13 years ago
Showing posts with label intersec: gen sex race. Show all posts
Showing posts with label intersec: gen sex race. Show all posts
Thursday
CA Supreme Court decision discussion 9AM
on Prop 8 up in 1 hour 15 min from now. LATimes background watch live now - scroll down and you'll see the Vid http://www.queerty.com/live-from-the-california-supreme-court-hearing-with-handy-viewing-guide-20090305/ Also, there is a live blog under that - we can chat.
Friday
intersectionality
Good on DreamWalker to post on intersectionality, below. Watch this MLK video. On our intersectionality discussions: they must be constant, they will make some uncomfortable as did MLKs peaceful resistance events, but--to follow Dr. King--we can discuss with the great power of love. ... more video resources on sex, race, class.
Thursday
More on Genderization of Race... and then some.
I wanted to further explain the genderization of race from what I've learned from my Sociology of Marriage and Relationships and Sociology of Asian Americans courses.
[I decided I needed to learn about my heritage since I knew absolutely nothing about Asians other than what my family had, nearly all my friends are Mexican, Black, White or some mix of these three; my "black" friend is actually half white and sternly states that she is white].
Let's start off with a few bases:
-There was were historical contexts that were brought up to make the point. For example slave owners would make African female slaves do all the hard manual labor but would never allow white females to do any hard labor in order to "show" that they were better. Since both men and women labored in the fields, there was not separation in gender like the white slave owners, thus in comparison culturally, there was a masculinization of the female gender in the context of Black Americans. There were other factors mentioned like the stereotype of single mothers and "strong, loud, women" in the Black community. This stereotype was probably formed from this historical context.
-Another historical account from the Asian perspective, other than the more widely known railroad working men, Asian women were being bought and transported from China with promises of a great life only to find that they've been sold into sexual slavery because they were in "high demand" due to the idea they were the "ultimate" in femininity. Again, there are echoes of this past in today's society with the stereotype that Asians are quiet and subservient. Here, instead of a masculinization of females there's a hyper-feminization of females.
With these historical contexts set, I bring up the case mentioned in class about the Asian woman shooting the Black girl. There is a huge play of gender roles here but hidden in color. If it were between a man and a woman, who would have the more severe punishment?
As for the issue of gay men in the context of race, the issues of feminization of race or masculinization I should rephrase the question, "Is it more ok to be gay if you're Asian, Black, Caucasian, or Latino?" through the eyes of stereotypes, of course. [Keep in mind you may not see it the same way because of your background in higher education]
Here, the feminization of Asians, males are faced with the stereotypes of nerds, being super smart, quiet, and unable to lead... All these "submissive" female qualities are linked to being gay, but at the same time there is "no such thing as a lesbian Asian" and thus this invisibility to a subgroup.
Whereas, it's the other way around when it comes to Blacks, my professor posed the question in a stereotypical context, "Have you ever heard of a gay black man?" another inivisble subgroup.
Along with this there is the stereotyping of penis size? The larger the penis the more masculine one is, right?
Anyone notice how all of these stereotypes of masculinity and femininity fall along the color lines as well?
She also mentioned white privilege as well and how she uses it not only to get away with speeding on the freeway, but to try and break stereotypes and advance other people of color, sexual orientations, etc.
My thoughts were a bit mixed up when I was asking, "Is it more ok to be White and Gay or Asian and Gay?" What I really wanted to point out there [having maybe 5 thoughts linked to that statement] was with White privilege, being gay in the White community is more "accepted" than it would be in any others. With white privilege, my professor was stating, comes the ideology that if you're White you can do or be anything you want without stereotypes that limit like, "I'm Asian so I'm a bad driver." This is what is termed internalized racism, where any particular race will incorporate the stereotypical characteristics of that race and use it to justify their own actions.
Anywho, with the issue of white privilege, the prevelance of this paradigm makes for another invisible group, the low-income and under priveleged white. Which also brings to mind also, low income Asians ["because Asians are rich too"] also an invisible group, both of these at least in the context of stereotypes. What didn't conclude in class tonight, or with the realization, that this is more of an issue of class rather than issues of race. We have the upper class, which is predominantly rich, white, heterosexual men controlling us all like puppets by making us fight amongst ourselves so that we would never turn our attention towards them. Again, if you walk the walk, talk the talk, look the look, and act rich then you must be rich. We can't say it's just race and white privilege, we have to look at things from a multidimensional perspective to see what else is going on.
One lens isn't good enough for me, give me all the glasses and lenses of the world for me to look through, including my own! I get bored with just one way of looking at things. :-p
[I decided I needed to learn about my heritage since I knew absolutely nothing about Asians other than what my family had, nearly all my friends are Mexican, Black, White or some mix of these three; my "black" friend is actually half white and sternly states that she is white].
Let's start off with a few bases:
-There was were historical contexts that were brought up to make the point. For example slave owners would make African female slaves do all the hard manual labor but would never allow white females to do any hard labor in order to "show" that they were better. Since both men and women labored in the fields, there was not separation in gender like the white slave owners, thus in comparison culturally, there was a masculinization of the female gender in the context of Black Americans. There were other factors mentioned like the stereotype of single mothers and "strong, loud, women" in the Black community. This stereotype was probably formed from this historical context.
-Another historical account from the Asian perspective, other than the more widely known railroad working men, Asian women were being bought and transported from China with promises of a great life only to find that they've been sold into sexual slavery because they were in "high demand" due to the idea they were the "ultimate" in femininity. Again, there are echoes of this past in today's society with the stereotype that Asians are quiet and subservient. Here, instead of a masculinization of females there's a hyper-feminization of females.
With these historical contexts set, I bring up the case mentioned in class about the Asian woman shooting the Black girl. There is a huge play of gender roles here but hidden in color. If it were between a man and a woman, who would have the more severe punishment?
As for the issue of gay men in the context of race, the issues of feminization of race or masculinization I should rephrase the question, "Is it more ok to be gay if you're Asian, Black, Caucasian, or Latino?" through the eyes of stereotypes, of course. [Keep in mind you may not see it the same way because of your background in higher education]
Here, the feminization of Asians, males are faced with the stereotypes of nerds, being super smart, quiet, and unable to lead... All these "submissive" female qualities are linked to being gay, but at the same time there is "no such thing as a lesbian Asian" and thus this invisibility to a subgroup.
Whereas, it's the other way around when it comes to Blacks, my professor posed the question in a stereotypical context, "Have you ever heard of a gay black man?" another inivisble subgroup.
Along with this there is the stereotyping of penis size? The larger the penis the more masculine one is, right?
Anyone notice how all of these stereotypes of masculinity and femininity fall along the color lines as well?
She also mentioned white privilege as well and how she uses it not only to get away with speeding on the freeway, but to try and break stereotypes and advance other people of color, sexual orientations, etc.
My thoughts were a bit mixed up when I was asking, "Is it more ok to be White and Gay or Asian and Gay?" What I really wanted to point out there [having maybe 5 thoughts linked to that statement] was with White privilege, being gay in the White community is more "accepted" than it would be in any others. With white privilege, my professor was stating, comes the ideology that if you're White you can do or be anything you want without stereotypes that limit like, "I'm Asian so I'm a bad driver." This is what is termed internalized racism, where any particular race will incorporate the stereotypical characteristics of that race and use it to justify their own actions.
Anywho, with the issue of white privilege, the prevelance of this paradigm makes for another invisible group, the low-income and under priveleged white. Which also brings to mind also, low income Asians ["because Asians are rich too"] also an invisible group, both of these at least in the context of stereotypes. What didn't conclude in class tonight, or with the realization, that this is more of an issue of class rather than issues of race. We have the upper class, which is predominantly rich, white, heterosexual men controlling us all like puppets by making us fight amongst ourselves so that we would never turn our attention towards them. Again, if you walk the walk, talk the talk, look the look, and act rich then you must be rich. We can't say it's just race and white privilege, we have to look at things from a multidimensional perspective to see what else is going on.
One lens isn't good enough for me, give me all the glasses and lenses of the world for me to look through, including my own! I get bored with just one way of looking at things. :-p
Tuesday
Talk about doing gender...
I also heard that the Bisu do not necessarily have to be homosexual in order to be Bisu, they just have male and female qualities in balance. I'm assuming Bisu can be either male or female, just embodying male and female traits.
Wednesday
Women, Men, and Other?
Just wanted to make a comment about today's banter against men. I just wanted to add it just seemed a little generalized, at least by today's standards as well as cross culturally. Yes, I do believe it is men who are the oppressors but at the same time there are sub-groups within the male identity that should be addressed as well, not just the fe/male dichotomy.
In a few of my other sociology courses, some of my TA's have emphasized that it's not just the men in this culture, it's the men in the upper class; rich, white men who are the one's running the game and in certain cases they use the issues of race to deter our attention away from the issue of class. By doing so, the separations in class according to race will keep people fighting so they will not realize that their enemy is the upper class, not each other.
I'd like to point out that something that tends to be underplayed in discussions about sexism, or anything in general and that's hetero-sexism. Hetero-sexism is the assumption that everyone is heterosexual, and by doing so people are lumping together a whole sub-culture into an assumed mainstream culture just because they look like one particular sex; as with the case with gender roles. Our culture of maleness and femaleness emphasizes this (or at least did emphasize this a lot more before) in a lot of ways, as pointed out by feminism (the GLBT movement wouldn't have worked as well if feminists didn't pave the way); i.e. girls wear pink and boys wear blue, boys like sports and girls like to play kitchen.. etc. One or the other.
There are other cultures that are more inclusive of these other sexual orientations or in some cases called the Third Gender. There are several Native American tribes that believed in the people with Two Spirits who fulfilled varying roles rather than the set gender roles. There's actually 2 countries where you can see the how the influence of the colonizing powers on the population's behavior towards these third gendered individuals.
The Hijra of India used to be honored and called upon for births and other special occasions for blessings. As someone once put it to me, "In some places in India still, you cannot imagine having a birthday, or some kind of celebration without them..." you can see how integrated into their society Hijra's were until the British (an imperialistic colonizing power) came and colonized them. With their feelings and ideals about Godliness guiding them and justifying their actions, they felt they should "civilize" these polytheistic heathens by teaching them our ways, their attitudes towards the Hijra changed from a position of honor to some sort of perversion.
Thailand on the other hand was one of the few powers that was not colonized by a western power. Their version of the third gender, the Kathoey, are more readily accepted. For example, when I went on a trip to Thailand a while back, there was a biological male working at the Baskin Robin's there with a full face of makeup on, AND IT'S NORMAL TO THEM! Doubt you can see that in any westernized/post colonized country.
Anyways, my main point is that not ALL generalized men should be blamed. In fact, by acknowledging that there's more than just the roles of man and woman and destroying the dichotomy, it would destabilize the power that said masculinity is supposed to have. You can't really ask a homosexual couple, "Who wears the pants in the relationship?" because they both can at the same time (ideally speaking of course, but that's another blog there..).
In a few of my other sociology courses, some of my TA's have emphasized that it's not just the men in this culture, it's the men in the upper class; rich, white men who are the one's running the game and in certain cases they use the issues of race to deter our attention away from the issue of class. By doing so, the separations in class according to race will keep people fighting so they will not realize that their enemy is the upper class, not each other.
I'd like to point out that something that tends to be underplayed in discussions about sexism, or anything in general and that's hetero-sexism. Hetero-sexism is the assumption that everyone is heterosexual, and by doing so people are lumping together a whole sub-culture into an assumed mainstream culture just because they look like one particular sex; as with the case with gender roles. Our culture of maleness and femaleness emphasizes this (or at least did emphasize this a lot more before) in a lot of ways, as pointed out by feminism (the GLBT movement wouldn't have worked as well if feminists didn't pave the way); i.e. girls wear pink and boys wear blue, boys like sports and girls like to play kitchen.. etc. One or the other.
There are other cultures that are more inclusive of these other sexual orientations or in some cases called the Third Gender. There are several Native American tribes that believed in the people with Two Spirits who fulfilled varying roles rather than the set gender roles. There's actually 2 countries where you can see the how the influence of the colonizing powers on the population's behavior towards these third gendered individuals.
The Hijra of India used to be honored and called upon for births and other special occasions for blessings. As someone once put it to me, "In some places in India still, you cannot imagine having a birthday, or some kind of celebration without them..." you can see how integrated into their society Hijra's were until the British (an imperialistic colonizing power) came and colonized them. With their feelings and ideals about Godliness guiding them and justifying their actions, they felt they should "civilize" these polytheistic heathens by teaching them our ways, their attitudes towards the Hijra changed from a position of honor to some sort of perversion.
Thailand on the other hand was one of the few powers that was not colonized by a western power. Their version of the third gender, the Kathoey, are more readily accepted. For example, when I went on a trip to Thailand a while back, there was a biological male working at the Baskin Robin's there with a full face of makeup on, AND IT'S NORMAL TO THEM! Doubt you can see that in any westernized/post colonized country.
Anyways, my main point is that not ALL generalized men should be blamed. In fact, by acknowledging that there's more than just the roles of man and woman and destroying the dichotomy, it would destabilize the power that said masculinity is supposed to have. You can't really ask a homosexual couple, "Who wears the pants in the relationship?" because they both can at the same time (ideally speaking of course, but that's another blog there..).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)