Reading Response – 9/12
In connection to my technology diary on shaving razors, this week I will be examining hairlessness (and beauty, in general) in “The Hunger Games”. In chapter five, we find Katniss in the Remake Center preparing for the tribute presentation. Katniss is waxed of all hair from her “legs, arms, torso, underarms, and part of the eyebrows” (Collins, 61). Capitol practices are similar to those found in the United States today, as women are often pressured to keep hairless “like a plucked bird, ready for roasting” (Collins, 61). This practice of removing hair off of a woman’s body often creates an image of pre-pubescence and hairlessness is considered to be beautiful by today’s standards. In the Capitol, looks are everything, as Katniss only looks “almost like a human being” after being scrubbed and waxed by Venia and Flavius (Collins, 62). A woman could only be a human being if she looks decent!
This idea of hairlessness came from an aggressive advertising campaign for women by men (See: Caucasian Female Body Hair and American Culture). Underarm (then later leg and pubic hair) were problematic even though it was natural. This is similar to the medicalization of other natural female body changes such as menstruation/cramps. So Panem and the United States, changed the way society thought of female body hair. Currently, it is a choice whether one shaves or not; however, many people frown upon a hairy body (especially on a female) because society has normalized the hairless body.
Male bodies in the Capitol, do not escape the beautification either. Flavius has “orange corkscrew locks” and applied “a fresh coat of lipstick to his mouth” (Collins, 62). In addition, Katniss describes most of the stylists, both male and female, as being “dyed, stenciled, and surgically altered” (Collins, 63). In the U.S. today, men aren’t really pressured to wear makeup to feel like they live up to a standard beauty. Once again, it’s a choice, but society normalizes that a made-up face a beautiful face.
Terminology in Freedman, Fausto-Sterling, and Rosser
Anne Fausto-Sterling and Estelle Freedman mention the intricacies of terminology surrounding gender and sexuality, and how new terminology has been developed, or altered, to accept shifting identities. Gender and sex, two terms which seem indistinguishable to the untrained eye, are defined in Sexing the Body, and presented with their historical context. The concept of bisexuality, something that many people acknowledge today, seemed to be unfathomable to people in the past (Fausto-Sterling cites women who would discover they were lesbians despite being happily married, simply for being attracted to a woman in addition to their husband). Alfred Kinsey’s studies put a scientific spin on sexuality, with his 0 to 6 scale, and he created terms to refer to sexual relationships and the act of sex itself (such as “orgasm”). Each different definition of sexuality (from the restrictive religiousness of Europe in the Middle Ages to today’s post-Kinsey world) seemed to slowly displace the previous definition (at least, within the scholarly world).
Even Sexing the Body, published in 2000, seems a little outdated in its use of terminology – not merely with regards to sexuality and gender (particularly its mentions to the trans* community), but also technologically. A listserve, for example, while still an extant concept, has been displaced by social media for the most part. Still, the concept of Fausto-Sterling’s “Loveweb” listserve seems to tie into Sue V. Rosser’s description of cyberfeminism in her essay. Fausto-Sterling is using the communication avenues available through the Internet to communicate with like-minded individuals. Rosser’s conception of technology extends to various subgroups of feminism. However, Rosser repeatedly emphasizes that technology is (for the most part) created by men (not literally, however – women are likely to work in electronics assembly), and therefore excludes women by design because they do not consider female users. Feminist movements are now rising to acknowledge and combat this, serving as yet another part of the shifting movements within feminism, even causing the creation of even more, new terms (like cyberfeminism).
As long as human culture changes, the terms used within studies of gender and sexuality will change. Freedman’s book, which views feminism through a historical lens, notes some of the evolving terminology of feminism. In its introduction, it mentions the divergent concept of womanism, the term developed by Alice Walker to define a black feminist or a feminist of color. The development of this term makes sense alongside the civil rights movement. Events like the civil rights movement alter the course of feminism, creating a critical need for an alteration in language. Fausto-Sterling alludes to the dualism of what is real and what is constructed – how people can accept something to be a definitive truth, but then either societal perceptions or some new, revolutionary scientific research will change these previously accepted truths.
Rosser/Freedman/Fausto Sterling
Rosser, Freedman’s and Fausto Sterling’s passages all touch upon people view feminism and how the ideology of “gender” has affected us in today’s society. Where Freedman focuses on the workplace and Fausto Sterling on gender roles. Rosser gives a good breakdown on the different types of feminism and how there is an umbrella of things that could be categorized under how these different types of feminists would go about different ways and have different things they prioritize.
Sterling’s piece “Sexing the Body” especially stood out to me because the differentiation between someone’s sex and gender has become more apparent in today’s age. She talks about how someone can be born biologically as a male or female but personally feel another way. People now associate gender as more of a societal thing. Where those who have certain characteristics are automatically given a certain role. I like how Fautso Sterling talks about homosexuality as well and how the idea of it has changed over time. In the past, especially during the time of ancient Greece, homosexuality was quite normal. Older men would often have younger apprentices and take advantage of them. Now however instead of it being only a sexual thing, homosexuality has become more of an identity where it’s not only about sex but also the personality of them person themselves. I think it gives a good insight on how gender has become more of an identity.
In Freedman’s passage when she talks about which woman feminism represents shows us that in the past feminism was not truly for equal rights for all woman but rather equal rights for white wealthy woman. This reminds me of a past article I read that Sojourner Truth wrote and how she talked about how she too was a woman yet she was not receiving the same treatment that other woman were receiving. The beginning of feminism was still very biased. Women were fighting for equal rights yet it was only a certain privileged classed that reaped the benefits in the beginning. Others still had to overcome the issues of class and race. She also talks about how people are less willing to say they are feminists. The definition of what feminism is has become very broad in society and often times people just see it as empowerment of woman yet their main goal is for equal rights for both women and men.
Reading Response: Rosser
I found Rosser’s first chapter in Women, Gender, and Technology to be an incredibly useful guide to understanding some basic, yet deeply powerful ways that technology influences our daily lives, specifically in how it has been harnessed as a tool to reinforce oppressive social and political constructs. I’m also grateful for the double-function it serves by providing readers with a brief synopsis of some popular forms of feminist theory, especially in how they intersect and depart from one another.
Similarly valuable is Rosser’s emphasis on the historical flaw of technology being shaped by men and for men. In other words, despite the reasons for male dominance of the industry, i.e. biological or social, technological designs and their practical uses over time have been disproportionately created both to satisfy patriarchal constructs, as well as to reinforce them. This point is crucial because it helps explain why women have struggled to gain a solid footing in the world of technology invention, creation and application. When one considers, for example, how much we take for granted in our basic conceptions of science as an objective field, the methodologies we employ in creating our collective knowledge base may seem subsequently less reliable. Positivism, which Rosser quotes Jaggar as implying that “all knowledge is constructed by inference from immediate sensory experiences,” for example, is not a universally accepted philosophical system of thinking (Rosser 16). Socialist feminists and African American/womanist or racial/ethnic feminists reject positivism as lacking objectivity because the very “basic categories of knowledge are shaped by human purposes and values” (Rosser 17). Furthermore, considering the historical dominance of males in the public sphere, we must also note the connection between these supposedly “objective” approaches and the masculinity of the thinkers that purport them. That is to say, it may not be enough, as liberal feminists might claim, to attack the “gender-stratified labor market” by removing “overt and covert barriers that prevent women from entering engineering education and remaining as practicing engineers” (14). Simply redistributing responsibility and financial compensation within the labor market is not enough to defeat discrimination based on gender. The problems lay deeper, as Rosser points out, in the ways we conceive of technological application. We need new perspectives altogether on how technology may serve society.
Socialist feminist and African American/womanist or racial/ethnic feminist perspectives, which aim to take in to account a wider range of intersection, i.e. race, class, gender, age and ability, understand that liberation and equality for marginalized groups requires more than inclusion; it requires the complete revamping of our conceptions of difference and how it influences our everyday lives (Rosser 20-21). It requires new models of analyzing how to best serve the “common good” (Rosser 19). Again, regardless of whether differences between masculine and feminine perspectives of the world are rooted in biology or socialization, technology has been dominated by those perspectives that are characteristic of men who fall under the hegemonic definition of masculinity, which sociologist Erving Goffman defines as, “young, married, white, urban, northern, heterosexual, Protestant, father, of college education, fully employed, of good complexion, weight, and height, and recent record in sports…”[1] While it is obvious that some of these traits carry more weight than others, it is important to note how pointed the ideals society projects on people can be.
Rosser also introduces a compelling defense of integrating women into the field of technology by highlighting Knut Sorenson’s point that “‘women have a care, other-oriented relationship to nature and to people, an integrated, more holistic and less hierarchical world-view, a less competitive way of relating to colleagues and a greater affinity to users’” (Rosser 28). In other words, their particular position of oppression and subordination women with a greater sympathy to how a wider range of institutions may be employed to oppress a wider range of people, which in turn makes them more considerate and capable allies to humanity at large.
While there is still much disagreement about why gender distinctions are so powerful in society, progress towards understanding how they affect different people in different ways is becoming an increasingly important issue to address. Similarly, progress towards understanding how to combat such oppressive power structures is becoming an increasingly relevant lens in which to look at a variety of arenas of everyday life. It seems to me that only by broadening focus in terms of difference and intersectionality will we be able to enfranchise those who don’t satisfy the hegemonic definition of masculinity, or, in other words, most of the people on this planet.
[1] Goffman, Erving. Stigma. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963.
Reading Response 9/12
With Fausto-Sterling’s conversation about dualisms in mind, one of the major reoccurring themes I noticed in The Hunger Games was the dualism (or more accurately, the desconstruction of) between nature/ nonhuman and unnatural/ human. As Fausto-Sterling defines, dualisms are “pairs of opposing concepts, objects, or belief systems” that are central to a Western way of seeing the world (2000, p. 21). Furthermore, Fausto-Sterling critiques that this view often masks the interdependencies of each pair by emphasizing the dominance of one (2000). These statements felt true as I tried to unscramble the face-value of the dualism in The Hunger Games.
I suppose a major flaw in thinking of dualisms is that they are static and that one side is more favorable, true, etc. It is clichéd to say that there is more than one side to everything, but it is applicable to the shortcomings of dualisms. An example would be the woods in District 12. Following a dualism format, District 12 is the unnatural/ human area filled with industry and encased in a supposedly electrified fence to keep residents from going into the natural/ nonhuman (and even antihuman?) woods that are filled with “flesh-eaters” and “added concerns like venomous snakes, rabid animal, and no real paths to follow” (Collins, 2008, p. 5). However, Katniss and other residents know that the woods is also an area to forge and hunt for food, which is essential to survival (of humans). While District 12 might not have the dangers of the woods, it is not very inducing to survival. Katniss succinctly calls District 12, the place “where you can starve to death in safety” (Collins, 2008, p. 6).
Related to the nonstatic positions of supposedly opposing ends of a dualism, there is fluidity between. The fluidity and even overlapping between the opposing ends of a dualism more or less negates the purpose of it. A Hunger Games example would be the Arena for the Games. While the Arena is a natural terrain filled with elements and animals/ plants, etc., it is within the control of the human Gamemakers. The Gamemakers can add any “unnatural” element such as a wall of fire or the systematic drainage of water sources to the Arena if they felt the pace of excitement for the audience is not on par. Certain animals found in the Arena and the rest of Panem also embodied this fluid/ overlapping state of the natural/ unnatural. They are the muttations/ mutts such as the jabberjay/ mockingjay or the tracker jacker wasps. They were mainly developed as weapons for the Capitol during the war. Other than the manmade (and supposedly not natural) beginnings of these animals, it is interesting to note the aftermath of these animals. For the tracker jackers, Katniss notes that Capitol destroyed most of them, but possibly kept some nests of the wasps as a warning sign to the Districts, which shows some control the Capitol had over these natural/ unnatural creatures. The jabberjays on the other hand, managed to breed with mockingbirds and create a new species, the mockingjay, despite the Capitol’s attempt to destroy the creatures. The ultimate overlapping of the natural and unnatural creature are the wolf-like mutts towards the end of the Game. Katniss might have described them as “unnatural” and having “unmistakably human” eyes, which seems to land the creatures smack in the unnatural/ human camp of the dualism, but she also wonders if these creatures that are really the embodiment of the dead human tributes (such as if their memory is intact, etc.), which raises the question of the humanity of these creatures.
Fausto-Sterling also included an interesting quote by philosopher Val Plumwood. Dualisms can be seen as a cultural “store of weapons” that “‘can be mined, refined and redeployed’” (qtd. in 2000, p. 21). While the concept of dualisms is problematic, it can be used as weapons for resistance and be changed into other dualisms for such a purpose. The use of the mutations might be an example. Jabberjays were used by Rebels against the Capitol. Katniss had used the mockingjays and tracker jackers to her advantage in the Games. And from the spoilers I skimmed from Wikipedia, it seems like a dualism between natural and unnatural might be disassembled for a dualism between the Capitol and the Districts?
Wow, I love the posts!
Hi everyone,
I have loved reading your posts so far, and I can’t wait to talk to you in class on Thursday. In case you didn’t know it, teachers often get very nervous before meeting a class. At least I do. But in this case, I feel more like I am nervous because I am so excited.
The posts about pens, money, and razors have really taken on the spirit of the Technology Diary in amazing ways. I also appreciate that you have linked out to relevant media pieces.
When we meet on Thursday (6:00-7:30 at Macaulay) we will review the first week’s reading and dig into Hunger Games.
Keep up the good work!
Rosser/Freedman/Fausto Sterling
Sue V. Rosser, Anne Fausto Sterling, and Estelle B. Freedman, in their respective writings all take on the task of trying to uncover the complexities of feminist conceptions, gender norms, and ultimately trying to redefine how people view feminism.
Sue V. Rosser in her essay “Using the Lenses of Feminist Theories to Focus on Women and Technology” defines the many different subsets of feminism. Most people, including myself, tend to simplify feminism and think of it as one omnipotent force. Rosser completely disproves this by listing ten different types of feminism, and their implications in technology and the labor force. Feminism is not a simple all encompassing philosophy but rather a spectrum in which various nuanced beliefs exist. Just like any political or religious belief, feminists can argue internally over their politics and where they stand in the belief spectrum.
Additionally, Rosser challenges the norms behind technology. Before reading the piece, I took the usage, design, and production of technology very much for granted. I never thought of the complex gender relations that were present in almost every aspect of our technological world. After reading about the many ways that feminists theorize technology I cannot view it the same way.
Anne Fausto-Sterling in the first chapter “Dueling Dualisms,” of her book Sexing the Body, also discusses the complexities behind defining gender and sexuality. She presents a variety of arguments, some scientifically based, and some socially based, but concludes that gender and sexuality are a combination of both biological occurances paired with social circumstances. Before reading Fausto-Sterling’s article I was already aware of the complexities that make up gender and sexuality. After debating in high school for four years I was exposed to a fair amount of critical feminist literature, such as Judith Butler’s works, that made its way into the debate round. Fausto-Sterling’s analysis contributes to the common theme between the three works of revealing the nuances of feminist theory as well as challenging current conceptions and norms behind it.
Finally, in No Turning Back, Estelle B. Freedman, questions the assumptions of women’s role in the labor force, as well as our perceptions of feminism. Freedman raises a very important point about the stereotypical notions of feminism. She presents the surprising statistic that in a 2000 poll of Americans, 85 percent said they support equal rights for women, when asked if they identified as feminists only 29 percent said they did (Freedman 10). This clearly portrays the negative connotations that our country holds about the term and study feminism. I find this to be very true even in Macaulay. At Hunter, feminism is considered a dirty word. When registering for classes my peers advise me on whether or not to take a certain professor’s class based on if she is a feminist or not. Freedman explores where this negative connotation came from and like Rosser, explains the nuances within the study of feminism and how it is not the omnipotent force the stereotype makes it out to be.
All three readings force the reader to think critically about the norms and many mundane experiences in every day life.
Rosser/Freedman/Fausto Sterling
All three of the readings included discussion of the particular viewpoints that society has had about women and gender. The chapters in No Turning Back focused on women in the workplace – from the wage gap to the amount of work women have to do every day that isn’t considered to be real work at all. Dueling Dualisms discussed the meaning of gender in different societies and feminist movements, specifically that gender is a social construct, as opposed to sex, which is biological. The Women, Gender, and Technology reading discussed these concepts through the lenses of different feminist schools of thought.
Specifically each of these texts focused on how feminists react to specific issues. In No Turning Back, for example, it is explained that in the Feminist Mystique, which was a book written during the second wave of feminism, an easy solution for women to get out of the trap of staying at home and being forced to do housework was to hire a maid. Of course this did not apply to lower class women, which is something that has become more important to the third wave feminist movement. In Dueling Dualisms, it is mentioned that the second wave feminist movement included an emphasis on the difference between sex and gender with the understanding that gender was a social construction and sex was biological – however they ignored the part where even sex is not clear all the time. The Women, Gender, and Technology reading focused specifically on technology and how it relates to gender and women, especially in the workplace, so there were a lot of countering viewpoints, though they weren’t “waves” but broken down further. The other readings seemed to show that many of the concepts addressed in the second wave were improved by the third wave, but Rosser shows how the different sectors and types of “feminist” all fill in for each other.
I was particularly struck by the concept of Dualisms that was discussed in the Fausto-Sterling reading but also similar to what was discussed in the Freedman book. Fausto-Sterling explained how certain “dualisms,” such as sex/gender and male/female limit the capacity of the concepts to overlap with other other and make it impossible to see that they don’t have to be completely separate. In No Turning Back, Freedman talks about how many societies completely split male and female work and refused to believe that the two could overlap. I think this is because of the male/female “dualism” that exists within many societies. Rosser discusses how these different opinions regarding male/female are thought about in the different feminist theories, and how each one of these theories would have a different opinion on why the wage gap and other statistics regarding gender and the workplace exist.
