Constructing Identity

During this past week (albeit it's only Tuesday) I've come across two things that have really struck a chord with me. 

This link will provide the article for the possible lift of ban of gays in boy scouts - http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/28/boy-scouts-reconsidering-policy-against-gay-membership/

And this link will direct you to a site for girls in which one of the games you can play is "Nerdy Girl Makeover." 

http://www.girlsgogames.com/game/nerdy_girl_makeover.html

When I first read through the story on the boy scouts I was outraged. Maybe it's just my own wishful thinking that these sort of things aren't an issue anymore, but it just seems outrageous to me that they wouldn't be allowed to be in this type of organization. In the article they discuss that even if the ban is revoked at the national level, locally, chapters will still be able to set their own rules. Many of the chapters who are sponsored by the churches run the risk of having their funds taken away, which has often times been the main concern. I think that many of us may not be surprised by the church reactions at this point, but what I was surprised to hear about was the "hundreds of angry Eagle scouts renouncing their hard-earned awards and mailing back their red-white-and-blue medals." What I have wondered and continue to wonder, is how the presence of gay members can possibly detract from their successes. It's upsetting to me to know that people who are so close minded that fail to see the harm in which they are causing other human beings. In looking at gender identity theory, which is discussed in Identity and Intercultural Communication - Chapter 5, Martin&Nakayama, comes down to what it means to be a man or woman. What does it say to boys who are being denied membership to the boy scouts? By denying membership to the gay community they are denying them what it means to be a male. They are making clear statements that these people are less of men because they like the same sex and to be honest, at this point I can't see any quality in this organization of "men" that gives them the power to decide what qualities of a man is acceptable and what is not. 

The next link I posted is to a site of games that are created for girls. The one in particular that I played was the Nerdy Girl Makeover. In this game (play for yourself if you'd like) you are literally asked to change everything about the original "nerdy" girl in the picture, down to her eyebrows. What is possibly worse than the actual game is the comments. One of the comments read "I helped my nerdy friend get a boyfriend." Obviously stereotypes of what it means to be a nerd come into play here, but again we can look at the bigger picture and what it means to be a girl. Socially, we have constructed this idea that what it actually means to be a girl, and when you deviate from that meaning, you end up being branded. These games only further perpetuate these differences among girls. It seems necessary to again look at gender theory and even identity theory. Discovering your identity is an issue that is felt by all and many times what most of us are trying to do it just fit in. Culturally we have defined what it means to be a girl, and as Gloria E. Anzaldua, discusses in Borderland La Frontera, she notes that women are meant to feel failures if they don't want to get married or have children. Where did we get these notions that define us as women? Who's telling us that in order to be a woman we have to wear lots of makeup and bear children? And probably wear lots of makeup while bearing children... 

But more importantly, how do we start changing these cultural norms? 

Article from The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/01/the-feminist-objection-to-women-in-combat/272505/

On January 24, the US government announced that they will lift a ban on women serving in combat positions. This announcement received widespread media attention and has gotten mixed responses by both political parties and sexes. For the most part, feminists (myself included) and much of the population saw the decision as an entirely positive step forward for women, gender equality and our country. However, there has also been severe backlash against it which I will not discuss in this post (here is an interesting article about the reasons why a women shouldn’t be allowed in combat; I almost posted about this, but will let you analyze how it reinforces female gender stereotypes, as Harp, Loke and Bachmann discuss in their article about Sarah Palin: http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/25/opinion/boykin-women-in-combat/index.html).

At one point in tonight’s conversation, Professor Thompson raised this question to our class: “what is feminism?” The classroom remained silent, with the majority of us contemplating a concept that we had most likely never defined out loud but simply held as an internalized concept. One student replied that it is the struggle for equality between the sexes, and most of us nodded. I too have always felt that this concept was at the base of feminism; feminists are always advocating for complete equality between men and women, right? So it came to my surprise tonight when I found this article in The Atlantic titled “The Feminist Objection to Women in Combat”. In this article, the author discusses how this decision is in fact a victory for women and feminism, but this victory also contradicts certain ideologies and goals of feminism. Although this decision means greater career equality and possibilities between the sexes, the author points out that “one of the male patriarchal values and ideals that has been consistently criticized and questioned by feminists is war”. Therefore, the author discusses the fact that furthering women’s role in war is contradictory to feminist ideology and only strengthens male ideology and concepts. Although I am not yet certain if I agree with her, I feel the author is bringing up a valid point that women are still engaging in roles and tactics that are based on male ideologies and structures, and by being involved in it, they are furthering the very structure that they are against.

Both this article and the Harp, Loke and Bachmann article analyze the struggles of women entering traditional male careers and roles, and how a woman’s role in negotiated in a male structure. Do you agree with the author that this decision isn't entirely positive for feminism, or do you disagree with the author and see this as a major step forward for feminism?  What could be a definition for feminism if it doesn't strictly encompass equality between the sexes?

Reality TV Enforcing Stereotypes?

Oxygen Channel to Stop All My Babies’ Mamas From Airing

NYTimes Link - Oxygen Drops Plans for ‘All My Babies’ Mamas’

 

A few weeks ago, the Oxygen channel made an executive decision to cancel the TV special All My Babies’ Mamas after facing strong opposition from an online petition from Change.org and several other organizations throughout the country. All My Babies’ Mamas was a TV special (although many specials turn into a series) set to air this spring about an African American man and his 11 children with 10 different women. Opposition felt the show would only perpetuate a stereotype of “Black men and women as hyper-sexual and unfit parents” (colorofchange.org), which often times results in negative, real world repercussions.

After reading this article from The New York Times and researching a little more on the views of other organizations, I was reminded of the article we read by Henry Giroux, Rewriting the Discourse of Racial Identity: Towards a Pedagogy and Politics of Whiteness in which he discusses the racial stereotypes in two films – Dangerous Minds and Suture. While the story lines in these films are different from this reality TV series, I think it brings up interesting points about the media’s representation of different racial stereotypes that perpetuate racist viewpoints in today’s society. Even though Giroux is speaking about students, I think it applies to everyone when he states, “The electronic media – television, movies, music, and news – have become powerful pedagogical forces, veritable teaching machines in shaping the social imaginations of students in terms of how they view themselves, others, and the larger society” (301).

In an age of reality TV – from All My Babies’ Mamas to Jersey Shore and Honey Boo Boo, these shows may be created to be funny and make money, but I believe they have the ability to, like colorofchange.org said, enable these stereotypes that result in harmful, real world consequences for those not associated with these shows. What do you think?

Custom License Plates and Identity

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/georgia-rejects-gay-pride-vanity-license-plates-article-1.1245399?localLinksEnabled=false

http://jezebel.com/vanity-plates/

I came upon an article recently on my favorite feminist blog Jezebel and subsequently researched it on the internet and additional mention of it on the Daily News website. Recently, a Georgia man submitted three requests to have a custom license plate with the word “gay” included in a variety of ways. However, all three times he was denied permission to the license plates because the messages were “not available”. However, the man investigated into the incident and was informed that license plates are banned which contain “language, a message, or material considered to be obscene according to current community standards”. The Department of Driver Services of Georgia has complete jurisdiction to dictate whether a license plate is obscene and what “community standards” are, and as the articles point out, it is rather arbitrary where “beerman” is approved and “beerrun” is not.

This article and issue remind me of our readings and discussion in class about the role the government plays in defining and addressing a minority group of people, such as the role of the government’s penitentiary system in defining African Americans identity. As the author M. Alexander states, “today mass incarceration defines the meaning of blackness in America (as) black people, especially black men, are criminals” (Alexander, p. 197).  A license plate is an indicator of identity to the general public, as someone who has a license plate which says “BOOKLVR” clearly wants to communicate to society that they love books. By declining to approve a license plate with the word “gay” on it (which of course has other meanings as well, not just homosexual), the Georgia government is assigning the word “gay” as obscene and therefore assigning that identity. From this example, it is clear that the word “gay” is not permitted to be shown in public, and that the gay identity is not appropriate to be demonstrated to the public. I understand the government’s concern over putting obscene words on a license plate, because that could be offensive and inappropriate, but the government should also understand the difference between obscenity and a word that has been adopted to identify a specific community.

Do you think that the Georgia government is correct in banning the word “gay” from license plates? Is there a better way for the government to regulate what is permissible on license plates? Does this constitute discrimination against homosexuals?

Finding a Way to Relate From a White Perspective

During our class discussion about “The Color of Fear” and white privilege, I made the point that, as a woman, I could relate to a number of the scenarios listed on “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack”, but, as a white person, I could not. I found myself wondering how, as a white person, I could relate to some of the injustices of racism.

A few days later, I attended the Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Marade where we were asked to interview a few people about the significance of the day and racism in the U.S. I comfortably approached women, but I found the thought of approaching a man—regardless of his race—paralyzing. I couldn’t do it. I feared an angry response.

While feeling ashamed of myself for not being braver, I came across this blog post: A Letter to the Guy Who Harassed Me Outside the Bar. This is one woman’s retort to all men who regularly harass women with “jokes” or “compliments” or “in light-hearted fun”. She talks about how men don’t understand that when they publicly comment on your body or interrupt a conversation to “get in a lame sexual pun or rude gesture” they make women feel unsafe and incredibly uncomfortable, but to them, it’s just a little fun. She explains why:

You don’t get it because in your world, this is just you being clever and hilarious, just a little light-hearted late-night banter! Where's my sense of humor? Dude, you are the third, or fifth, or ninth man this week to be rude to me, to think that what you want—to get a rise from your friends, to make your desire known, to make me uncomfortable, to project some twisted "proof" of your virility into the air—is more important than my comfort or safety. This is not an anomaly. This is constant.

So what? You say. So you get a lot of attention, why is that such a bad thing? Annoying, maybe, but no harm, no foul! You know you mean no harm, but how do I know that? When women get harassed on the street, or at a bar, or on their walk home from work, do you know what we think? We wonder, am I going to get out of this safely? Am I going to walk away from this? Where are my keys if I need to stab someone in the eye? Are there people on the street? Will they hear me? Which way will I run? Solar Plexus, Instep, Nose, Groin. I’m exaggerating, but only so slightly. Does it disturb you that we think like this? That we have to think like this?

When I read this, not only did I think, “This is so true,” but I also thought back to our discussion about white privilege and the “other”. I thought about Art Jones’ description of his Aunt’s reaction to a white woman in her house. I thought about how a black man or woman may have felt on their walk home in the Deep South in the 50s or 60s. I thought about the men in “The Color of Fear” discussing how scared they were in a rural community in more recent years. I thought about the anger and fear and how could I possibly relate to that. This. This is how I can relate. Sometimes, I don’t know if I can go out alone and be well assured that I won’t be followed or harassed. Sometimes, I don’t know if my voice will be heard if I’m the only woman present. Sometimes, I get tired of being whistled at, having my space invaded, being afraid to walk home alone, and listening to rude commentary.

When looking at something I do understand, something I’m angry about or fearful of, I begin to understand why someone would get tired of answering questions about racism. I begin to understand why someone would be angry with the number of times they’ve been asked about racism by someone who doesn’t understand it. I begin to understand how white people are blind to the daily struggle of non-white people. I begin to understand how a “cultural” costume is offensive. I begin to understand why that racial joke is not funny. Even if a little bit, I begin to understand…

Wearin' Nothing But a Bikini....And a Headdress!?! - Victoria's Secret Apologizes to Native American Tribes.

Watch Video

Following our class on January 7th when we discussed the Ohio University STARS campaign We're a Culture Not a Costume,  this massive media faux pas came to mind.  Our conversation in class centered around the idea of costumes and Halloween, a treasured national holiday that is very much "American Culture", and how we perhaps shouldn't take costumes too seriously.  Costumes are after all a way to have fun; many a child's room or preschool has a costume box with the usual doctor, firefighter and princess attire - although there is a whole gender conditioning rabbit hole I'll acknowledge by agreeing not to go there in this post.  They're fun, whimsical, a way to explore our imaginations and play.  But where and how do we draw the line in regard to "what is appropriate?"  Not so long ago black face was still amusing to some and apparently it is the number one reason you're likely to get punched on Halloween....even in the 21st century.

Surely the line has been moving throughout history and maybe I'm an impatient idealist, but it seems to me the line should have moved a little farther by now.  Be Harry Potter, be a Tampon Machine (my friend did that), be a pun - like  a binder of women, but how can you be "a" Native American, "a" smart Asian, or "a" hillbilly from Appalachia....these are not specific people or things, these concepts are tied to stereotypes.  Does every smart Asian wear big glasses and look like a "nerd"?  Does everyone from "hick" states wear flannel and play the banjo?  Of course not.  These costumes are stereotypes incarnate, they are the micro-aggressions that hurt people and to which the offended may even become numb over time to ignore the pain.  That doesn't make it less painful or offensive.

In his chapter Culture, Identities and Meanings in Intercultural Encounters: A Semiopragmatics Approach to Cross-Cultural Team-Building, Frame discusses primary and secondary socialisation and that fact that primary socialisation is really the driving factor in how we assess things as either needing to be suppressed, modified or accepted as "foreign".  Could this be applied to our sense of cultural norms and acceptability around how we discuss, treat and respect other cultures?  If we are raised in a culture that ignores the micro-aggressions that exist in some costumes, and are later presented with the idea that these costumes might be offensive will we suppress, modify or accept as foreign the concept that costumes might offend?  Perhaps may of us are struggling to think differently about something that we weren't raised to believe was offensive.  It might seem foreign or annoying, but what if it was you reflected in that costume and everyone was getting a good laugh?  Would you speak up?  Would you say you were angry or hurt, so that everyone could be defensive and say lighten up??

I'd like to believe that if Victoria's Secret, No Doubt and Paul Frank are all apologizing for offending Native American tribal culture, that the line of "acceptability" is bound to continue moving, just as it has for black face.

Change.org petition for apology to Native Americans

Power is Not Possessed; It is Exercised

(from Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow) "What has changed since the collapse of Jim Crow has less to do with the basic structure of our society than the language we use to justify it..... We have not ended racial caste in America; we have merely redesigned it."

Michelle Alexander also quotes Dr. Loic Wacquant (Class, Race & Hyperincarceration in Revanchist America) when she writes in her The New Jim Crow journal (Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law) "Mass incarceration is a misnomer, since it implies that nearly everyone has been subject to the new system of control..... It was estimated several years ago that, in Washington, D.C. three out of four young black men (and nearly all those in the poorest neighborhoods) could expect to serve time in other communities of color across America." 

... and the entire COINTELPRO and what it has been all about.

There are several concepts that need to be contemplated upon here. One is the concept of language as carrier of [multiplicities of] meaning, and of power and control. For example, what if language, as the architect of all the metaphorical concepts we all live by (to borrow from Lakoff and Johnson), actually structures our lives and way of thinking? A well-known conceptual metaphor (analyzed in Metaphors We Live By) is the Argument as War: "your claims cannot be defended", "he attacked every weak point in her argument", "if we use this strategy, we will win the argument", "I've never won an argument with that man", and so on. Equally, how "good" is "pure as snow [white]" or how "bad" are your "darkest secrets", or "the Black Plague", or, alas, white angels and dark demons? How would we utter all these in any of the Inuit languages/dialects, where there are no transitive or action verbs?

Another concept is the one of power itself, and how we confront this concept: is power possessed or rather exercised? Can be historicized, under- or over- historicized? "I call the discourse of power any discourse which engenders blame, hence guilt, in its recipient" said Foucault... (remember, in the readings, the sense of shame, the taboo of the "un-talkable" even among communities that virtually everybody have their own [usually colored] "criminal"). Thus, this object in which power is inscribed, "for all its human eternity" Eco has claimed, IS language, or to be more precise, "its necessary expression: the language we speak and write; the given language." (from Eco's Travels in Hyperreality) And given language, although coercive, never appears, pops up from an individual decision, or from some undefinable "center of power". It is a social product, originates as thoroughly constrictive through our general, collective assent.

A third concept is the one of Reason; which since the Greeks, and later Kant, and even the deconstructive post-modernists, still means the same thing: the recognition of limits. How does this work in the communication process today? When data bits of information circulate ad infinitum in a virtually limitless Space? In "real" time? But I have run out of space.

1. Cornell West and the "Niggerization of America"

2. (from last Friday's episode of Real Time With Bill Maher)

When it's Someone of Color, They're Criminals; When They're White, they're Insane

1.
http://www.alternet.org/visions/crisis-white-masculinity-leading-horrific-gun-crimes-sandy-hook-shootings

2.

(from Critical Junctures in Intercultural Communication Studies: A Review, p. 18) "... a critical perspective is defined as one that addresses issues of macro contexts (historical, social, and political levels, relevance, and the hidden and destabilizing aspects of culture.", 

"... culture as politically and historically shaped and the theorizing of culture through power relations."

and... "history as context plays a major role in constituting intercultural interactions and reproducing power relations that are embedded in historical and contested struggles over issues of belonging and ethnic rights." (p. 22)

(from Critical Race Theory Today, pp. 131-2) "One of the first critical race theory proposals had to do with hate speech..... in favor of a broader. more policy-sensitive approach, critical race theorists have been tackling some of the most common policy objections to hate-speech regulation, including a) the more speech is the best remedy for bad speech, that b) hate-speech serves as a pressure valve relieving tensions...."

So, is it the language used and manipulated via communication means that precedes the communication process, or rather language merely uses communication as indeed a "neutral medium" (as Halualani, Mendoza and Drzewiecka contest upon, a problem theoretically remedied by incorporating the critical approach), or is it that everything becomes a "message" (according to McLuhan, analyzed in The Medium is the Massage, this "pompous term" sounds like "mAssage", like pure manipulation)? A logical conclusion, thus, would be that language itself becomes a medium of communication. "Emitter, receiver, code, context, contact, message: language is altered in its substance by its system of formalization, it is reduced to an one-dimensional function, according to the one-dimensional process of life..." Baudrillard attests in The Vanishing Point of Communication. Thus, what used to be a pure act, has now only become an operation; like speech: it was an act while communication is an operation, and together with it follows the "operation" of social life... So, when the Public has been uttered and internalized via so deeply entrenched structuralist and functionalist processes, how can a critical method permeate, not by merely exposing the underlying structures or agendas, but by pointing toward a new (while at the same time so old) means of "receiving" and "processing"?
Following the two posting, one cannot but remember Orwell's line in 1984: "first they take the words; then they take the meaning."