Blog response - 4

Chapter 13:
1) On page 72, bell hooks states "Even in households where no adult male caregiver is present, women taught and teach children sexist thinking." What kind of sexist thinking do you think is being taught to children and how would feminist go about changing that? Also, why do you think a woman would teach her children sexist thinking? Or is it even intentional?


     I feel sexist thinking is integrated into parenting styles on several levels beginning at birth and continuing throughout an individual's lifetime. Mothers and fathers influence their children's choices and behaviors in such a way that I would argue it bleeds into the issue of cultural hegemony. I think this has become so much apart of the developed world's parenting style that parental coercion and parenting are very much synonymous. How many moms and dads tell their little girls and boys to "watch what you eat to keep an acceptable figure" and to "eat all your food to grow up big and strong" respectively. Or coordinate their social lives and circle of friends in terms of sex and status from a young age to reflect their own preferences. Women in particular, I feel, do this out of fear of persecution aimed at their children. Whether intentional or not, they attempt to normalize their children to help them avoid the challenges and pain of being different. I think changing the parenting approach would require a perspective of unconditional tolerance and acceptance, as well as educating people about the simple truth that everyone is different.    


2) Hooks notes that no one wants to call attention to women abusing children. After viewing the video below, why do you think people have done so little to calling attention to this abuse by mothers? What was your reaction to this video? Do you think it was abuse?


     I think the lack of attention on abuse by mothers is a product of exclusively associating violence with men, which could also have an inherent element of suppressing woman. In America, our culture upholds the double standard that "ladies" or well behaved woman can't responsibly express anger and aggression, even when justified. Psychology tells us that this leads to unhealthy emotional conflict on both an intrinsic personal level, and obviously an external relational level. The video definitely made me uneasy. I would deem what you see in the video as verbal and psychological abuse (since both individuals stop before it escalates). For a child to be subjected to irrational anger and verbal remarks often on the notion that they don't posses the ability to retaliate based on power-distance, fosters the potential for a very distorted self-image.  


Chapter 14:
1) Bell hooks states “Women having the freedom to be non-monogamous, whether we exercise that freedom or not, continues to disrupt and challenge the notion that the female body belongs to men” (hooks, 2000, pg 80-81). Watch the video below and respond to the following questions: Her decision to forego her modeling career to reserve her body solely for her husband was a bold choice. What are your opinions on this? Is this an example of the suppression of a woman’s sexual freedom and expression? How does this video correspond with the ideas presented in chapter 14?


     I can absolutely respect the idea that she wants to reserve her intimacy and body for her husband. The only issue I have is what the genesis of the motivation was. I have to wonder whether she genuinely and honestly wants to give that respect and sanctity to the man she pledged her life to from a self-motivated and self-respecting perspective; or if she, like so many women, feels she "owes herself" to a man as a result of the possessive nature of today's heterosexual relationships. Pending where her motives came from, this could be an example of suppression of sexual freedom, however subtle the influence of her mate is. I think the video addresses the evasive character of the male dominion over women's sexual freedoms and rights, and how we manipulate and influence women's thoughts and actions. Observe the following clip from "He's Just Not That Into You". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fvqmo5TMyeQ -- (apologies, I would've just posted it but the right video wouldn't show up when I searched the imbedded video tool on blogger)


2) Bell hooks states, “Marriages built on a sexist foundation are likely to be deeply troubled and rarely last” (hooks, 2000, pg 83). It’s clear that hooks believes that traditional gender roles in marriage make for an unequal and dissatisfying union, clarifying that her definition of sexism is equal or comparable to patriarchy. It could be argued that hooks would disagree with a traditional marriage. To bring to life an example of this let us take for instance a stereotypical traditional marriage. The Catholic Church is known for this "sacred union" between a husband and wife. Today, 50% of marriages end in divorce. We question what you suggest is the solution to a fulfilling marriage? Describe what you think this looks like and why it would be successful. Also, if you are able, describe a marriage that youwould consider ‘loving’ and ‘flourishing.’


     I would hardly claim that I know the secret to marital success, but if I had to answer I'd say go with what you FEEL, and I mean really feel. I would argue that tradition, traditional marriages, and traditional gender roles are not the issue. It is when a individual's sense of self, autonomy, and personal sovereignty is compromised due to the dynamics of their relationship that a problem arises. If a man is satisfied as the "bread-winner", and a women comfortable in the traditional, arguably "subordinate", role or vice-versa, than I see no issue. If two gay or lesbian individuals are comfortable with their public display, and take resistance to their relationship in stride, what's the problem? People don't need to conform to relational norms, nor does happiness necessitate "breaking free" and exemplifying an overly unorthodox and eccentric lifestyle in terms of your relationship. If you're happy, you're happy; simple as that. A marriage I would consider loving and flourishing is one that possesses the potential for unconditional acceptance and humility. Friction and disagreements will always occur in a relationship, I think people just have to learn to respect and embrace the differences in each other, or go their separate ways without resentment.