Gender and the Media. Weitzer and Kubrin (2009) Misogyny in Rap Music

Desai “The messy relationship between feminism and flobalization”.

The main goal of the article is to analyze how globalization and feminism have influenced each other. Despite the fact that the author agrees with the fact of the presence of inequalities between women, at te same time she argues that feminisms are important forces shaping globalization. Moreover, she argues that actors of corporate globalization have used feminist ideologies for their own profit. In other words, feminist ideologies have been used to feminize the workforce in the export processing zones and to discipline poor women. However, it should be noted that feminists as well have used globalization to further women’s agency and their economic, political, and cultural empowerment. The ways in which feminists shaped the spaces of global politics:

1. Providing theoretical frameworks, organizational structures, and strategies
2. Engaging economic globalizations to exploit both the opportunities provided by it and articulating alternatives to corporate globalization
3. Creating new cultures of globalization

The main feminist principle is the commitment to an intersectional analysis and transversal politics. Hence they created solidarities among feminists across differences. In addition, they were the first who created networks on the basis of nonhierarchical, informal structures and participatory processes, to share experiences and strategize for political actions at multiple levels. Finally, transnational feminists were the first at creating strategies for articulating autonomous spaces- such as tribunals, caucuses, grassroots women’s networks, partnerships with other movements and local authorities-examplified in the project like the Feminist Dialogues. Even in the economic field they made contributions. For example, they challenged corporate globalization in terms of demanding the end for what Acker calls corporate irresponsibility, they have proposed a “Maria tax” to acknowledge the reproductive labour of women, they have called for nongendered caring and provisioning as the basis of production reproduction instead of profits. In addition, the author highlights the creative abilities of cross trade women workers. The main argument of the author is that we should focus on the nonconsumptive, interactive culture of globalization in which women weave their own traditions and practices along with other cultural and political traditions. This can be made with the help of new technologies. For example, in Guatemala, the Web women are able to teach others in rural areas in terms of making videos. Or in Mexico where internet were used as the beginning for the social women’s  movement in 1993. Despite the act that in some areas of the world there are feminist movements in general most of hem live in poverty. The main reasons for that are new inequalities resulting from neoliberal globalization, the war on terror, religious fundamentalism, the difficulties with transforming structures and institutions, and the luck of political will to redistribute resources. The author decided to ad in this list other reasons of transnational feminism, such as inequalities between feminist who work in the global and local arenas, so that those from global north and south. Moreover, the victories of feminist movements or decision of the UN are symbolic and need good managerial base. The solution that the author suggests is strategies use of transnational connections for local actions, need for enact dual politics of possibilities. Mainly, this s the reason why this article called “messy relationship”.              

Smith. Native American Feminisim.

1. Sexual violence is a part of legacy of colonisation and exploitation of native Americans, Reflected in gender relations.
2. Mainly, Smith connects gender movement with sovereignty.
3. JAimes’ argument: Conflict -Native Americans rejected feminism because feminism would mean their assimilation into American society and acknowledgement of their being minority. Thus, no sovereignty is assumed by feminists.
4. Decolonisation is viewed primary before the women’s right: firstly I am Indian, then I am a woman. By some women
5. BUT this above said is not whole story, there are mixes. Not only feminists and nonfemminists.
6. Sexism contributed to the foundation of Indigenous Women Network  for the rights of Natives(1985) . Thus, interconnection of two issues.
7. Native m and w struggling for sovereignty: but when w are organising by themselves sexism appears. So many Native women do not see feminism as westernised or white consept and acknowledge that it is important part of their struggle.
8. Interviews: 1) why not feminists – b’se thus means an enemy of man and will inhibit the struggle. But we should be feminists 2)I thought feminism is primary Indian of a kind. Thus, Natives are not necessarily in alliance with white women.
9. Wilma Mankiller: deputy, thought that she will be criticised for her activism, but she was criticised instead for her gender.  Thus, sexism is a part of native community.
10. Not necessarily independence first; nation should be sovereign including all people, thus, gender oppression id underestimated when along with sovereignty issues, but  sovereignty cannot be achieved when many women die from domestic/ sexual violence.
11. Sovereignty valued before gender issues and contributes to men’s dominance: they can refer to sovereignty issue importance when they are not paying aliments.
12. Example. Supreme court of US giving allusion of sovereignty to tribes when they decide who is tribe member, actually threat sovereignty once more as tribes excluding children of females bearing from non-tribe members discriminate on gender. In fact by allowing this Supreme Court limit decolonisation by hands of Indians themselves. Thus, such gender politics actually leads to limiting opportunities fro decolonisation. While Indians use gender relations patterns imposed by Whites they are unable to decolonise.
13. Sovereignty-feminism projects: Sovereign women strengthen sovereign nations.

Boarding School healing project – struggle for gender non-violence from the side of school officials.

Gender violence is thus supported by state policies and can be regarded as colonial legacies. Hence, state also plays  a role as perpetuator. Before boarding schools native communities were not so male dominated, thus these schools introduced more gender violence.

14. Boarding school era – many inequalities and dysfunctionalities  of native communities are introduced through these schools. Ex. Teachers (John Boone’) abuse of children and state’s ignorance of these cases.
15. Through sexism and gender violence colonialism and white supremacy is successful.
16. Boarding abuse is not recognised as human rights abuse thus, victims internalise these acts and self-blame. State cannot admit fault thus halting healing and progress of struggle.
17. Boarding School Project claims for reparations from state for gender abuse, but it is not money or economic resources repaid but the gaining a control over themselves which is claimed. We need to think of reparations less as financial compensation but more as a social movement for changing neo-colonial order then this will articulate a social change at gross.
18. Native women now distinguish b/n nation and nation-state and when struggling for nation means including all its members and feminism thus is not an assimilation of white’s concept.
19. Organising movements women make and take power, it is important not just to take it but also to take in a way that does not reproduce the same hierarchies within society.

 

Connell (2005), “Change Among the Gatekeepers: Men, Masculinities, and Gender Equality in the Global Arena”

1948 “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” brings the idea of gender equality adopted in many countries. Gender equality in the context of Declaration as well as the general debate of that time meant giving equal rights to women, because they are most disadvantageous in the fields like political power, economic assets and etc which are largely in the control of men. This is why men are like gatekeepers for gender equality. “In this article, I will trace the emergence on a worldwide discussion of men and gender-equality reform and will try to assess the prospects of reform strategies involving men.”  The author will not focus on any particular nation, but rather talk globally. Connell will consider men’s movements, their interests, and changing construction of masculinities.

Men and Masculinities in the World Gender Order

In the last 15 years in the developed countries, there is a big concern on gender issues of men and boys. Examples: a book by Bly “Iron John: a book about men” (1990) has stimulated big movement of mainly middle class men addressing problems of relationships, sexuality and identity; Germany & Scandinavia: debates on men’s responses to femininities; Anglophone countries: discussion about “new fatherhood”, i.e. a new way of men’s involvement in a family; Australia: the question of boys’ failure in schools >>> an idea of making special programs for boys; other questions: men’s violence toward women, men’s health; also many researches on men’s practices, media images; establishment of academic journals researching the issue of men and masculinities. All these concerns are firstly in the developed countries, but now they’re worldwide: men’s center in Japan, travelling seminar on men’s issues in India, general debates from New Zealand to Denmark. The researchers are also worldwide (Peru, Japan, Turkey, Europe). All this shows that “change in gender relations occurs on world scale, though not always in the same direction or at the same place”. The complexity of these patterns comes from the fact that there are several modes in which gender is accomplished. One of them is colonization of gender order (a country-colonizer imposes its gender orders). Also, internationalization of gender orders (local gender orders interact with a gender order of global arena). Masculinities are also created through a historical process (it’s similar to the point about colonization, i.e. gender orders change when an empire-colonizer intervenes)

Shifting ground: Men and Boys in gender-equality debates.

Once again, talking about gender inequality means talking about women’s issues. Men in such discussions are portrayed as the source of inequalities (e.g. violence against women >>> men are perpetrators etc). Consequently, there is no discussion on men’s problems, interests and so on. This gave rise antifeminist politics saying that accusing feminists of the injustice they promote and arguing that men are highly disadvantaged and need protection in the questions like education, health, family break up and so on. These ideas have not resulted in large movements, but rather a small scale movement, like “Father’s rights”, which deals with questions in regard to divorce. The movement is small, but due to media it now forms a part of a larger neoconservative movement going against “political correctness” and social justice measures.

Some tried to deal with the problem by making parallel policies for two genders (e.g. men’s health document has now been added to women’s health document in Australia; boys’ education strategy has been open in addition to girls’ education strategy). This, however, contributed to higher segregation rather than equality. It happened because genders have appeared to be as two different segments for some service. Others argue that if the men’s problems will be brought to the light, women’s success in terms of what they have already achieved through the fight for their rights will diminish. This also leads to a conclusion that the equality will be distorted rather than increased.

The role of men and boys in relation to gender equality appeared in 1995 in Fourth World Conference on Women, in Beijing, with “Platform for Action” program developed. The result of the conference was for men to actively engage in resolution of the women’s problems, i.e. gender-based violence, balancing work and family and so on. From that conference on, the meetings and researches on men, masculinities, and gender equality have become popular in Europe and outside. Majority of them considered similar issues as in Beijing Conference.

Divided interests: Support and Resistance

In fact, it seems like men will lose a lot from gender equality because looking at the share of income they in total get, high office positions they occupy, and political seats they take – men are in an obvious advantage in relation to women. However, qualitative analysis shows that not everything is so perfect for men. For example, men earn the largest part of income and occupy managerial positions, but they also appear to represent the work force, take risky occupations, be target of military campaigns, less represented in the fields of humanities and working with children. These disadvantages are the conditions of advantages. Also, what’s important is that men receiving the benefits and men receiving the costs are not the same individuals (class, race, national contexts etc spread the benefits to men unevenly). This results in men’s different attitudes toward gender equality. History witnessed a number of men advocating gender equality. They are mostly intellectuals, such as Ibsen (playwright), Adler (psychoanalyst) and so on. Also, men contributed to women’s achievement in terms declaring women’s rights, such as equal employment opportunities in New South Wales, Australia. Some men are also campaigning in opposition to violence against women. These initiatives, however, are of a small scale. On the large scale, the European survey research states that about 1/3 of men are for gender equality, 1/3 is against, and the last third is undecided. However, research evidence from US, Japan, and Germany has shown a long term trend to support changes, i.e. to move away from traditional gender roles (especially among young).

Nevertheless, research also reveals significant resistance of men and boys to support equality (especially among old men). Other men accept the change, but do not act to get away from the traditional roles. The reason for such resistance is that when gender equality is achieved, men lose the patriarchal dividend. In addition, some ideologies justify men’s supremacy (this is not to say that they are old fashioned, they can also be renewed for current age).

Grounds for optimism: Capacities for equality and reason for change.

One obstacle that stopped gender reform form taking place is the belief that men are not able to change their practices, i.e. “boys will be boys”. Now, however, there is much documented evidence that this is not the case. Examples include: Chile citizens do not have any one type of masculinity, people are flexible in this regard, and many find toleration in regard to women (boys in regard to girls in schools); research in Britain: boys change the stereotypes about the masculinities and gender roles while growing up, it’s even possible to teach this as was the experiment in Australia; experiment of “fair families”, where male and female share the housework equally, in one part of US; Shanghai region: men are demonstrably willing to get involved in the housework; most prominent example is that of Scandinavia: the provision of paternity leave that have had high rates of take up.

Reasons for men to support change: 1. Men are not isolated (they are tied to women and girls as to mothers, daughters, colleagues etc. The quality of the relationships is important for men). 2. Men can avoid the negative effects of taking up “a male role” (the effects include risks, early death and etc). 3. Men can see the relevance of the gender equality to the community they live in. 4. Gender equality may follow from men’s political and ethical views.

Grounds for pessimism: the shape of masculinity politics

I find it difficult to summarize this section. Please read p.10-11 on your own.

Ways forward: A global framework

It may seem impossible to make men refuse their privileges and fight for gender equality, but this process is already going. This, in one way, happens through diversified notion of masculinities, when men understand that traditional gender roles are not the only ones people can stick to. In fact, one of the most effective ways to promote equality is for men and women to have an alliance in movement to changes. This is in fact what UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) has proposed by declaring a role of men in achieving gender equality. The article ends with the author saying that although CSW did not hold any strong official power, it put foundations for society to understand that men can change and contribute to the achievement of gender equality.

Unraveling the gender knot, Allan Johnson

The author asks what kind of knot we must unravel? He answers that on the one hand it is the complex patriarchic system which exits in the world. On the other hand, and most importantly, it is individual and collective paralysis in regard to gender issues (lack of willingness to understand the importance of and deal with gender issues). To unravel the knot we firstly break 2 myths:

1. “It’s always been this way and it always will be”

To counter this myth: everything is in flux if we look at the really long term history. Social are also fluid. Oppressive systems may not seem fluid only because they restrict us to the extent that we can’t look beyond it. The author also describes a paradox: while the obsession of patriarchy with control increases, i.e. it goes in more and more spheres of life, its overall control falls. Patriarchy will go, and it’s already going, every moment, and it is a question of how much we are going to contribute it departing sooner rather than later and bringing less rather than more suffering.

2. The Myth of no effect and Gandhi’s paradox

The myth of no effect says that individuals are reluctant to fight against patriarchy, because they think their contribution is very small and will not solve anything and also because they are unlikely to see the result of their work in their life time (the process is long term). Gandhi once said that nothing what we as individuals matters, but that it’s vitally important that we do it anyway. So that an individual leaf on a tree doesn’t matter, but the leaves together do matter as they feed the tree. Similarly, actions of each individuals are very small, but together, especially in the long run, they make change. The related paradox is that we have to be willing to travel, even if we don’t know where we are going. “This is how alternatives begin to appear to imagine how things might be, we first have to get past the idea that things will always be the way they are.”

The Gandhi’s paradox, however, tricks us into thinking that as our individual power is small, it is insignificant, and we can hardly go against majority. This is not the case, because even small everyday life experiences can contribute to a change (Ex-le: one of your friends says a sexist joke, will you laugh at it?). If you will not, not only you contribute to the eradication of patriarchy, but also show other people that there are alternatives in regard to this question. In this case the idea that patriarchy is a norm will change over time. The research on men’s changing attitudes toward men being providers shows that most of the shift occurs between the generations, not within.

Stubborn ounces: what can we do?

No answers, only suggestions. Initially it’s worth saying that when the oppressive system is masked, nobody is aware of it, >>> nobody fights against it. Awareness is a continual thing that once you get it, you maintain it.

1^st suggestion: Pay attention

Read and learn more about gender. People may think they know enough, because they have gender, but this knowledge is shaped by patriarchy. When asked, it’s easier for people to offer answers, even if they don’t know what they’re talking about. Instead, investigate, read, and study more.

2^nd suggestion: Little risks: do something

• Make noise be seen (write petitions, speak out etc)
• Don’t follow old paths, objectify and follow yours (Ex-le don’t laugh at sexist joke)
• Dare to make people feel uncomfortable, starting from ourselves (why principles in schools are men, but teachers under their control are women)
• Openly choose and model alternative paths
• Actively promote change in how systems are organized around patriarchal value and male privilege.
• Support the right of women and men to love whomever they choose
• Pay attention to racism and other forms of oppression as they take the same roots as patriarchy
• Work with other people
• Don’t keep it to ourselves ( don’t fight for changes in your personal life only)

In conclusion, don’t be heroic and take impossible tasks, think humble, make changes in your everyday life. This is going to be enough.