done

I am officially done with classes, as of 7pm on Monday night. That's when I turned in my paper for my Law and Courts class. So now, I am now officially done with coursework. Three years and eighteen classes sounds like a lot, but the time sure flew by. As I was frantically writing last weekend, it hit me at T-6 hours that this would be the last time that I find myself scrambling to write a course paper. And I wondered if I would miss it, so I paused to acknowledge the moment. At T-5 hours and 59 minutes, I thought to myself, "Are you nuts? Of course you're not going to miss this!"

stick a fork in me: i'm done

Today, I turned in all of my class papers. This means that I am done with the winter quarter, but more triumphantly, I am done with my coursework. Sometimes grad school seems slow moving, but seriously, it goes by so quickly. I have vivid memories of my first year, and it seemed as though it would take an eternity to finish my coursework. Since my first year, I've learned to be an efficient and strategic reader. I've learned to manage my time, and I've slowly learned how to balance and juggle classes, papers, TA responsibilities, yoga, friends, and fun.

women's studies, week 7

I'm sitting here, killing some time and eating a big bag of Sour Patch Kids. I have absolutely no willpower when it comes to Sour Patch Kids. Soon, my tongue will be numb, my jaw will be tired, and I will regret eating so many. I definitely need portion controlled Sour Patch Kids. Good story, Kris.

I met with LD last week and told him that women's studies just isn't for me. It's too theoretical and too abstract for me. For example, I knew that this wasn't for me during the third week, when our professor asked us to define and think about the difference between sex, sexual, and sexuality. Seriously, if you can't even get me to contemplate sex (something related to my research interests), then there's no hope. Last week, we actually talked about the meanings of interdepartmental, intradepartmental, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinarity, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary. I don't actually remember what was said, but I did write this all down so I could share it with you. (you're welcome) Wait, there's more: We also talked about how A studies B with the methodology of C. Next week should be a better class since we're going to have our own happy hour. With wine and hard liquor, how can it be a bad class? All right, here is this week's post:

A common thread of this week’s readings is culture, nationalism, and identity. Some things that I kept in mind as I was reading are who gets to be a citizen, who is considered a citizen, who may reproduce citizens, and is citizenship synonymous with full personhood?

One of the things that Ferguson does in his text is discuss how national liberation struggles perpetuate heterosexist, racist, and sexist practices. Though these efforts purport to liberate people and preserve positive cultural values, they instead uphold a culture that has a normative bias and perpetuate hegemonic practices. Ferguson uses his discussion of the Moynihan report to illustrate how liberal black nationalists united with conservatives to repress black women. Due to a discourse of black matriarchy, liberals were opposed to female headed households for sexist reasons, while conservatives were both sexist and racist. Both of these groups sought to regulate black women, and black women suffer from policies that are both sexist and racist. Black women were constructed in a way that blamed them for impeding and going against the ideals of equality of opportunity, liberty, and competition. It was believed that the African American nonheteronormative relations were the antithesis of the guiding US values. Therefore, welfare state policies operate to impose a heteropatriarchal culture upon African Americans.

Fraser and Gordon trace the genealogy of dependency as a keyword of the U.S. welfare state. Dependency has always been equated with subordination, but its meaning became democratized with the rise of industrial capitalism. The meaning of independence was central in economic and political discourse, and wage labor was associated with independence. The usage of independence and dependence became gendered and racialized; therefore, the term dependency was suitable only for people of color and white women. Fraser and Gordon go on to discuss the rise of the welfare state and its two-tiered track. Dependency continues to be a racialized and gendered term, as well as stigmatized. Welfare dependency is considered to be a pathology and behavioral syndrome.

What is interesting to me about Fraser and Gordon’s article is how it can be applied to notions of citizenship and full personhood. Historically, citizenship was a masculine status and independence and employment were prerequisites. When we consider this, we can see how independence was associated with citizenship and dependence was not. Not only did the constructions of independence and dependence prevent white women and people of color from attaining citizenship status, formal barriers were also in place to exclude them.

Even though formal barriers to citizenship were lifted, we find that women and people of color on public assistance still do not attain full personhood status. Work is still a signifier of independence, and society constructs dependency in a way that stigmatizes those who receive welfare state benefits. It is believed that there is something inherently wrong with those who need public assistance, and because of this dependence, they are not truly deserving of full personhood status.

women's studies: week 5

I think that my infatuation with my women's studies class wore off around the third week of the quarter. Some of the readings are okay, but it's heavy, dense, and very theoretically oriented. Here's my post from this week's readings:

One of the themes of this week’s readings is the critique of intersectionality and its limitations. The jumping off point for these readings is the theory that there are multiple axes of oppression. Categories of race, class, and gender all intersect to create sites of subordination. These categories are not universal, and because of our multiple identities and experiences, we experience different oppressions. As I read, it seemed that these readings were arguing that intersectionality as a category of analysis is inadequate.

Sandoval and Glenn discuss how women of color have been overlooked in previous discourses. Sandoval points out how women of color were marginalized in the women’s movement and how their concerns were not addressed. Glenn discusses how models of oppression, the patriarchy model and the colonial labor system, do not account for women of color. Glenn corrects this oversight in her article and shows how race, class, and gender have intersected to oppress women of color.

Crenshaw discusses how discourses of race and feminism have marginalized women of color. Women of color are situated in 2 subordinated positions that frequently have conflicting agendas and are seen as mutually exclusive. The fight against racism focuses on the experiences of black men, while the fight against sexism focuses on the experiences of white women. Crenshaw analyzes the cases of domestic violence and rape to illustrate how the law and institutional efforts to rectify both actually fail women of color. By failing to consider how minority women are affected by intersecting oppressions of race, class, and gender, we can see how the law and institutional practices leave women of color vulnerable and without meaningful remedies.

Crenshaw’s discussion of the political intersectionalities of rape illustrates the tensions surrounding race and gender discourses. Rape is socially constructed to reinforce racist and sexist themes, and by doing so, it marginalizes women of color. Rape has been used to control and discipline both black men and white women by constructing black men as potential rapists and threats to white women’s purity. Efforts to dispel these rape myths and reform rape laws have primarily benefited white women, and antiracist efforts to dispel these myths have primarily benefited black men. This is evident in the Mike Tyson rape trial, in which the black community rallied around Tyson and not Desiree Washington, his black accuser. Implicit in this is the message that the black community is more concerned with a rape accusation against a black man than the rape of a black woman. This rape case shows that when the antiracist and feminist agendas are seen as conflicting, both uphold racist and sexist ideologies.

Finally, McCall discusses how intersectionality has emerged as a category of analysis, but we don’t know how to study it. Though intersectionality recognizes that we are situated in multiple subordinate positions, there are limitations to the concept due to the complexities of life experiences. Therefore, how we are situated is only a partial perspective and we need an analysis that takes into account the complexity of experiences, identities, and the intersection of multiple oppressions.

Though I found the arguments in this week’s readings valid, they were equally frustrating. In discussing the problems with intersectionality and its inadequacies as a category of analysis, it seemed as though these authors want us to further deconstruct identities to account for the multiple facets of our experiences, positions, and how we are situated in society. At some point, I wonder if this is useful and if we are simply arguing over semantics. How far can we deconstruct our identities while still maintaining them? Crenshaw points out that categories of race, class, and gender reflect bias and domination, so it is important to define these categories so they become a source of empowerment. I am reminded of Riley’s argument that also called for abolishing the categories of “woman” and “man.” Is the eradication of these categories the key to recognizing and eradicating sites of oppression?

women's studies, week 3

The following is my response from this week's readings in my women's studies class:

A common thread through this week’s readings is the privileging of heterosexuality and the construction of sexuality, which are mechanisms that perpetuate the subordination and oppression of women. Another common thread is how women are co-opted into perpetuating this construction of sexuality.

Cott and MacKinnon discuss how sexuality is constructed in a way that relegates women to a second class status. Cott argues that the construction of female sexuality as passionlessness was an attempt by conservative British Evangelical reformers to elevate sexual control as one of the highest human virtues. Women were considered to be morally superior, so moral agency was linked to female character; hence, passionlessness and modesty were enshrined as female virtues. MacKinnon extends Cott’s construction of sexuality by arguing that to understand how gender is constructed, we have to understand how sexuality is constructed. She argues that “sexuality is a social construct of male power; it is defined by men, forced on women, and constitutive of the meaning of gender.” Men decide what sexuality is, and this is what creates and maintains a system of male supremacy and dominance. MacKinnon rejects the “rape as violence” ideology because she argues that sex is inherently unequal because sexuality is constructed to be about male dominance and female submission. She also argues that pornography is a means through which sexuality is socially constructed: it constructs women as things for sexual use and constructs its consumers to desperately want women and possession of women.

Rich and Wittig discuss how women’s oppression depends on compulsory heterosexuality. Rich argues that heterosexuality is necessary so men can ensure their male right of “physical, economical, and emotional access;” one important mechanism to do this is to deny the lesbian existence. This is done “by asserting that primary love between the sexes is normal, that women need men as social and economic protectors, for adult sexuality, for psychological completion; that the heterosexually constituted family is the basic social unit, and that women who do not attach themselves to men are condemned to a devastating outsider existence.” Wittig discusses how the category “woman” inherently depends upon heterosexuality because women are defined in relation to men, and to be a woman means to be oppressed by men. She argues that lesbians subvert this ideology because they show that there is not a natural group called “women.” Lesbians are not women and not men because by refusing to become heterosexual means that they refuse the role “woman” and the “economic, ideological, and political power of a man.”

While reading this past week, I thought of one of last week’s readings in which Riley argued for a rejection of the categories of “woman” and “man” because these can contribute to sexual antagonism. I think that this fits nicely with Rich’s discussion of the lesbian continuum, or the bonds among women, networks, and woman identified experiences. Rich says that when women turn to other women, it is assumed that this is out of hatred for men. What would happen if we did not have “women” and “men”? Without categories of gender, we would not have this sexual antagonism that pits women against men. This might make a lesbian continuum possible, thereby obliterating compulsory heterosexuality.

Another common thread is how women have been co-opted into perpetuating a construction of sexuality detrimental to them. Cott argues that linking passionlessness and women’s sexuality was appealing to women because it gave women a social and familial power. Women were on board because passionlessness gave women self-respect and a special power. Wittig discusses how women are co-opted into accepting the category of woman through this mantra of “woman is wonderful.” This encourages women to emphasize their best features instead of questioning the political categories of gender. In this way, women are defending the category of “woman.” Finally, MacKinnon argues that in order to cope with sexual objectification, women’s strategy to acquire self-respect and pride is to convince themselves that they choose sex, possess their sexuality, and value their sexuality.

It is really interesting to see how women play a role in furthering this construction of sexuality, and I was surprised that none of the authors discussed the institution of marriage. Marriage is a patriarchal institution, and women have been co-opted with the enticement of romantic love, diamond rings, and pretty dresses. At a young age, girls are socialized to want to get married, and they are imbued with this idea that they get to be a princess on their wedding day. Once women enter a marriage, they are subject to economic inequalities and the sexual division of labor, no matter how egalitarian they believe their partnership to be. And, since society regulates procreation and delegitimizes births out of wedlock, there is a pressure to marry if one wants to have children. Marriage plays a large role in maintaining the family unit and perpetuating patriarchy, and I think this is one way in which women are co-opted.

women's studies, week 2

It's been a while since I've talked about anything academic. So, here goes. Each week in my Women's Studies class, we post a response/critique/analysis of that week's readings. I'd like to share my response from last week's readings. So far, I'm enjoying the class, and even though the reading is pretty heavy and a lot to digest, I love feminist theory. Here is week 2's post:

This week’s readings further the sex/gender debate by examining how we construct both gender and sex. Through different approaches, these critical examinations theorize and ask questions that challenge how we conceptualize gender categories and identities.

We understand that gender is a social construction, and these readings show how sex and the categories of “women” and “men” are constructed as well. Butler and Chase discuss how intersex bodies seem to not matter in society and medical sexual reassignment is done in the name of “nature” and “normalization.” The medical community constructs some bodies that matter and some that do not. It attempts to “fix” bodies that do not matter so that they conform to those that do. It is also important to note that bodies that are reassigned are usually constructed to be a female body. In the name of “normalcy,” medical authorities are more concerned about the sexual pleasures and functions of men than women. It is worse to have a small penis that no clitoris.

Why is it so important to have only 2 gender categories? Riley examines the problems with the categories of “woman” and “man,” and she calls for a rejection of these oppressive categories. She argues that it can lead to a sexual antagonism that pits “women” against “men.” She finds these categories to be oppressive to both women and men. So why is it so important that everyone “fit” into the category of “woman” or “man”? It is important to examine how intersex management is oppressive not only to intersex individuals but also to women in general. Can we make a case that intersex management is necessary to the maintenance of patriarchy? Rubin discusses how kinship systems and social organizations depend on marriage, obligatory heterosexuality, and the exchange of women. The subordination of women is crucial to state building and the reproduction of culture that reinforces and reproduces patriarchy. Does this require that there be only 2 categories so there is one group to systematically oppress?

Chase links intersex management in the United States with female genital mutilation, and she wonders why first-world feminists are silent in the intersex movement. Chase is outraged that intersex cutting in the U.S. is absent from the debates surrounding genital mutilation and clitoridectomies. She argues that intersex management is a form of violence based on the sexist devaluation of female pain and female sexuality. Attention to FGM is embedded in racial and cultural hegemony, and feminists and society has recognized the atrocities surrounding the practice. There was broad support to ensure the passage of the legislation prohibiting FGM, but why did the sponsor of this bill refuse to extend protections to intersex individuals?

As I’ve been reading, I have also been thinking about how sexual reassignment seems to elevate the importance of reproductive capacities at the expense of sexual pleasure. How does this perpetuate patriarchy? Sexual reassignment cares more about a female’s ability to bear children than her ability to orgasm. Also, the medical community does this reassignment because it argues that “normal” sexual function is possible without the clitoris. This prioritizes the penis and reinforces the notion that vaginal penetration by the penis is the only “normal” way to experience sex.

2 down, 1 to go

We're nearing the end of the quarter, and yoga is keeping me sane. Tonight we did headstands, something I had not done since my gymnastics days. The end of the quarter is always stressful and busy, namely because we are busy writing class papers. I feel like I'm in a good place; for the first time ever, I actually got started early, so I have a good start on 2 of my 3 class papers. Today, a colleague and I presented our research design examining ballot initiatives and same sex marriage bans. The presentation went really well, and we got some helpful feedback. Go us. Stay tuned for updates.

All right, now on to the frivolous stuff. Today I got some return address labels from the St. Jude's Hospital, presumably because this is supposed to be an incentive for donating money. Occasionally, I get return address labels from different organizations that want money. This is what I wonder: How many letters do these organizations think I send? Why would I need so many return address labels? And, seriously, who thinks that return address labels are a good incentive?

We don't get the Food Network. To cope, I have started to watch Amazing Wedding Cakes on the Women's Entertainment channel. The program follows 3 bakeries, and each episode focuses on a different cake project in each bakery. Cake decorating looks really cool, but really time consuming. And, they have to start early with the cake stuff- cakes are baked like 4 days ahead of the delivery date. So, while I'm really impressed by all the cake decorating and cake construction, I wonder if the cake tastes like crap. Is it really dry? What are the tradeoffs for having a super cool looking cake?

Happy Election Eve

So, I guess in my world, tomorrow is practically a national holiday. Here are a few thoughts on this Election Eve. In my discussion sections this week, we are going to talk about the election. For my students, this is their first and probably only election experience occurring while they're in college. For me, it's my third. So, I was thinking that this presidential election would be the first one that I would experience without the cold weather and snow. I just checked the weather forecast, and it turns out that I would be able to say the same thing if I were in Minnesota right now. It's supposed to be 65 degrees in Minneapolis and Irvine tomorrow. Weird.

My students were really impressive today, and I expect the remaining two sections will be too. My goal was to get my students to think critically and formulate their own opinions instead of simply memorizing and regurgitating material. We talked about the electoral college and how our vote doesn't really matter since California always goes blue. They talked about the alternatives to the electoral college and the tradeoffs. They also discussed how it didn't seem fair that candidates spend all of their time campaigning in the swing states and ignoring our state.

Then we moved on and talked about young people and voting. Statistics tell us that young people just don't show up to the polls and vote, leaving this demographic underrepresented. In 2004, we thought that that was going to be the election in which more young people would turn up at the polls. We thought the same thing in the 2008 primaries, and we think the same thing about tomorrow. However, voter turnout among the young is not substantially increasing. One of my students pointed out that turnout is low among all demographics, so maybe people should just lighten up among the alleged apathy among the young. Good point. They may not be as disengaged as we may think.

Finally, we moved on to judicial appointments and whether or not the Supreme Court can produce social change. I'm TAing an Intro to Law class, so I had to guide the discussion to this topic. We discussed the capacity of the Supreme Court to make change and whether or not it was its role to do so. Particularly, we discussed Proposition 8 and whether it was undemocratic for the state Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriage. We talked about whether or not a ballot proposition is more appropriate and in line with our democratic ideals. In the end, they decided that sometimes the Supreme Court needs to step in and act as a referee when other branches of government or when the people infringe upon the rights of a minority. All in all, it was a great section, and I'm excited for the next 2.

I went to an Election Panel Discussion today hosted by the department. Five of our professors gave a quick five minute presentation on a topic relevant to the election. CK discussed racial politics. Obama has been accused of being Muslim, and he is accused of having associations with an alleged "terrorist". Opponents sometimes use his middle name, Hussein, in attempts to associate him with Saddam Hussein. Anyway, CK talked about how Arab, Muslim, and terrorist have somehow all become synonymous with each other. And, Arabs and Muslims have been constructed in a way that places them at the bottom of the racial hierarchy, perhaps replacing blacks.

BG talked about voting behavior in the presidential elections. The Midwest is confused and fluctuates, the Pacific West is getting more liberal, and the Mountain West is becoming more conservative. New England is getting more liberal, and I forgot what he said about the South. All right, what else? LD talked about how both campaigns have failed to reach out to Latinos. However, most live in non battleground states: California, Texas, New York, and Illinois. That might explain the lack of attention; candidates pay more attention to the swing states. Anyway, I was just surprised that Illinois had such a large Latino population.

Finally, CU talked about political participation. Voter registration is up in the contested states, and we're still waiting for young people to surprise us all and show up at the polls in substantial numbers. Turnout among young people just isn't going up, despite what the media would have us believe. CU also told us that the VP candidate usually doesn't make a difference in the presidential race. Usually, the VP choice doesn't help or hinder the presidential candidate's chance of winning. But, it's different now, and now the VP choice matters in this race. Stay tuned.

i can't think of a title

I have a newfound appreciation for good classes and engaging professors. I'm sitting in class right now, blogging, so this is a pretty good indication of how much I dislike this class. I am taking 3 classes this quarter: Comparative Legal Institutions, Social Movements, and Immigrant America. I'm pretty happy with the first class, really happy with the second, and so incredibly disappointed with the third. Guess which class I'm sitting in right now?

Graduate seminars are generally a time to discuss/analyze the assigned readings, think about the course material, and toss around ideas. My favorite seminars are the ones where the students dominate the conversation and guide the discussion. It's just a great way to learn. As a third year, I feel ready and eager to engage with the material and talk about it. This just doesn't happen in my Immigration class, and to me, this is a disservice to the students. Instead, the professor tells us lots of random immigration stories and basically talks for nearly 3 hours straight. I never thought that I would say this, but this class is probably worse than the required Foundations of Political Science class we had to take our first quarter in grad school. And I really, really disliked that class.

Grrrr, ten more minutes and counting down...

Feminist Methodologies

Yesterday, we had a group presentation in my Interpretive/Qualitative Methods class. See, the class divided into 4 groups (ethnography, feminist methodologies, process-tracing/genealogy, and discourse analysis) and each group presents a different methodology. We were the feminist methodology group. In a nutshell: feminist methodologies is a guiding practice, not necessarily a particular method. It is a methodology that challenges existing power inequities in order to empower women and marginalized people.

Historically, women have been absent and rendered invisible in political science research. However, research shows that women are not apolitical. This demonstrates that the justifications used to exclude women were based upon the social construction of gender and gender role socialization, not natural and immutable differences between women and men. Previous research operated under the assumption that men were the norm and that research was gender neutral and universal. However, we see that this is not the case and that gender is an important category of analysis because it shows that women do not neatly fit into existing frameworks and structures. Furthermore, there is not a universal "woman" or "man," so we need to recognize cleavages resulting from racial, ethnic, and class differences among women and men. To account for this, intersectionality (the idea that we have multiple identities and can be simultaneously privileged and marginalized) has emerged as a category of analysis to account for these multiple identities.

Our presentation went really well, and I enjoyed exposing the class to this perspective. I truly enjoy any opportunity to teach others about my research interests and introduce them to feminist theory. Yet, there seemed to be some resistance to feminist methodologies, which was to be expected. Although it may seem counterintuitive to highlight the differences revolving around race, gender, class, ethnicity, and sexuality, it is important to do so anyway. When we act as though everyone is the same, it is impossible to remedy the resulting inequalities, stratification, and oppressions that arise from political processes and institutional structures. So, this is why I study race and gender. It doesn't mean that I hate men or that I think white people are evil. It just means that a goal of my research is empower previously marginalized groups and challenge dominant paradigms.

Winter Quarter Halftime

We are halfway through the winter quarter now. Here's the latest update:

Classes are going well, and I think I'm finally starting to understand statistics. My students have an exam on Friday, so I'll be busy grading essays next week. In some exciting news, I finally bought a laptop. You can't really see this in the picture, but it is indeed pink. I have been busy writing, and my new computer makes it all the more enjoyable. Now I have no reason not to get my work done.

I also finished crocheting a tote bag. It turned out quite nicely, if I say so myself.

Of course, I've been baking- lots. Tonight I made Red Velvet Cupcakes. I ran out of red food coloring, so they're not super red. I did a taste test, and they're not too bad.

Knitting for Peace

Last week we started our winter quarter, even though it felt more like spring. Since I've been back from Minnesota, the temperatures have been in the 70s, even reaching 80 last weekend. I'm taking three classes this quarter: Women in Legislatures, US in Comparative Perspective, and Stats. My TA class is Intro to US Government, and I'm TAing for one of my favorite professors, MW. So far students have learned the constitutional foundations of our government and an overview of parliamentary systems. This is so that students can better understand the advantages and disadvantages of our form of government.

I've found some creative outlets to relieve the stresses and pressures of graduate school. Of course, I've been baking a lot (today I made Apple Spice Cupcakes for my class) and I've been knitting and crocheting. I have recently completed a purse, and I have started to crochet squares that will be assembled into another purse. I guess I'm on a handbag kick at the moment.

A few weeks ago, I purchased a book called Knitting for Peace: Make the World a Better Place One Stitch at a Time. It is this fabulous book about knitting for charities and different causes both in the United States and abroad. Some of the causes include knitting for soldiers, cancer patients, children, and animal shelters. This book could not have come to me at a better time. I was looking for some sort of way to contribute to a cause and make a difference, no matter how seemingly small. Grad school is time consuming, and I needed some sort of outlet to remind myself that I am more than an academic-in-training. This book has sparked an interest in 'craftivism,' a form of political and social activism that centers around crafts.

Anyway, I crocheted a comfort shawl for Sheila's Shawls, a program of the Silent Witness National Initiative. Silent Witness is based in Minneapolis and this organization works to raise awareness of and reduce domestic violence. Comfort shawls are distributed to women who have survived domestic violence as well as women who are the family and friends of those who have survived domestic violence.