Let's (let Dr. Widman) talk about sex!

Dr. Widman, a professor here at JC who concentrates on biopsychology and evolutionary psyche (according to my housemate who does research with him), graced our class with a very interesting lecture...errr debate...about the biologicial reasoning behind gender differences and social theories. Truth: I know very little about the brain. I met a fantastic girl in Ecuador who studies neuroscience at Brown and she would amaze me with her brilliance everyday. Not to undermine my dear friend's intelligence, (I love you Tarah!), but times her experience by a 4yr post doc. and you have Dr. Widman (and I have no doubt that Tarah will be like this someday too).
So the unofficial title of this famous lecture is the "Femi-nazi and the pig." Ouch already.
This post will basically be a list of "I didn't know that..." and my personal opinion (God knows I wouldn't argue with someone who has the Prefix Dr. in front of their name with no concrete evidence to back it up), because well this is MY blog.
I was slightly aware that the brain structure differed between males and females (and even more varied in homosexuals). You can't blame it all on social construct and cultural influence. Dr. W does a lot of work in his lab with rats (we aren't as fortunate as Bucknell to have the luxury of a monkey lab) and he has done several tests that have turned over concrete evidence that females are "scatter brained" literally. The Sexually dimorphic nucleus is organized quite thoughtfully in the hypothalamus of the male brain whereas in the female, it is just one big cluster of cells. Not to mention that the SDN is approx twice as large in males...thanks for making us feel even more inferior. Well here is a stab at the opposite sex: guys really only half listen and it has been scientifically proven! Because our brains our constucted differently, the connections don't work in quite the same manner. The corpus collision is less lateralized in females, which in layman's terms means women can fully invest themselves in more than one conversation at a time. The men, have a thinner cc so they focus all of their attention on the main subject of interest. Here is one of those "I didn't know that" statements. Cool huh?
So, here I am throwing out all these terms that I just learned today (I want to help save the world in a different way remember? my vocabulary is a little different), but how does this pertain to what we are discussing in class? Well, you really cannot expect the same reaction from men and women if their brains are organized a little differently right? Ok, time to attempt to connect some dots. From now on, I will be speaking chronologically meaning my thoughts may seem scattered but this also gives you a little glimpse into the chaotic...i mean nice class we had today.
Hips don't lie-thanks Shakira: Did you know that men are attracted to skinny blondes? Did you also know that these same men will most likely settle down with a larger (perhaps not so blonde) wife? According to many successful experiments, and apparent generational evidence, the hip-to-waist ratio differs depending on what a man is looking for. So, if she is a hottie with a tiny waist, she is very attractive as a hook-up/booty call/one night stand/flagrant whore/etc. HOWEVER (and this is quite a big however so I believe this exageration is appropriate), when it comes to settling down, the men are more attracted to the bigger hip/waist because they will most likely be more successful in reproduction and in turn pass down their (good) genes. Its (always) all about sex! So if you aren't currently having casual sex, don't fret because you are a much better candidate for the title spouse (and if I'm wrong well, you're still a good person).
A Cinderella story: Once upon a time there was an evil step mother and a message that all little girls should be detached from their parental figures...wait what?! Sorry T, but I am a big fan of Disney and Perrault and we are as opposite as day and night on this one. I didn't take the CA class Juniata offers, but I think there is hard core evidence that was mentioned in class today that Perrault's main idea for this story was to show women that they can overcome their socio-economic status with a little perseverance. Plus, I love my mother.
Sex crazed: We are naturally not monogamous. Who knew? There are actually points in our cycles (yes men have them too) where we are less monogamous and more likely to have an affair. For women, it is right in the middle. So, say more or less by day 14, we are on the prowl. Dr. Widman went into some interesting detail about why that is but I think I will just sound like a big dummy even attempting to explain this one. Hookup culture was kind of interesting to hear about as well. The theory is that the more women present, the more hookups there are, because the more competition there is for the sparse choice in men. Here's the thing: we women (I totally concure) don't like/enjoy/appreciate this type of behavior in ourselves but we must ultimately succumb to it if we want to be found attractive to the males in the population. I do not enritely agree with the last part of the theory; there is more to compatibilty than good sex, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms other theories could proabably disprove.
Selection mechanisms and obligate demands: Are women really more selective when it comes to long-term committment? Absolutely. I agree with Dr. W that women have a much more obligitory position with their offspring. Both physically and emotionally, they are much more invested than men will ever be (if you want to argue, go through childbirth then come talk to us). Now, even though men should have some personal investment, it is ultimately their choice to provide for his child and his partner. The woman gets knocked up, accident or not, and she is in it for a looooong haul-- 9 months is just the start of it. Men can do the deed, and either stick around or stick it somewhere else (man, I sound like such a feminist, sorry boys). Therefore, women have to be more selective, because we want to make the right choice in choosing a loyal companion (maybe I should just have a dog) so we aren't left with all the dirty diapers.
Sarcasm aside, I did enjoy Dr. Widman's input in our class today. He is a very intelligent man who is very well read in his field of study. I wish I had the opportunity to hear more of his lectures, but I would prefer to graduate this year. Maybe his famous "Femi-nazi and the pig" lecture will become famous and I'll see him on tv or in a book someday. Until then, I will just think back to the somewhat uncomfortable yet intriguing setting of Gender & Conflict on this 23rd day of September.

In war and Seinfeld

We broke up into groups, based on how interested we were in discussing different gender topics (or some just chose the paper of their favorite color). Whatever peoples' motivations were, we hit some good points. Our group focused on social change. How does it happen, what are the roles of men and women, are they the same or different? We talked about how social change happens differently for men and women. For men, it is a struggle of power. It is either in a politically oriented or in a warzone. They can be called debates or war/revolution. For women, they have to be strategic but are considered manipulative. They must gain the support of the men, because ultimately, it isn't their choice for social change. Let's face it-- is the rich white men's decision. And women only participate in movements...not war nor organized politics. These are pretty parallel thoughts to the reading. According to Goldstein, men's autonomous relationships allow for discourse where the women add personal value and connection to their conflict. From individual girl fights to nation-wide movements, those females have allowed their personal feelings and senitments get involved. I am not saying it makes women weak to feel personally connected to their cause; nor am I demeaning men's role in conflict. But obviously, the answer to the final part of the prompt is yes- men and women play very different roles for social change. That nice little chart in Goldstein's reading really lays it out for us--whether we like it or not. According to this, women are not knowers...we get to be known though, how nice of them. We already understood the emotional vs rational/factual piece..which I can admit is a justifiable argument. The certainty vs uncertainty one kind of bothers me. Unfortunetly, we could really only make an argument if anyone in history actually played a role against the feminine/objective view. We could fight it all we want, but thus far history evidently shows no contrary to this theory. In Byrne's reading, the gap between women and men's roles are emphasized, especially in military terms. It isn't new material to anyone who knows anything about history that women's jobs consisted of taking care of the children, the wounded soilders, and themselves if they still had energy. They were not/are not seen as aggressive enough to fight in combat. The nurturing gender is too attatched to violent act of war. To men, it is their job or duty to anihilate the enemy, whereas regardless of who is on what side, women see the mothers loosing their sons, and the pain and weariness in the soldiers themselves. Men are detachted to their work, whether in war or the office. Returning to the idea that all women must manipulate their position to gain power, Byrne states that women have the potential to gain status "from encouraging the perception that they are the guardians of cultural identity for their society." This is talking about in times of war, but I don't think it is too far-fetched to say that this is possible when there is not warfare. Essentially, the human race cannot continue if the women do not continue reproducing. So, if they threaten the men and their manhood, it could cause doubt and raise question of gender identity. And if women threaten, isn't that a little aggressive?
Real world (well sort of) connection: On Seinfeld, Elaine and Jerry are in a car (1 guess who's driving) and Jerry's phone rings, but he ignores it. Elaine makes some comment about not being man enough to break up with his girlfriend. There is some more dialouge and then she takes another shot at his aggression and how it is expected for him to behave as such. She uses the words wussy, chicken and girly man. In the same episode, George makes a new friend. His new friend is the epitome of the stereotypical rugged outdoorsy man. George lies and tells him he is into football and rock climbing because he is nervous his new friend will not like him if he doesn't show that he is manly too. When he has to actually prove that he knows these things, he fails miserably and his manhood is questioned. I am not an avid Seinfeld viewer (it was one of those late nights where there 4 billion channels and there is nothing else on), and after this episode, I think it will remain that way.

You wouldn't understand, you're not (insert minority here).

We hit some big topics in class today, and I think everyone was pleased on the direction the discussion took. We define conflict as incompatible goals or impeding needs between two parties. Interests become intangible for either one or both involved. We talked a little about the idea of confronting conflict and the possibility of this being therapeutic. Sometimes the best thing is just laying it all on the table and starting at square 1. What we have to remember is that we are all programmed differently. I usually play the role of wussy, passive aggressive, fine whatever you win attitude (except with my poor baby sister--I really do love you Bean, I'm just being the bossy big sister because that is the role society gave me I swear!). Ok, this is not true all the time. If i am really passionate about something so for me the obvious...hunger and homeless awareness, cross-cultural issues, unnecessary religious slander, minority (and we aren't just talkin race and gender...there's a lot more to it kids) equality, etc....I am more likely to have a stronger presence in the conflict. A common comeback in these conflicts I usually receive is something along the lines of "oh but sweetie, (ok firstly, I have a name and I am not 5 anymore thanks) do you really know what it is like to be them? Great, you are helping, but you just don't understand." I was talking to a friend today about these issues and peoples' opinions about it. Well here's the thing Debbie Downer, your deterrence will not stop me from believing in the minorities or injustices one group or another faces. AND just because I am not a part of said minority, does not mean that I cannot support their causes. All things aside, have you ever thought about your presence in a conflict? What I'm going for here is the idea that our identity contrains us on representation. We are limited by our gender, race, sexual orientation, language, religious, etc. if we are supporting a different group than what we are considered. Whatever, I'll still be in Guate helpin the orphans, even if I'm not chapina. You don't like it, then stop reading this blog and start your own charity work or conflict, whichever you prefer; although your good deeds may just make more conflict, which seems to defeat the whole purpose right? But these conflicts have the potential to bring about social change. Conflict in turn will become aggression which could be positively described (wait really?) as motivation, or the desire/willingness to push. Now of course, this could go horribly wrong and you could end up with violence, which really never is the answer. ever. Even the parameters of violence are reduced to simply physical violence; however, there is a whole slew of them that are overlooked all the time. And we are supposed to be such an aware race...right.

Are you sure you can lift that?

I am a female and I definitely identify my gender as such as well. However, there are a lot of things I do that are not socially acceptable..especially in other countries. I wouldn't say that I am a tomboy, but I prefer not to dress up, but I know there is a time and place for this, in which I behave without complaint. I am very independent too. A large amount of my time is spent in service for others. Although I work at orphanages and soup kitchens, my bigger passions are found in construction work. Habitat for Humanity and my summer internship in Project Mexico are basically all about service of others through construction--perfect! I have had a lot of issues being a stronger role in this field because of my size and gender. Now, not to say that these kids are weak, but I am probably stronger and more capable than some of the guys I have worked with on various projects. However, not once was I ever chosen for a specific job if it had to do with driving, carrying heavy things, or any other "man's" job. Only until I gain respect by proving myself worthy do I get anywhere. And then, when you do prove yourself, the reaction is "oh, she is just doing that to be opposing and show off." Ok, but it is ok for you to deny help when offered...fine just struggle. I was in the Amazon Jungle and we were volunteering at a school. The options of service were jewelery making, t-shirt designing, and macheting. I think it is pretty obvious which one I chose. We were working with the guys in the field and I wasn't bad because I couldn't handle it, I just wasn't good yet becuase it was the first time I held a machete. There were two boys from my program that were struggling more than I was, but no one was staring or bothering them--just the two gringa damsels in distress. According to Valenti's research--and not her personal belief of course--I guess me and my friend are going to start a life of crime because we are just too independent...yea there is a correlation there, right.

It is even worse in foreign countries. I only have experience in Latin America, but look at the Middle East, Africa, or any of the oriental east. I can't argue any of these points fluently yet, but I think this group project is going to shine some light on these cross-cultural issues. Our group for the semester-long project is great. 2 of us have a very latino perspective, one has been to the Middle East, one is from the east, and one has no international experience which is a good unbiased balance. I am so excited to see all these great minds come together and attack these issues.

No one is a 36-26-negative 4!

In class today we divided into groups and designed posters of the ideal male or female. There was a discrepency for the females as to whether or not use the media's image as well. Therefore, every group depecting the females did break it up between our ideal woman and the media's skewed view of who is beautiful. So, as you can imagine, a lot of the words on our posters were confident, happy with body, hardworking, intelligent, creative, independent, and all the other words that just scream feminist (right?). On the other side of the poster or if you were creative enough to draw a 2 faced person (I guess we aren't our ideal women because we were not creative enough to think of this haha), words/ features drawn represented blonde, enhanced curves, super skinny waist, silent (oh yes, God forbid you ever disagree with social norms or worse, a man), ditzy, and all those other features we are supposed to just magically have. Fine, but Laura Coleman doesn't want to date you. Realistically, who looks like that? Even the models and movie stars had to diet or have surgery to look THAT perfect. It is unnatural. And the kick of it is, that it is a fact that ugly, obese women don't get the good jobs, hence--bad pay. Fantastic.
Valenti spells it out for us in much more colorful words, but she really has a good point. We are always told there is something wrong with us. Feminism should be about equality and progression but it is look at as such a negative thing.

Now just to make the women feel worse about themselves, let's compare these images to the male: Brave, strong, handsome, good driver, chivilrous, hardworking, knows how to drink, Brad Pitt..the list just goes on to more masculine qualites. Hold on a second, all of the words are in one color and there is no dividing line between truth and reality. What does this mean? ..That men in the media turly do depict the ideal man in reality? Really? That doesn't seem very fair. This was just one silly assignment that seemed to give us a glimpse into all the issues women face.

Oh no, here comes the feminist talking. But wait, maybe even the image of feminist is unclear. I mentioned in class when we were analyzing the reason for different things on the posters, that all the traits of the ideal woman are not anything but an attempt toward equality. Think about it, look at pay rates between the sexes, the way women have to behave to be respected, the expectations of the nurturing, caring mother.... The term "equality" is over-used and under-appreciated. Oh but such is life.

I am hoping that future discussions and reading disprove this overly pescimistic post but until then that's all she wrote. So I guess the moral of this depressing reflection is: If you aren't a 36-26-negative 4, either stop eating or accept your minimum wage job and find a good psychologist.

Wait, who's the guy here?

In class on Tuesday, Celia chose several students without warning them what they were getting into. This resulted in cross-acting. This could have gone very wrong. Good thing we set the ground rules about respect last week. The first skit was two females attempting to behave like men watching a football game. The second consisted of two males going shopping as females. The final was a male trying to pick up a female--roles swapped of course.

So, amongst all the laughter, it was interesting to disect these mico-interactions. In skit number one, it was very apparent that neither of these volunteers knew much about football--big discrepency there. Now, I am not criticizing, in fact I give these girls props. There are several opinionated "men" in our class that could have possibly tore their acting skills apart. But for all intents and purposes of the class, I hope these people forgive me for my analysis. These girls picked up on the very masculine social ques. They seemed to focus on the yelling and the beer-drinking. Other things we picked on when they were finished were things like posture, lack of cursing, phsycial contact, etc. It was interesting that the commentary for this skit was from the males and females of the class, both being dead on. The guys were proud of the stigmas assessed in this particular skit.

Compared to the pride with the male-male skit, the girls shopping didn't go down as smoothly. The two boys were hilarious, with their cute little lisps that apparently all imitations of girls come with. They even did the whole modeling purses and asking each other advice, it was a great attempt. The things that were criticized in this skit were in a very different light from the first skit. In the first skit, the girls were not "manly" enough; however for this one, the problem was the over exagerated lisps, the fact that only one purse was tried on instead of different ones, the posture, the politeness in criticizing, and the lack of touching. Something that occurred in this break down which did not in skit number one was that some of the critique was positive, but it was mostly negative. I wouldn't say all of the girls were pleased with the fact that some said all like shopping. I for one try to avoid it, and I know there are other in our class less enthuiastic than I am. Good job boys.

The third and final skit was the reverse roles. This is where it gets a little foggy as to who was who. The male acting as a female was too coersive and forward with the interaction, including the immediate eye contact. Most would say that while a women is getting hit on, she is shy, doesn't make eye contact, uncomfortable in her stance, and unsure. The guy is supposed to be assertive, chivilrous, blah blah. It almost seemed like the roles were reversed unintentionally. As soon as an individual doesn't portray themselves with those core qualities all men/women should have, gender is questioned immediately.

So, when we were analyizing these micro-interactions, we were basing them off of the social norms. After class, this remained on my mind for the rest of the day. Who decides what the social norms are? Yeah, yeah the media controls every single thought that enters our brain--thanks big brother--no but really... As this was on my mind, I observed a lot of social deviance against the social constructs we have. But honestly, is Juniata college a good sample group? After contemplating this for a while, I say no. There is definitely a mold that most Juniatians fit and I wouldn't say we follow a cookie cutter perfect norm here. Contrary to the statement that those who do not follow social norms are ostracized, most people here are not alone. But then you look at who we are with, and you can see why this is so. People here are not afraid to be themselves even it means crossing the social norm lines a little. I just hope they are aware when they enter the real world, that it is not as friendly as JC.

Getting to Know the Sexes: Genderly Speaking

Week 1:

Quick list of expectations:
-I took a psych of gender class last year with Dr. Platt (I don't think she is at JC anymore). This class focused on the social construct of gender from a psycholological perspective. We worked with real world case studies on controversial topics, questioned the social norms on a daily basis, and even pushed the limits of our classmates with differing opinions. I chose this class as a balance from PY399. I also hope to have to opportunity to investigate these topics but in a different light. And of course, I am ready to respectfully hear others' opinions.
-I expect to read, research, and write a lot.
-I expect to question my personal beliefs based on academic literature we read and intelligent conversation we have within the classroom.
- I expect to forget to keep up with this blog.
- I expect people to be disgusted with me constantly comparing everything to Latin America.
- I expect to love every minute of this class (ok, well within reason).

In class last week, we discussed the fundamental differences between sex and gender, social construction (of knowledge) and essentialism, and a few other key terms we will use daily in this course. I am most exicted for this class, because I recognize these terms from Psychology of Gender, but in a different context. We had an open discussion about how to have a respectful and open discussion in this class. We have to be sensitive of each others' opinions. We all have different experiences and backgrounds; no one is ever wrong. Nothing is black and white. Just from the introductions of how people spent their summer months, you can see how diverse our class is. Regardless, I think this class will be intriguing.