Dr. David Widman

It was interesting to hear Dr. Widman's perspective on gender and how it is influenced by biology.  He seemed to make the claim that there is a major aspect of gender that is inherent in each individual and that individuals have a tendency towards being male of female that is then fostered by their environment.  While he seemed to think that biology played a huge role in shaping an individual's gender expression I think the role it plays is much smaller.  In listening to his discussion I realized that I believe the culture and socialization that an individual experiences better explains why an individual expresses gender in the way he/she does.  Dr. Widman presented some fascinating information and I wish we could have heard more because it challenged me to think more deeply about the ways in which biology and society affect gender expression.

Men as "Gendered Beings"

It was interesting to read Men as "Gendered Beings" by Kimmel and Messner because it provided a new way of thinking about gender's prominence in our society.  I hadn't before thought of all of the places in which gender has a significant role.  I certainly hadn't thought about it as a factor as crucial as race or ethnicity in determining the distribution of power and resources.  It plays a central role in determining how we live our lives and as a result needs to be taken more seriously by the general public who seem to just dismiss gender as "the way things are".  How frustrating! 

Valenti's Pop Culture Discussion

The focus of Valenti's article seemed to be on how society and our pop culture influence gender and the expectations we have for females.  Valenti makes the claim that mass media portray women as overly sexual, slutty, or as non-sexual beings.  She goes one step further to say that it is a lose-lose situation for women and that the only thing to do is to exist within this system in an educated manner.  In her discussion though she seems to nearly entirely leave out the role that mass media plays in defining the expectations our culture sets for males.  She mentions that women often act in ways with the sole purpose of pleasing men but otherwise the topic is left nearly untouched.  Is this because the media doesn't have any dictates in regards to men?  Or is it because Valenti doesn't find these dictates significant to our society's narratives about gender?

Yes or No??

It was fascinating to hear the statistics regarding male inclinations towards risky behavior and how that differs from female inclinations towards risky behavior and what some of the results of those differences are.  As I develop my own thoughts about violence and gender, I think I am more of a structuralist with the belief that men and women both have equal potential to act in violent ways.  It is interesting to hear different opinion on this notion however.  This semester I am taking another class is currently focusing on human evolution and male tendencies toward violence.  The claim being made in that class is that biology says males are inherently more violent than females and as a result, when studying violence, we have little reason to focus on women.  This message is very different from the ideas tossed about in class today.  Between the two, I feel a lot like Jackie, frustrated and confused that I'm just not 100% positive how I feel.  Hopefully as this course continues I will develop a better sense of how I feel about this matter.

Intensity!

It has taken me a few days to work process Thursday's class.  As I reflect on all that transpired during the class discussion I'm still not entirely certain that I have a full understanding of the materials that were covered.  Beforehand I thought I understood each of the terms that we were asked to define in class.  The small group I was a part of in class seemed to have a handle on the terms even though we had some clarifyng questions to ask.  By the time that class was over I just felt more deflated and confused and now, four days later, I'm still trying to grapple with the definition of epistemic violence and hwo epistemic violence differs from cultural violence. Hopefully tomorrows class will allow us to revisit this topic in order to gain a more clear understanding.

Reflections on 1993 World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna

Early in the article entitled Women's Rights are Human Rights: A new language and new standards the author highlights the significance of the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights that was held in Vienna, Austria.  At the conference the Global Campaign for Women's Human Rights made an led an extensive effort to have women's rights put on the conference agenda.  Testimonials were shared and as the conference progressed, violence against women- both publicly and privately, was declared a human rights violation that required urgent attention from the global community.

In my perception, the article highlights the significance of the role of the advocacy groups involved at the conference and on some level even seems to suggest that their efforts were a large part of the declaration of women's rights as human rights that took place at the conference.  Although I do not doubt that they played a crucial part in the advancement of women's rights, I wonder what other factors contributed to the development of the declaration.

Did the participants agreeing on the declaration have experiences with violations of women's rights?  What current events (both locally and internationally) shaped their thinking?  How significant was this particular group of participants to the formation of the declaration? Would other participants have made similar decisions?  The people at the conference were part of a very significant moment in the history of women's rights... I simply wonder if they were aware of that at the time and what types of factors may have altered the outcome of that conference in 1993.