Thursday, January 19, 2012

Help I'm Alive

Cool song that was in the film we watched today:

Occupy Providence

At Occupy Providence, I spoke to a twenty-six year old named Charles, who is a self-proclaimed anarchist and has been at Occupy Providence for ninety-three days. Charles spoke about his first encounter with government policies that infringed on his rights as a citizen of the United States: at age sixteen, he wrote a political poem, which he posted on the website deviantART, an "online art community for artists and art lovers to interact in a variety of ways, ranging from the submission of art to conversations on a number of topics. In its purest form, deviantART is a means for expressing yourself in a variety of ways" ("deviantART"). Charles received a government email soon after posting his poem that told him he had to take the poem down from the website or else the government would press charges against him. He simply wrote back that he would not take the poem down and that if someone wanted to press charges, he would happily go to the Supreme Court and defend his First Amendment freedom of speech.

Charles's three main reasons for being at Occupy Providence are:
1. To fight for the civil rights and freedom of the people
2. To help end international slavery
3. To work towards a stabilized economy

He stresses the fact that he does believe in having a government to maintain order within the country. However, he is fighting for a government that cares about the people it governs and not just about its own wealth and power. He insists that as more people continue to join the Occupy movements, we will come closer and closer to reaching this goal.

Seeing the occupiers out in the cold, fervently relaying their message to young people reminded me of the last two articles that we read for class. Both the Ayvazian article and the Love and Helmbrecht article talked about what real activism means. Ayvazian emphasizes the fact that an ally (someone who fights for a cause that has an effect on people other than oneself) is "highly motivated," "extremely clear and consistent on an issue," and takes risks. This encompasses everything that I saw in the occupiers who I spoke to today. An ally also takes action by talking to others just like him/her about the issues at hand, which is something that the occupiers were all too eager to do.

Love and Helmbrecht describe the difference between consumerism and activism, arguing that activism is about going out and actually fighting and talking to people and putting in work in order to make a change. People often think that just buying a product (maybe a t-shirt that says "We are the 99%") is the same as fighting for the cause, but according to Love and Helmbrecht, the people standing outside in the cold and rallying at the Occupy movements are the ones taking real action.

While talking to the activists at Occupy Providence, I was also reminded very much of the two websites we looked at: "People Like Us" and "The Center for Working Class Studies." Charles spoke vehemently about the way our own banks rob us by taking out unnecessary fees from the money that we worked hard to make. He also talked about the Bilderbergs, which he defined as a group of multibillionaires who have absolute power in this country. It made me think about the economic inequity in this country and its effects on the social and political power of different groups of people.

Although I could not stay outside for very long due to the cold, I got to hear a lot of new information that I knew nothing about before and that I plan on researching much more on my own.

For some more concrete information on what the Occupy movement is fighting for, watch this video:

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Sex, Money, And Gender Equality: The Third Wave Of Feminism (Extended Comments)

"Teaching The Conflicts: (Re)Engaging Students With Feminism In A Postfeminist World"

By Meredith A. Love and Brenda M. Helmbrecht

For this post, I chose to examine Ariel's blog and the points he makes about this article and its connections to Allan Johnson's article. First and foremost, I have to say that Ariel's post was at times harsh and at times hilarious, but all in all, it was just very honest.

Ariel talks a lot about money and how this has a huge effect on the way women (and really, all people) behave in our culture. He argues that we need to push aside our greed before we can make any real progress towards equality and the empowerment of women:

"We need to change our greedy, self absorbed, perception and start caring about morals, values, equality, and acceptance in order to embrace feminism" ("Food for Thought").

I think this is a great point and one that Love and Helmbrecht would definitely agree with. They discuss in their article the way that activism and consumerism seem to come together and sometimes become so intertwined that it is unclear which is which. For instance, the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty uses images of normal, everyday women to entice other normal, everyday women to buy their products. Thus, women come to believe that by purchasing a product from Dove, they are taking action against the notion that women must be thin and wrinkle-less to be beautiful. However, Love and Helmbrecht argue that there is a very important distinction between buying something that supports a cause and actually going out and fighting for that cause.

"In creating these spaces where consumerism and activism mingle awkwardly, Pink and Dove implicitly argue that women's empowerment and advancement lie within an individual's buying power, not within a larger cultural cause or movement" (Love and Helmbrecht 52).

In his blog post, Ariel also talks a lot about how sex and sexuality sell in this culture. He especially focuses on women showing off their bodies and acting sexual, claiming that they do this because they know that sex sells. He says that if women were as interested in sex as men are, men would be showing off their naked bodies just as much as women do. This is where I have to disagree with Ariel because I do not believe that it is the levels of interest in sex that causes women to do these things far more often than men. I think that women often are just as interested in sex as men are, if not more in some cases. However, because we live in a patriarchal society, women are expected to be the givers of sexual pleasure while men are the takers. If a woman wants to be a taker instead, she is considered abnormal, or slutty, or too domineering. She is stepping out of her role, which is something that usually causes one to be ostracized. It works the same way for men. A man who wants to dance around half naked will likely be called gay or feminine. He is stepping out of the man's role as the voyeur, the one who sits back and receives the sexual pleasure.

This is not to say that women don't enjoy getting to show off their bodies and their sexuality. I'm just saying that I don't think it is their lack of interest in sex that makes them do the showing off while the men keep their clothes on. I also do agree with Ariel that sex sells, and this is a lot of the reason why women in the media tend to use their sexuality to a great extent. Nicki Minaj is a great example of a woman who markets herself as powerful and empowered by her sexuality, but in most of her videos, she is dancing in sexual ways for the pleasure of men who are just sitting and watching her. To me, she shows that even when women feel empowered by their sexuality, they are often still feeding into the male-dominated culture.

I am glad that Ariel brought up the idea of generation differences because this is another important part of Love and Helmbrecht's article. Ariel says that he is a part of the so-called "third generation movement" and that the issues that applied to people in generations before ours do not necessarily apply to us today. Love and Helmbrecht want their readers to recognize that this is true--there are different issues for women today than there were many years ago. However, they stress that it is important to understand that the issues of both generations are connected in many ways and cannot be viewed as separate.

"'Attributing our differences to generation rather than to politics sets us firmly into psychologized thinking, and into versions of mother/daughter relations--somehow, we are never sisters who might have things to teach each other across our differences...'" (Love and Helmbrecht 43).

Ariel recognizes that the generation we live in is much more open and accepting of different types of people and different ways of living. But he also understands that our generation is like this because of the work that has been done by people in the past. Love and Helmbrecht refer to this as "paving the way," and this is a very important step in continuing to make change for future generations.

Point to Share:
I want to talk about this new campaign for Lean Cuisine called "Culinary Chic." It basically combines losing weight with being fashionable, and by its website and commercials, you can see that it is very clearly targeted only towards women. Why does everything women do have to be turned into a fashion statement? Why is it assumed that all women will want to buy something more if they believe that it is fashionable?

Monday, January 16, 2012

Together We Can Make A Difference (Connections)

"Interrupting The Cycle Of Oppression: The Role Of Allies As Agents Of Change"
By Andrea Ayvazian
Occupy Movement Websites

Ayvazian's article is very much tied to the Occupy Movement in that every person who has chosen to take part in it is acting as an ally in some way. The main objectives of the movement are to fight against greed, government corruption, unemployment, and economic inequality. However, not everyone who is participating in the movement is directly suffering from these things. Many of the Occupy activists are just people who understand the problems and believe that we need to change them, whether or not it will have an effect on their lives:

"On September 17th, men and women of all races, backgrounds, political and religious beliefs, began to organize in nonviolent protest" ("Occupy Together").

Ayvazian defines an ally as someone from a dominant group in our society who chooses to fight for the rights and benefits of the oppressed group. In other words, the goals of an ally do not bring about any direct advantage to the ally. Ayvazian explains that for every form of oppression, there is a dominant group that receives an unearned privilege and a targeted group that is denied that privilege.

This reminded me a lot of Allan Johnson's article in which he describes how the lives of the advantaged and the disadvantaged are closely connected and intertwined because one allows the other to happen. One group is privileged at the expense of another group. Therefore, he explains that the dominant groups cannot just pass off the problems of the oppressed groups as something that does not belong to them. Johnson argues that the systems of privilege and oppression affect everyone:

"There is no way that a problem of difference can involve just one group of people...there is no way to separate the problem of not being white from being white. This means privilege is always a problem for people who don't have it and for people who do, because privilege is always in relation to others" (Johnson 10).

Ayvazian emphasizes the fact that being in a dominant (i.e. privileged) group, is what gives a person the opportunity to become an ally. She explains that oppression and even violence are often unable to be reduced until people from the dominant groups come together to fight against it. She gives an example of women who are physically abused by men and how counseling, restraining orders, and even fighting back do not make any strong or lasting changes in the men's behavior. However, when men come together in support groups to talk about and fight against men's violence against women, the problems are greatly reduced. Ayvazian strongly encourages members of dominant groups to speak to other members of that group about ending oppression and violence.

This relates very well to Johnson's insistence that members of dominant groups are the ones who are responsible for fighting against oppression. He argues that the oppressed groups do not have enough power in our society to make change and therefore, they need the help of those with privilege and power:

"But these groups can't do it on their own, because they don't have the power to change entrenched systems of privilege by themselves. If they could do that, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. The simple truth is that the trouble we're in can't be solved unless people who are heterosexual or male or Anglo or white or economically comfortable feel obligated to make the problem of privilege their problem and to do something about it" (Johnson 10).

Ayvazian would definitely consider Johnson to be an ally because he is a white, straight, middle-class male, who is fighting for equality within the realms of gender, race, class, and sexual orientation. He is not oppressed in any of these groups, however he believes strongly enough in the need for equality that he puts in a great effort to fight for it.

Both Ayvazian and Johnson believe that if one is lucky enough to be part of a dominant group, one must use the privilege and power that this brings in order to take risks, be proactive, and fight against oppression. This is what makes someone a true ally.

Sunday, January 15, 2012

Petition to Redistribute GPA Scores

What do y'all think of this video, comparing redistribution of the wealth to redistribution of GPA scores?

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Women And Social Class

"People Like Us" and "The Center for Working Class Studies"

Within both of these websites, the part that struck a chord with me was the stories of real (and sometimes fictional) women dealing with class issues. The stories were not always about poverty or the fight for survival, but in each account, the woman was in some way struggling to come to terms with her place in the system of social class.

On the "People Like Us" website, I found two stories (possibly fictional) of women dealing with class if different ways. The first was about a woman named Val, who came from a working class family but married a man whose immigrant family had invested in land and become very wealthy. Val was now able to pay her family back for all of the hard work and support they had given her when she was growing up. However, her father strongly valued working hard to earn his own living, and he refused to take her money. The new difference in their social classes made Val's interactions with her family very uncomfortable.

The second story was about a woman named Karen, who moved around a lot due to her father's job. Karen became aware of social class when she noticed that in some places her family was considered high in rank, but in other places, where everyone was of higher class, her family was considered low class. This highly affected her experiences in each place, especially when she was seen as lower class and felt as though she didn't have the same opportunities as other women her age.

Within the Resources section on the "People Like Us" website, I found an excerpt, titled "Working Poor," from Barbara Ehrenreich's book Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America. Ehrenreich tells the story of a woman who is part of a maid service where she works on a team with several other women to clean houses. The author of the story closely observes the difficulties that each of the women on her team is experiencing: one girl does not have enough money to buy a soda, another woman struggles to support her child, another woman cannot afford dental care for her impacted wisdom tooth. All of the woman are concerned about whether their male supervisor will pay them on time and how to manage the cheap and insufficient cleaning equipment they are given to do their job. Social class has a powerful effect on each of the women in this maid service.

On the "Center For Working Class Studies" website, I found a blog called Working-Class Perspectives. I found one post that, for me, really represented women's struggles with social class, called "A Visit to the Food Pantry." The post is a story written by Jeanne Bryner, a poet, former emergency room nurse, and community affiliate of the Center for Working-Class Studies. She describes her trip to a local food pantry with her daughter, who frequents the pantry and asked her mother to join her. As Bryner stands in line waiting to get her food, she contemplates the others waiting with her. One thing that sticks out to her is the number of mothers, either with their children or picking out diapers and food for the ones at home. She also notices the fact that a large majority of the people there are elderly women, which causes her much concern: "Oh Lord, I think, who will carry their food inside when they get home?"

These stories all together made me think of several ways in which economic inequity is a feminist issue. First, I thought of the male advantage in our society and how a man is more likely to get a higher-paying or higher-esteemed job, or to receive higher pay at the same job as a woman. Therefore, it is easier for a woman to end up with a lower income than a man. As more and more women work at low-paying jobs while men work the higher-paying jobs, it becomes normal and almost necessary for women to make up the lower class. This also makes it harder for women to work their way up, when they are starting from a lower point than men.

In reading these stories, I also thought of how child-rearing plays into women's experiences of social class. It is easy for a man to leave a woman who is pregnant to raise the child on her own. Being a single mother makes it harder for women to work or go to school because they need to be watching the child. A woman who already does not have much money often cannot afford to pay for daycare or a babysitter. Even if she is able to work, it is hard to make enough money on one's own to support oneself and a child. Being a single mother can become a vicious cycle that keeps the woman perpetually within the lower class.

The stories on these websites also reminded me of intersectionality in feminism and how many groups of women (black, lesbian, lower class) are excluded from the fight. If women are going to fight for women's rights, they cannot leave out the poor, working class women who are struggling to survive. In a way, the middle and upper class feminists are responsible for including working class women in their arguments because women living in poverty often lack the resources needed to participate in activism. They have more basic needs that they have to attend to first. This reminded me of some of the other articles we've read, which assert the fact that the privileged groups are the ones who are responsible for taking action and making change.

Point to Share:
There is a game that I played on the "People Like Us" website called Chintz or Shag. The game lets you pick out different objects to create your fantasy living room. Each object represents either working-class, middle-class, or high-class taste. In the end, the game tells you which social class you fit into based on your preferences. I found this to be a very interesting way of explaining how each social class experiences life in an entirely different way, down to the things that look visually pleasing to us. The game really points out the importance of recognizing social class as part of what makes us who we are.

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

What Women Want And Why (Quotes)

"Compulsory Heterosexuality And Lesbian Existence"

By Adrienne Rich

Heterosexuality is one of the many "privileges" that become invisible in our society today because they are so often assumed or expected. This is part of what Rich attempts to point out in her article, which asserts the existence of lesbians, whose sexual preferences lie along a continuum, ranging from alliance in a common cause to close emotional bonds to sexual relationships. Rich refutes the common arguments that women are innately sexually oriented towards men and that women who identify as lesbians are merely acting out due to bitterness towards men. She attempts to reveal the reasons why so many women find themselves in heterosexual relationships despite their known (or unknown) desires for the opposite. She groups all of these reasons under one name: Compulsory Heterosexuality.

Rich raises the idea that there have been many factors throughout history that have made it difficult or even dangerous for women to not marry a man:

“Chodorow's account barely glances at the constraints and sanctions which historically have enforced or ensured the coupling of women with men and obstructed or penalized women's coupling or allying in independent groups with other women” (84).

“Women have married because it was necessary, in order to survive economically, in order to have children who would not suffer economic deprivation or social ostracism, in order to remain respectable, in order to do what was expected of women...” (92).

She presents a question that she claims is often left out of feminist literature--whether more women would reject heterosexual relationships and identify as lesbians if they lived in a different environment that made this easier:

“In none of them is the question ever raised as to whether, in a different context or other things being equal, women would choose heterosexual coupling and marriage” (82).

Rich raises this question in order to combat the widely held belief that women have a natural, biological attraction to men, despite their strong, emotionally rewarding relationships with other women:

“ if, despite profound emotional impulses and complementarities drawing women toward women, there is a mystical/biological heterosexual inclination, a 'preference' or 'choice' which draws women toward men” (84).

She explains that the attraction to men may be there, in all women, but it is not something innate and hardwired. It comes from the institutions in our society that make heterosexuality the "norm" and anything outside of this "deviant" and "abhorrent." In other words, compulsory heterosexuality is man-made and man-maintained but is so powerful that we begin to see it as biological:

“I am suggesting that heterosexuality, like motherhood, needs to be recognized and studied as a political institution...” (84).

Rich introduces male power manifestations as one of the ways in which heterosexuality is enforced on women. She describes many of the ways in which male power has an effect on women, including denying them of their own sexuality, forcing male sexuality on them, controlling or robbing them of their children, confining them physically, and using them as objects in male transactions. All of these manifestations of male power in some way compel women to heterosexuality:

“Some of the forms by which male power manifests itself are more easily recognizable as enforcing heterosexuality on women than are others. Yet each one I have listed adds to the cluster of forces within which women have been convinced that marriage and sexual orientation toward men are inevitable—even if unsatisfying or oppressive—components of their lives” (86).

Rich raises another important aspect of this form of compulsory heterosexuality. She explains that sexual abuse done by males to females is considered acceptable and therefore becomes invisible in our daily lives, unlike sexual activity between two women:

“...enforced submission and the use of cruelty, if played out in heterosexual pairing, is sexually 'normal,' while sensuality between women, including erotic mutualityand respect, is 'queer,' 'sick,' and either pornographic in itself or not very exciting compared with the sexuality of whips and bondage” (86).

This normalcy and even necessity of male to female sexual abuse becomes so ingrained that both men and women accept it with open arms:

“The adolescent male sex drive, which, as both young women and men are taught, once triggered cannot take responsibility for itself or take no for an answer, becomes, according to Barry, the norm and rationale for adult male sexual behavior...Women learn to accept as natural the inevitability of this 'drive' because they receive it as dogma” (88).

The point that Rich eventually wants to illuminate for her readers is that heterosexuality may not be as biological as we think it is--even for those of us who happily and readily engage in heterosexual relationships. She challenges women who consider themselves to be heterosexual to look into the ways in which their attraction to men has been shaped and coerced by the society in which we live. And she recognizes that this may be a very difficult step to take.

Point to Share:
Rich brings up the idea of procreation and romantic relationships going hand in hand, and how we often assume that this is the way things work. But she points out that they don't necessarily have to coincide. This made me think about women who use sperm donors to get pregnant rather than a partner and how this can be just as fulfilling and successful as when partners choose to procreate together. I want to think about other ways in which these two things that we assume would go together do not always do so.

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

The Transformation of Toys (Hyperlinks)

"Cinderella Ate My Daughter"

By Peggy Orenstein

There is something wrong with children's toys today. This is Orenstein's argument in the second and third chapters of her book, in which she focuses on the gender-specific aspects of children's toys. She describes the "pinkification" of toys marketed to young girls and how the words found on girls' toys are "Beautiful," "Pretty," and "Colorful," while the words centered around boys' toys are "Energy," "Heroes," and "Power." She expresses concern for the self-esteem and aspirations of young girls, whose toys teach them that the thing they should value most in life is physical appearance.

What fascinated me the most about these two chapters was Orenstein's emphasis on the marketing strategies behind these toys and especially the effect they have on the look of dolls. As Orenstein explains, baby dolls were originally used in a campaign started by President Theodore Roosevelt to "revive the flagging maternal instinct of white girls" during a time when birth rates were extraordinarily low (45).

Over the years, the doll craze has led to the creation of many types of dolls. But most of all, it has led to a constant transformation of the dolls that young girls play with, moving farther away from innocence and closer to "mature," "cool," and "sexy." For me, the doll that is most representative
of this change is the "New Dora." She is meant to be an older version of the TV show character Dora the Explorer, who is adventurous and smart and doesn't care about appearance. "New Dora," however, is tall and skinny and pretty and wears a dress with ballet flats instead of shorts and sneakers. She has lost her childhood innocence, as well as her desire to be anything other than pretty. Although this transformation may fare well for marketing companies, it is sparking fear in parents who don't want their daughters becoming sexualized or materialistic. Authors Mikel Brown and Sharon Lamb have gone so far as to create a petition against "New Dora," as stated in a Washington Post article in 2009. A link to the petition can be found within the article.

In response to the many complaints of angry and concerned parents, Nickelodeon and Mattel released a statement on March 16, 2009 to explain their reasoning behind creating "New Dora." They claimed it was a way for the Dora character to grow with the children and remain age-appropriate, and it would keep the children "little girls" for longer. Orenstein begs to differ:

"New Dora wasn't sexy, not at all--she was pretty, and that prettiness was now inextricable from her other traits. No longer did she turn 'gender portrayal' on its head by 'not looking perfect.' New Dora stands as a reminder to her rugged little sister that she better get with the program, apparently by age five" (42).

Several mothers even argued that they shouldn't be trying to keep their daughters "little girls" for longer and that children should be allowed to grow out of Dora. This, among other arguments against New Dora, can be found in one mother's blog, Viva La Feminista.

New Dora is only one example of how young girls' dolls are straying away from childhood innocence for a cooler, more sexualized look. One collection of dolls this is most often used to illustrate the sexualization of toys is the Bratz dolls. The American Psychological Association (APA) confirmed that these dolls, among other forms of mainstream media, have a negative effect on the mental health of young girls. Although these dolls are more aware of racial diversity, they make it clear that there is only one attractive body type (thin) and that tight shirts and short skirts are cool and show attitude and maturity. Bratz dolls, like New Dora, give young girls the message that it is more important to look good than to explore the world around you.

Point to Share:
Another part of these two chapters that I found very interesting was when Orenstein talks about how the more women achieve, the more they become obsessed with physical appearance. It is as if women "unconsciously defuse the threat their progress poses to male dominance" (18). In other words, we have the ingrained belief that it is unfair for women to achieve the same things as men, so in exchange for achieving these things, we give up the ability to live life without constantly worrying about the way we look. I want to talk/think much more about this idea and see how it relates to my own life and the lives of other people.

Sunday, January 8, 2012

Living Outside The Master's House (Reflection)

"The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle The Master's House"

By Audre Lorde

This article brings up many different points about the feminist fight, taking on a critical view of the way in which it is being fought in its current stage. While I found all of Lorde's points interesting and important, I was most intrigued by the title of the article and what it means in the context of today's fight for gender equality. I was confused about the title at first, unsure exactly who the Master was and what his/her tools were. The title is only referred to explicitly in one paragraph of the entire article, and I found that I could not decipher it by analyzing only this one section. I began to piece together all of Lorde's points, from beginning to end, and finally it made sense.

The Master that Lorde refers to is the white, heterosexual, patriarchal society in which we live. It is a society in which differences are not accepted, and those who do not fit the mold cannot enjoy the same advantages as those who do.

I was able to figure out the Master analogy fairly quickly, but when I came to the part about the tools, I found myself at a loss. I understood that Lorde was criticizing the methods used by feminists today, arguing that they were not strong enough to bring about change in our society. However, I could not figure out what these methods were. I began to look at the other issues Lorde raises in her article, those of racism and the lack of black representation in the feminist movement. Then it all came together.

In the beginning of the article, Lorde writes:

"What does it mean when the tools of a racist patriarchy are used to examine the fruits of that same patriarchy? It means that only the most narrow perimeters of change are possible and allowable" (36).

The tools that Lorde is referring to are the tools that push away differences. She points out that most of the women who are taking part in the public, academic fight for gender equality are white women, usually middle-class. Poor women and women of color are left out or pushed into a separate group. Therefore, according to Lorde, the feminists of today are pushing away differences, in the exact same way as the society they are fighting against. They are using the tools of the Master, of the society that doesn't accept differences.

This sparked several images in my mind: that of women trying to dress and act like men in order to gain power, that of gay men trying to act "masculine" in order to avoid ridicule, that of black people trying to "act white" in order to be taken seriously. Instead of fighting against the idea of an acceptable way of being that we must all adhere to, we feed into this idea and struggle harder to fit into it. Instead of embracing our differences, we discard them or pretend that they don't exist, all in order to be accepted.

Lorde emphasizes the fact that our differences are extremely important in the fight for change and that we need to understand all different points of view in order to make any real progress. This also incited several thoughts in my mind. Most of all, it reminded me of a book called "The Giver," which describes a world in which everyone thinks and acts the same, and there is no pain or emotion or choice. But one boy decides to break the mold and bring about change. It is difficult and dangerous, but because he stepped away from what was expected of him, he is able to make a positive change in his life and in the lives of others. Like Lorde's article, "The Giver" emphasizes the importance of being different and not conforming to society's expectations. This is an idea that I have tried to incorporate into my own life for many years, ever since I started to recognize the parts of me that do not fit the mold of society. Reading Lorde's article has encouraged me to continue embracing these parts of myself rather than trying to change them. And I suggest that you all do the same!

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Invisible Privileges (Argument)

“Privilege, Power, and Difference”

By Allan G. Johnson

In these first few chapters of Johnson's book, there were two main arguments (or themes) that appeared repeatedly and struck me as extremely important parts of examining the issues of race, gender, and sexual orientation. The first of these arguments is that privilege belongs to GROUPS not INDIVIDUALS. The second argument is that belonging to a privileged group means never having to be AWARE of one's membership in that group.

Johnson discusses the fact that people become defensive when told that they belong to a privileged group. They take this to mean that they are personally responsible for harming the oppressed group or the individuals within that group. What Johnson attempts to explain in these chapters is that it is not individual people who have advantages or who are taking advantages from others. Instead, he argues that our society is designed so that certain groups of people (such as men or heterosexuals) have an easier time of getting good things in life than other groups (such as women or black people). Johnson knows that he belongs to several privileged groups, but he understands that his privilege is not created by him but by something much bigger:

"As a white, male, middle-class heterosexual, I know that in some ways these words are about me. There's no way to avoid playing some role in the troubles they name, and that's something I need to look at. But in equally important ways, the words are not about me because they name something much larger than me, something I didn't invent or create, but that was passed on to me as a legacy when I born into this society" (13).

Johnson further explains this idea by arguing that in order to belong to a privileged group, one does not need to have a certain personality or any personal identity whatsoever. They just need to be able to convince others that they belong to the privileged group:

"I'm not race privileged because of who I am as a person. Whiteness is privileged in this society, and I have access to that privilege only when people identify me as belonging to the category 'white.' I do or don't receive race privilege based on which category people put me in without their knowing a single other thing about me" (35).

In making the argument that privilege belongs to groups, not individuals, Johnson attempts to make those belonging to privileged groups more comfortable with talking about dominance and oppression without feeling guilty and/or defensive.

Johnson also recognizes that those belonging to advantaged groups can become irritated or defensive because they do not believe themselves to have any sort of advantage. However, as Johnson reveals, this is often a result of the fact that privilege becomes invisible to those who have it. For several pages, Johnson lays out examples of ways in which people belonging to privileged groups can live their daily lives without thinking about the privileged aspect of their identity. For instance, a man can walk to his car at night without thinking about his gender because this part of his identity does not affect him negatively in this situation. On the other hand, a woman walking anywhere alone at night will most likely be aware of her womanhood because this part of her identity makes her more vulnerable to being attacked. Being part of a privileged group means having the ability to live life without being highly aware of that part of oneself. This gives one the capacity to think of oneself merely as a person, rather than a black person or a homosexual person. It grants one the freedom to enjoy one's own unique personality, rather than having to concentrate on the group that one is lumped with. In making this argument, Johnson attempts to give those belonging to privileged groups a new way of looking at their everyday experiences that will make their advantages more visible to them.

This reminded me a lot of something we talked about in class today. We mentioned the fact that we don't notice a certain part of our identity until it is the part that sticks out the most. For instance, if I (a woman) am in a room with all men, I will be highly aware of my gender. However, if I am in a room with all women, I most likely will not be thinking about the fact that I am a woman. For the time being, this part of me will become invisible. In writing this book, Johnson hopes to make many invisible parts of our identities reappear.

A Little About Me


My name is Jean, I'm 21 years old (finally), and I'm a senior at Emerson College in Boston. My academic life has been pretty complicated over the past few years, as I went from being a Film Production major to an English major to applying to grad school for Psychology. But the main reason I'm taking this course is because I want to fulfill a minor in Women's and Gender Studies by the time I graduate, and I would be unable to do that with classes at Emerson.

During this break so far, I have been in Boston a bit, in Maine for new years, and just hanging out with friends and getting some much needed sleep! In my spare time, I like to eat sushi and thai food and watch The Office on Netflix instant play. I also love to sing, and I perform at open mics and other events with my friend who accompanies me on guitar. I am currently interning at the Psychiatry Neuroimaging Lab at Brigham and Women's Hospital, and I hope to be working at a camp for kids with Autism over the summer.

And that's about all you need to know!