Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Biology as a Tool of Oppression?


We only briefly talked in class about biology as a factor in gender and gendered conflict, and I think that there’s a lot more to delve into on that subject. While doing the argument analysis paper, I read the two contrasting articles by Ruth Hubbard and James C. Dobson about whether or not biology determines gender roles. Personally I tend to be interested more in the biological differences than cultural differences, so I was looking forward to the article supporting biology. Instead, what I got was an article by a conservative evangelical Christian about “traditional” gender roles for men and women, and how they should apply regardless of whether the supposed differences between men and women are biological or cultural. I thought it was a horribly chosen article to support the side of biology, because Dobson is not a biologist and real biologists don’t support his sexist, outdated views. I think the reason we get his point of view and not a scientist’s is because feminists are afraid of biology.

A lot of feminist authors argue that any gender differences are cultural, in part because they talk about how biology has been used to oppress women in the past. Men think of women as capable of reproduction and that’s it, and they make women out to be the “weaker” sex and use that to their advantage, rationalizing the sexism with “science.” But the same thing goes on with Christian scientists, who use “scientific evidence” to support their beliefs that the Earth is only 6000 years old and evolution is a lie. In the 1920’s and 30’s, a ton of people tried to justify eugenics and extreme capitalism using Darwinian ideas. Does that make evolution untrue, because people can twist it to rationalize their own bad morals? No, evolutionary theory is still fact. 

Accepting biological differences doesn’t have to mean we’re rationalizing sexism. Biology, in principle, is not sexist, it’s not political, it just is. The way we take it is what matters. I think it’s important to embrace scientific findings regarding gender differences and similarities. People will twist anything into supporting their views, but that doesn’t make it less valid. It’s also important not to censor scientific findings if they don’t support our views. Science can help us come to a better, more rounded understanding of life.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Sex and Biology


I really enjoyed Dr. Widman’s guest lecture today on the biological differences between men and women. Being a sexuality major, the topic is really important to me and to anyone going into a health field for women. I thought that he brought up some very good points and talked about the research that has been done in a very easy-to-understand way. A lot of what he talks about can be found in books by biologists like Richard Dawkins (particularly in his book The Selfish Gene), so I did recognize it, but he definitely brought up some new points that I hadn’t heard before.

Personally, I believe biology is incredibly important when it comes to the differences between men and women. Yes culture plays a huge part, but I think that a lot of what we believe socially and culturally can be traced back to biological and evolutionary facts. I feel that Toria brought up a lot of good points, and she definitely challenged Dr. Widman to back up what he was saying, but I think that as students we need to remember that nature and nurture are intertwined. It’s nowhere near easy to separate them. I believe that oftentimes, when we speak of “cultural” ways of thinking and biological phenotypes, we are discussing the same thing. They feed into each other.

I was really glad to have the opportunity to listen to Dr. Widman speak. It really helps to recognize the biological factors behind differences in men and women – and it doesn’t mean that you can’t go against that biology. Your genes do not have to define you. Though we may be biological conditioned to do a certain thing, that does not make it right by cultural and societal standards. As our cultural norms shift, we can go against the grain of our genes. I feel that that is an important part of knowing about our evolutionary history and being able to apply that knowledge to life.

The Roles Men and Women Play in Conflict


In the group discussion questions in class on Tuesday, our group was the smallest by far with only three people. Our question was “What roles do men and women play – how do gender roles limit or enable men and women to act in conflict?” While it was definitely a tough question to answer with such a small group, we did get some ideas. We all agreed that whether essentialist notions of womanhood and femininity help or hurt the feminist movement depends on what version of feminism you follow. There are so many different ways to view feminism, and to believe what empowers women. That makes it difficult to talk about this question – there are so many ways to argue about it.

I believe that violence done by men is pretty much considered normal in most societies. By normal I mean not necessarily condoned, but not unexpected. With women, it’s a different scenario. I feel that the dominant belief in the U.S. is that when women are violent, it is either because they are insane or because they need to protect or defend something, like themselves or their children. Not necessarily their country, but something more close to home, whereas men often fight for abstract idea such as God and patriotism.
Just look at the show “Snapped” and the trials dealing with battered women who turn on their abusive husbands. Violence in women is abnormal, and often actually condoned because of the circumstances. It seems that women will only fight for something incredibly important but also very close to them, very concrete. They’re usually seen as peaceful, or active bringers of peace, like the women of Lysistrata.

I don’t know how this idea came to be, but it would be interesting to see what psychological studies have been done on the differences between the genders on this subject.

Peace for Women


The article “Women and Peace: The Meaning of Peace for Women” by Brigit Brock-Utne definitely had some eye opening information in it. The definitions of peace, negative and positive, and violence, organized and unorganized, helped other discussions about violence against women fall into place.

It makes sense that everyone is for peace, but as Brock-Utne says, so many people assume that peace is just the cessation of wars and cooperation between nations. But the point that if the torture of millions of women every day is also a huge form of warfare, if unorganized, is very true. Women, and people in general, need to consider not just large international wars, but also domestic issues that women (and minorities, and children, etc.) face every day. In this way, we can truly consider this violence to be at the macro level, because it really is on the same scale as wars, maybe even larger.

It’s hard to comprehend, I think, because it’s just the way that our society is structured sometimes, and also the societies and cultures of other nations - patriarchal and still unequal between the sexes and other groups of people. Often times, it’s religion too – though it may be uncomfortable to mention, religion is so many times used as an excuse for the oppression of other peoples or genders. The section on page 8 about the clitoris being almost universally hated by men really struck a chord. It’s not just the physical part that so many men try to get rid of – they also diminish women’s sexuality, not only in other “far off” countries but in the U.S. too. Think of all the purity balls and virginity pledges that girls sign due to pressure from their parents, school or church. Though boys sometimes participate in these, girls are the main group that are put under this pressure. Because many people, religious or not, believe that women’s sexuality needs to be controlled, but not men’s, at least not to that great extent. I realize that not everyone who is religious believes that women should be beaten or oppressed, but that doesn’t change the fact that many people use it as a tool to justify their violent behavior.

We cannot afford to lose our women to these horrors, physical and psychological. If we as humanity want to stop this, we need to seriously re-structure our society, our teachings, and our culture, which are all intertwined.

Human Rights


 I was particularly struck by the article from UNIFEM, “Women’s Rights are Human Rights”, and the cultural span the authors covered when talking about how women have stood up in the face of oppression and violence to make the world better for themselves and their daughters. 

The authors talk about how a revolution in the way we view females has brought violence against women out into the public sphere. No longer is it okay to say that the violence done to women anywhere is just a “part of that culture.” Female genital mutilation, stoning of women, sexual slavery, and domestic abuse should not be ignored, and women who have suffered these abuses are finding more and more ways to redress the laws governing violence and equal rights. 

Though people in the U.S. are usually aware that women do suffer in many ways all over the world, I don’t know that a lot of people fully realize the extent of this violence. There are millions of women who are missing in Asia, because of female infanticide and sex selective abortion. There are millions of young girls in Africa who deal with rape, AIDS, and female genital mutilation on a daily basis. These are human rights, not just something women need to think about. It is the responsibility of humanity and governments to right these wrongs which affect not only women, but all people.