claim that our nation is now ‘colorblind’ are ignoring the facts. They say that liberals are racist for not jumping on the Pleasantville bandwagon. These political pundits are either under the misconception that ignoring racism will make it disappear, or they have a much more sinister plan at work. Maybe by convincing people that racism doesn’t exist, they can exploit the system while calling all of their critics crazy. After all, how can you exploit a system that doesn’t exist?
While I’d like to believe that these pundits are just misinformed, recent legislation has shown a much darker side. Arizona has passed Immigration Law SB 1070. This law proclaims that law enforcement officers, with “reasonable suspicion,” have the right to question individuals on their immigration status.
“For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.”
Since “reasonable suspicion” is so vaguely defined, this means that officers may stop anyone who looks like an illegal immigrant and ask them for their identification papers. What exactly does an illegal immigrant look like? Hispanic? Black? Asian? But certainly not white. So police officers have every right to pull over a Hispanic driver, solely based on his or her race, and demand to see identification. American citizens, on their way to work, school, or home can be stopped and questioned on a whim. These American citizens can have their daily lives disrupted repeatedly, causing them to be late to work or picking up their children from school. And god forbid accidently leaving your ID at home. I have a feeling that if the roles were reversed, if white middle aged men in suits were being stopped and interrogated on the streets, we would call this law a gross invasion of our privacy. What’s next? Houses searched in the middle of the night? Temporary aliens forced to sew yellow stars on their shirts so that we can keep close watch over them? The unbridled discretion of law enforcement officers resembles that of a totalitarian regime. They don’t even need warrants for arrests:
“A Law Enforcement Officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States”
Unchecked power goes directly against the principles of democracy we were founded on. We have both state and federal laws so that neither one gets to powerful. Separation of powers ensures that no one branch of the government is more dominant than the others. These officers in Arizona are not answering to anyone, which leaves ample room for corruption. This racist law cannot stand!
While I’d like to believe that these pundits are just misinformed, recent legislation has shown a much darker side. Arizona has passed Immigration Law SB 1070. This law proclaims that law enforcement officers, with “reasonable suspicion,” have the right to question individuals on their immigration status.
“For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.”
Since “reasonable suspicion” is so vaguely defined, this means that officers may stop anyone who looks like an illegal immigrant and ask them for their identification papers. What exactly does an illegal immigrant look like? Hispanic? Black? Asian? But certainly not white. So police officers have every right to pull over a Hispanic driver, solely based on his or her race, and demand to see identification. American citizens, on their way to work, school, or home can be stopped and questioned on a whim. These American citizens can have their daily lives disrupted repeatedly, causing them to be late to work or picking up their children from school. And god forbid accidently leaving your ID at home. I have a feeling that if the roles were reversed, if white middle aged men in suits were being stopped and interrogated on the streets, we would call this law a gross invasion of our privacy. What’s next? Houses searched in the middle of the night? Temporary aliens forced to sew yellow stars on their shirts so that we can keep close watch over them? The unbridled discretion of law enforcement officers resembles that of a totalitarian regime. They don’t even need warrants for arrests:
“A Law Enforcement Officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States”
Unchecked power goes directly against the principles of democracy we were founded on. We have both state and federal laws so that neither one gets to powerful. Separation of powers ensures that no one branch of the government is more dominant than the others. These officers in Arizona are not answering to anyone, which leaves ample room for corruption. This racist law cannot stand!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
