Last night, I went with some friends to the hypnotist show that was put on in the Cave. At first, it seemed like all fun and games, but there were a number of different things that were said during the show that I couldn't help but wonder about, especially in relation to the sexism and heterosexism discussions we had last week.

At the beginning of the show, Ron Stubbs, the hypnotist, was joking about how most of us have been under hypnosis before. These jokes basically consisted of statements about how guys undergo hypnosis when they are watching sports games and girls are hypnotized anytime they enter a mall. When I mentioned this to others, they claimed that the statements were merely "harmless jokes," but I couldn't help but get kind of frustrated... I am personally trying to rid myself of different social stereotypes of men and women which in essence conform males and females to the ways they can act, the things they can enjoy, etc. And yet, a performer, one who is probably exposed to a substantial percentage of the population, merely continues these stereotypes with a few jokes. While I understand that working to minimize the continuation of stereotypes such as these within myself, as well as talking to those around me and encouraging them to do the same, truly is an effective step forward, it is kind of discouraging to know that for every stereotypical joke my actions prevent, another is being told to yet another unaware audience.

Another instance that caught my attention was one in which one male student, while under hypnosis, was told that anytime he heard a particular song, he was going to see the "hottest" girl he had ever seen, that he "wanted" her, and that he was supposed to show her his "sexiest" dance moves. The comedy part came in when you consider that the girl was actually a microphone stand with a wig on it. At first, it was hilarious. But I couldn't help but wonder what would have happened if he were gay. It was assumed that he was heterosexual, that he would be attracted to this imaginary individual of the opposite sex. Similarly, there was another instance in which the hypnotized individuals on stage were told to imagine that the hypnotist was the most attractive person that they had ever seen, that they "wanted" him and that again, they were to show this by dancing with him. At first he had the girls dance with him, but then he had all of the guys dance with him. I couldn't help but feel that the hypnotist's intentions were that the audience would find this supposed gay behavior - guys dancing with and/or fighting over another guy - funny. But really, the hypnotist was just objectifying gay individuals, using them for a good laugh, at their expense. Even still, one of the guys that was on stage was homosexual. So not only was the hypnotist mocking the gay population as a whole, I felt as though he was mocking this individual in particular. 

Because I have been thinking about these examples, and others that were present throughout the show, part of me feels as though I may be over-thinking things, but I don't think I am. However, where do these observations bring me? Is preventing sexism and heterosexism in my own life enough to change our culture so that things like this cease to happen? I want to think so, but I'm not so sure...

I found the discussion in class today be kind of frustrating, only because it felt like what we were discussing was only scratching the surface of the problem(s). First off, we never really found an answer to the question about why bisexual women are viewed as higher on the social hierarchy than bisexual men. In reality, there probably isn't just one answer, but there's got to be something. While the discussion came to the conclusion that society actually is more willing to accept sexual acts occurring between two women than between two men, why is society more accepting, or rather, less discriminatory to women who are attracted to both men and women. In one sense, I think what Gillian said about an answer being associated with the idea of masculinity as homophobia might be a possibility. Society, although not directly, seems to associate masculinity with penetrating a vagina. And yet, the perception of bisexual men as "confused" paints them in a way in which one has to potential to perceive that this act of holding power over a female is not enough for a bisexual male, and they are thus inadequate men. Does this place a male in a place that is more threatening to society and the gender roles instituted by society than a woman who could be perceived as wanting more than that same act of penetration? Furthermore, if sexual activity between two bisexual males challenges the idea of masculinity, why does sexual activity between two bisexual females not challenge the idea of femininity. On the other hand, could the fact that men allegedly find acts between women to be enticing be yet another form of placing women in a position of oppression, thus actually placing bisexual women below bisexual men on the hierarchy? An example of society's growing acceptance of the bisexuality of women was given which consisted of middle school girls now being more comfortable with "doing things" with other girls because they know their boyfriends will enjoy it. But, it seems to me that performing these acts not because you personally will enjoy them, but for the pleasure of another, is in a sense placing oneself under the power of that other person. At the same time, taking part in those behaviors because you want to and you enjoy them, which a number of the authors of our readings would argue does and should occur, but claiming you do it for another person is merely an act of bi- or homophobia. Finally, I couldn't help but wonder how the positioning of bisexual males and females relates to the same positioning of homosexual males and females. The other day in class, as well as today, we alluded that homosexual females are also considered as less threatening that homosexual males. Does this occur for the same reasons as bisexual males and females?

I was also struck by our discussion on gender, which varied from the roles different genders play to the effect of clothing on the status (and vulnerability) of women. I couldn't help but notice that in the discussion, particularly that of clothing, much of what was said conformed to society's perceptions of the female gender. While this seems to be, in a sense, inescapable, generalities such as "girls just want to look pretty sometimes" is one that, to me, merely furthers an untrue expectation and/or behavior of femininity. Why is this not considered a primary component of masculinity? And, how can we understand society's implementation of gender and work towards gender equality when we ourselves are confined by those very boundaries of gender?

Yesterday, Liz and I went to the Pierce County AIDS Foundation (PCAF) for our volunteer interview, the first step in our service learning projects. We were there probably less than an hour and really did not do anything outside of the interviews, besides sit in the main lobby and fill out paperwork. However, it amazes me how much simply being in the location of an organization such as this can make you see things you have never seen before and can make you think about the society in which we live.

The mission statement of PCAF reads "Pierce County AIDS Foundation, through education and service, prevents HIV infection, assists persons affected by HIV/AIDS, addresses related health problems, and combats associated stigma and discrimination." Their website states that they have served 1,741 people with HIV/AIDS, 638 of whom have died (as of July 2007). One visible act that PCAF performs is the distribution of food bags on a weekly basis. Also, flyers advertised different classes and events available to individuals in order to either prevent oneself from being infected with HIV, infecting others with HIV, or dealing with the disease once transmission has occurred. While it is still unclear exactly what we will be doing at PCAF, I believe we will be playing a role in the planning process of Dining Out for Life, an event that will occur on April 30th in which restaurants from around the area will donate 25% of their proceeds to PCAF in order to fight towards the organization's many missions.

However, while all of the logistics of PCAF are important, I couldn't help but be struck by the individuals that were there, both those that were working there or those that were coming for assistance. Looking back, one of the main things that I noticed was that race was not really an issue - people who were white were coming for help, people who were black were coming for help, people who were hispanic were coming for help, etc. Some epidemiological statistics claim, and analytically it makes sense, that African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans have been affected the most by HIV/AIDS and are at a greater risk of being infected with HIV/AIDS. However, I can't help but think that the reality of HIV/AIDS lies in the fact that it can cross these racial boundaries our society has constructed and in turn creates a situation in which every single person is at risk of contracting HIV/AIDS and thus every person could potentially be subjected to the negative social effects that often follow infection, as well as the discrimination and oppression associated with merely being a carrier of the virus.

At the same time, Liz told me about a man that came in while I was in my interview and described himself as "gay and HIV positive." Why did he describe himself first as being homosexual? While it could mean nothing, I can't help but wonder why the stereotype against gay males and HIV/AIDS is still so strong. We know how it is transmitted and we know that a large number of people other than gay males have and pass on the disease. What has to happen in order for stereotypes like this to disappear?

 

When doing the readings for this afternoon's class, I couldn't help but think about the discussion in Mickey Mouse Monopoly about gender and how Disney portrays it in their movies. The movie pointed out a trend that I myself had never noticed - not only does practically every female character have the same skinny waist, large hips, long eyelashes, etc., they are almost all portrayed in the same "feminine" way, whether that is they use their body to achieve something or are placed in situations where their body is their sole tool, they are helpless and thus in need of someone to rescue them, they enjoy tasks such as cleaning the house, doing the dishes, and cooking, and so on and so forth. In the reading Night to His Day, the author states that gender itself is nothing more than the distinctions made by society. They even claim that because the female/male characterizations are based in society and not in biology, they can be changed/fixed. But, it seems so... impossible. I like to think that I am a "feminist." Just like the reading pointed out, there seems to be a negative connotation associated with being a feminist, but I truly feel that men and women are equal, have the same abilities, and should be given the same opportunities. I grew up with a single mother who, besides being the strongest person I know, in many ways, is more capable than many of the male authority figures that have been in my life. I have always been told that I can do anything I want to do, no matter what. And yet, everywhere we look, or at least everywhere I look, it seems like all of those ideas of equality, ability, opportunity are just covering the truth - that while women may now be considered equal by the law, that while they are capable of achieving their goals in the career aspect of life, they have to work twice as hard. In high school, I was fortunate enough to participate in a program at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Washington called Young Women in Science. The program annually selected five girls from the Tri-Cities area to work at the laboratory alongside scientists, assisting in actual research, and listening to speakers that came from around the country to speak about their research. The program itself was created to encourage girls to enter the field of scientific research, one that is still predominantly made up of males. It was an amazing experience, but I am still shocked by the response that came from many of my classmates, especially male classmates. Many of them, whose parents worked at the lab, felt that I was given an opportunity over them, that I was in fact undeserving of being placed in the program and that they were just as qualified, if not more so. They then began a rant, one that I heard too many times in high school, about how they were now unfortunate as middle-class, white males because opportunities were being continually given to others over them. While there were programs for students other than females at the lab, programs that my male classmates could have just as easily applied for and worked in, their words, in a weird way, always reinforced my almost hopelessness at the gender issues ever really changing in the way of true equality. Even the efforts taken to make things more equal create an environment in which differences are more important.

I was also struck by the readings in that there seemed to be a sense that gender equality meant the disruption of the female/male system entirely. However, I was really intrigued by Fresh Lipstick and its claim that gender equality can still be achieved while still paying attention to differences between females and males. I hope that's true.