Sexual Revolution in TV

I recently watched a film,  The Untold Stories of Armistead Maupin (2017), at the Nashville Film Festival. Armistead Maupin was an exciting man who grew up conservative, and never had any interest in women, always trying to prove his masculinity to his father, and had a love for writing. He picked up by PBS through his articles in the newspaper that told little stories following Mary Ann Singleton. He always put himself into Mary Ann and her actions reflected much of his. He came out as gay and started adding more to the stories.
Introducing a more diverse group of characters, homosexuals and transgendered (no African American), the company started to cap him off. Armistead was not allowed to put in more than 30% "different" people than heterosexuals. So yes, Armistead was changing the TV industry with his stories, but the people in power wanted to make sure white, heterosexuals were still on top, regardless of the "revolution" occurring.
Another problem he ran into in his life was the AIDS crisis. Many of his friends passed away due to AIDS and one person in particular created an uproar. Rock Hudson, actor, began looking very sick and losing a lot of weight. The press was covering all these bizarre stories that he was anorexic or had the flu or anything else, but no one could fathom that he was a gay actor that had not come out and now had AIDS. Armistead believed that if you act gay to your group of friends and some strangers, then what is it for him to lie about another person and agree with the media lies? I believe that Armistead did the right thing. People were excited about a sexual revolution, but still scared of what might become of it. I think if the news about Rock Hudson never came out, less people of the time would have come out and accepted themselves.
Everyone should see this film at some point in their lives. Very funny and very interesting.

"I'm not a gay writer, I'm a writer that's gay." Armistead Maupin

Daddy?

Why do some girls now days call their boyfriends "daddy"? Mainly when they are talking sexy or trying to be sexual. Usually the word "daddy" is referring to your father but its usually used to indicate when someone is in charge or the boss. Well that's usually the meaning for some girls in the "bedroom". The girls in this category could use this because they adapted it meaning by hearing it being played in a song or a movie. We as a society pick up on new words all the time but however this word is usually used during sex or some kind of sexual act.

Is it males like to be called "daddy" because they want to be known for their authority and dominance? These select males who like to get called "daddy" could because they are into the whole dominance and submissive thing. However the girl could as well like to submit to a male authority figures. If some girls call their significant other "daddy" because of dominance, this shows us that dominance between a male still exist.  This shows that these select few men like to be dominate over their female significant other.
However one could argue what is so bad or odd about calling your man "daddy", whats the difference when you call your man "baby" (does that mean you are refereeing to a baby?) or when you call your man "pumpkin" does that mean you are refereeing to him as a vegetable? The word "daddy" could just be another word we came up with like those for instance. Personal experience my grandmother calls my grandfather daddy and he calls her mamma. Which I know is a different topic, however its the same idea.

As I read a few articles and such over this topic I came upon a thing called DDig community which freaked me out in all honesty. DDig stands for Daddy Dom/little girl, which freaks me out and gives me the jitters. These men in this community usually attend in the ideal of "taking care of their littles" which is meaning to provide discipline and sexual toys. The so called littles "girl" in relationship provides a innocence to the relationship. Meaning the man is dominate over the woman. The DDIg community thrives through Tumblr and blogs. I provide you a few links down below. Far warning some people may find there disturbing and weird as I did. I just wanted to provide examples.

https://www.ddlgforum.com/

http://www.ddlginfo.com/

Is Makeup a Feminist Act?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lET-WXTsSwc

A few weeks ago in my Western Feminist Thought class the debate over makeup being feminist came up. Being one of two women in the classroom who wears a full face, a lot of the conversation was inevitably directed towards me.

Is putting on makeup a feminist act or am I succumbing to patriarchy's unjust beauty standards?

Generally, when I put my face on every morning, I could care less what men have to say about my looks. When I wing my eyeliner or wear purple lipstick, I'm clearly doing it for artistic purposes rather than male approval. However, when I'm going on a heterosexual date, I notice that I tend to tune down the funky colors and go for a more "natural", nude look.  

As a gender and women's studies minor and huge feminist, I believe makeup is an expressive tool used by both men and women to represent themselves. Makeup is an art, it's as much as a medium as fine oils or charcoal. 

Makeup bonds women together. It's a conversation starter; it's a link to beauty culture. You don't know how many times I myself or another woman became friends from comparing mascara wands. I actually met my best friend while we were doing laundry because we both were rocking winged eyeliner. 

The basis of feminism is bodily autonomy. It's your choice to look how you want and do whatever you please with your body. If I choose to get tattooed, it's my right because it's my body. Same applies for choosing to wear or not to wear blush. 

For the most part, I don't feel pressured to wear makeup to look put together or attractive. I'm just as comfortable bare-faced...but I do tend to feel more confident with a red lip rather than Chapstick. Makeup allows the wearer to exaggerate features they want to stand out and to express themselves artisitcally. 

"The Gang Legalizes Prostitution"

Often times, when discussing different political issues, it's hard for us to confront the issue we're dealing with and try to solve it, rather than sinking down the slippery slope of just complaining. So here I am, bringing you my solution to Prostitution. We legalize it.

Seems like a rough decision and all, because there are of downsides to prostitution. Like, a lot. So many that listing them all would take... probably another blog post.

But there's a way that we could assure safety for both the sex workers and the clients. We legalize prostitution, but we mandate that it adhere to general business laws. This means things like fair, contractualized wages, commision cuts, health screenings, regular random drug testing. Obviously things like this are good for the workers, because they can earn a fair wage without too much of the top being skimmed off by their pimps. And if a pimp decided skim some off the top anyway, they could actually get arrested for Embezzling. Health screenings for both parties involved keeps clients and workers safe from anything that could be passed between them, and we would see a downturn in STD rates. When Rhode Island accidentally legalized prostitution, they experienced an 11% decrease in VD infection rates over the entire state, and these are the kinds of benefits we could reap if we followed this example, but this time on purpose. Health and Safety codes that the business of prostitution must adhere to rules involving protection of their workers and proper salaries as previously established by the United States. As new business owners, they must also ensure that their clients and workers are taken care of equally within the business and to the full parameters of the law. Regular random drug testing would work the same as it does in any other office building, and serve the same consequences.

Workers could theoretically put hooking on resumes, and be able to find more "Societally acceptable" work in the future. Of course, a downside to this would be that they could potentially not be hired because of previous work experience, but a clause could be added into this bill, or a separate clause added into Title 7. (Which dictates that you can't not hire someone or fire them based on Race, Religion, or Sexual Orientation.)

With this, and the addition of a retroactive release bill, thousands of people arrested on prostitution charges could be released from prison systems everywhere, no longer serving a sentence for something that is no longer a crime.

Another upside would be protection for the workers from the potentially violent clients. It would also keep them off the streets at night and in a clean environment, as businesses sort of have to have a location in the first place. Plus, can you imagine a brothel with an HR department? In addition to all of this, before tax exemptions, 35% of profits would be taxed, so that's another chunk out of the U.S' debt.

It's not a perfect solution or anything, but it is a step in the right direction. I mean, lower VD infection rates, safer work environments, liveable wages? Seems like it to me.

Pure doesn't mean Perfect

There are many different ways eugenics can be looked at, from both positive and negative view points as well as historical and futuristic. However, it is all around us on a daily basis and needs to be discussed more in present tense.

Animal breeding is the most common form of eugenics that takes place constantly, both for farm livestock and for pets. On page 84 of the book Better For All The World Galton believed there could be more than just a "poetic analogy between the breeding of dogs and men." Galton also mentions breeding humans like animals again on page 96. Dogs have been breed for centuries to create ideal sizes, traits, appearance and skill. Could this technique not also be then applied to man to do the same? Galton seems to be in favor of this but rather than creating the ideal man, I believe it would create a monster.

Looking at dogs that have been breed for specific traits or appearance you see a genetic nightmare. These dogs are unhealthy, they have shorter life spans, are prone to mental illness and even violent outbursts. Many of the dogs breed to have shorter legs get arthritis very early on, and the dogs bred to have short noses have serious sinus and breathing issues.  The most common issues purebred dogs have, mostly due to inbreeding, include a very high risk of cancer and tumors. They often develop eye and heart diseases, joint and bone disorders, immune system and neurological diseases. Some breeds have skin problems as well. Epilepsy is also a very common result of this selective breeding. (Source: Petmd.com )
Purebreds are far from prefect.
If the methods used to breed dogs were in fact used to breed humans, it would not be creating a superior being, it would be increasing the mental health issues and diseases they were trying to prevent in the first place.

On the other side of this is the "designer baby", a concept once only thought of by science fiction writers and hopeful eugenicists. However as of 2004, the designer baby became science fact and the phrase was added to the Oxford Dictionary. ( Source ) I remember when I first heard about designer babies being real science, my friend came to me and said "Your favorite sci-fi movie is real, you can live GATTACA now." In the film people are separated into two classes, the natural born and the genetically altered. Your class was determined by your DNA sequence. Those who were superior could be anything they wanted, those who were not had to struggle to get though life. In the end however, the natural born brother is able to adapt and become stronger while the designer brother is locked into what was pre-planed for him. The moral of the story being, natural is always better than something created in a lab by people dreaming of a utopia.


Today, the most common uses of this genetic alteration is to change the babies sex, prevent multiple diseases, such as cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia, and to ensure harmful traits are not passed down from the parents. Unlike the movie, you can not choose your babies eye or hair color and various things of that nature. The Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs actually released a statement back in 1994 in support of using genetic selection as a means to prevent specific diseases, but that selection based on benign characteristics was not ethical. ( Source) There have been several ethical debates about this, one of the biggest concerns being that if this were to become a perfected science and one could literally design a baby like it was a video game, that it would create a major rift between the social classes of those that could afford the procedure/surgery/character selection menu, and those that could not. Which ties directly back to GATTACA. However, others believe it should be the parents right to be able to choose what traits their child will have.

However if they need to have that much control over somethings genetic code, they could just get a dog.

The Threat to Abortion in Kentucky

                One of the most polarized issues in politics today is directly involved with women’s sexuality: abortion. We’ve touched briefly on abortion in class, talking about who’s decision it is and why. As Kentucky’s last abortion clinic fights to remain open this week, I thought this topic might deserve some attention.

                Abortion has been a polarizing issue since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. When the Supreme Court agreed that women had the right to an abortion under the 14^th amendment, it changed how states were able to regulate abortions. After 1973, they could only regulate them during the second and third trimesters of pregnancy. Abortion has long been regarded, at least by the liberals, as a woman’s reproductive right.

While birth control has become more accessible to women over time, it is not always effective. That can leave a woman in a bind, with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy. Even before abortion was legalized, many women had unauthorized abortions. These procedures were not always safe, making some women sterile and sometimes causing a woman to die from complications. By legalizing abortion, it has allowed the medical profession to step in and safely preform these procedures, causing the complication and mortality rates to go down.

However, there is still a large opposition to legalized abortion, including the very prevalent religious conservatives. Part of this can be seen by how few hospitals perform abortions and how many abortion clinics are in each state. For example, in Kentucky many of the hospitals are affiliated with religious groups. In Louisville, some of the major hospitals include Baptist Health, Jewish, and St. Mary’s and Elizabeth. Most hospitals affiliated with religious groups or donors refuse to perform abortions unless the life of the mother is in immediate danger. This makes it difficult for women to have access to abortion, which is where the clinics step in.

Abortion clinics are contentious in nature. They are there to perform the surgery the hospital might disagree with. However, they might have to have contracts with local hospitals for emergency transportation and admission of their patient in case something goes wrong. This makes it harder for clinics to exist, especially in states with a large conservative population.

In the past few weeks, Kentucky’s last abortion clinic’s future has been up in the air. Governor Matt Bevin’s administration told the EMW Women’s Surgical Center they lacked the proper agreements with local hospitals for patient care in case of emergency, even though the agreements were approved last year. The clinic sued to stay open, claiming it was an attempt to ban abortion in Kentucky. This would impact many women’s ability to access an abortion, mimicking the lack of access to birth control in the past.

I work in downtown Louisville and I have to pass the EMW Women’s Surgical Center on my way. Last Saturday, in the wake of the attempt to close it and the lawsuit, there were more protesters than usual. They had graphic signs about the “horrors” of abortion. There were also more volunteers that escort women into the building than I’ve seen recently at the building, at least 20. While abortion might not seem like a direct issue in sexuality, it is when women have little options concerning both birth control and abortion. Accessibility has been a constant struggle we looked at throughout class, and this is yet another way to make medical help that deals with sexuality less accessible.

Here's the link to the Courier Journal article about the EMW Women's Surgical Center:
http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/29/kys-last-abortion-clinic-sues-stay-open/99412244/

Meat and Masculinity

I've always heard the typical date where a man orders a steak and woman orders a salad. Men are made out to seem carnivorous while women are seen as herbivores, "little rabbits". In my Foodways class, we read a very interesting article that goes into more detail over this.

In the Sexual Politics of Meat, Adams assesses that "women and animals are similarly positioned in a patriarchal world, as objects rather than subjects, both enduring a cycle of objectification, fragmentation, and consumption." Meat used to be perceived as a s high-class commodity and therefore the ones who consumed meat were of high-class and achieved power. Economies that relied more on plant-based diets had more women in power and the society was more egalitarian, while meat based societies were more patriarchal.

In the book Beyond Beef, Rikfin traces the masculinity of meat back to ancient Egypt, where the first major religion was bull worship, based on the bull god. The bull represented masculinity and a powerful urge for war and subjugation. Every year, a bull would be sacrificed and fed to the king so he could gain the god's strength and masculinity. The Vedic word for "war" means the "desire for cows".

Just as men in our readings who are sexually passive are deemed effeminate, today's standard for men who are vegetarians are also deemed effeminate.

Having It His Way: The Construction of Masculinity in Fast-Food TV Advertising
Carrie Packwood Freeman and Debra Merskin

Steve King and the Threat of Modern American Eugenicism

One American congressman has recently made statements that seem to mirror pre-war eugenicist ideologies that hold white Anglo-saxans at the top of the societal food chain. Following the controversy of his tweet on March 12^th, which we briefly mentioned in class, U.S. Representative Steve King was unapologetic. The Republican from Iowa suggested his support of Geert Wilders—whom many refer to as the "Dutch Donald Trump" based on his ideologies as well as his famously blond bouffant—a politician from the Netherlands who is known to hold strong anti-immigration and anti-Islamic sentiments. “Wilders understands that culture and demographics are our destiny. We can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies.” King previously expressed his belief that white Christians have been the biggest contributors to western culture; “our civilization” refers to that of such white Christians, while “somebody else's babies” seemingly refers to Muslim children. A day later, on March 13^th, he responded to a statement by Mexican-American news anchor Jorge Ramos regarding America as a multiracial country. King stated, “...he's adding up Hispanics and blacks into what he predicts will be in greater number than whites in America. I will predict that Hispanics and the blacks will be fighting each other before that happens.” This is highly related to positive eugenics—keeping “our” numbers up while the “lesser races” fall victim to social-Darwinism as a justification for King's apparent racism.

Fellow Iowans were especially eager to disassociate themselves from his statements after King was praised online by Ku Klux Klan affiliates such as the former grand wizard David Duke. King received a lot of criticism for his tweet from colleagues and the media, but he stood by his comments. In a radio interview, King claimed that “this isn't about race.” Instead, his comments were about “our stock, our country, our culture, our civilization.” What I find most disturbing is his language—by advocating for “our stock”, King seems to mirror the ideas of positive eugenicists in early-twentieth century America. To reiterate a statement that was made in class, eugenics is not all based on race. Steve King claims that it is not about skin color, but that children who are not assimilated into American culture (i.e. born of immigrants) are less American. “I'm a champion for Western civilization...They contribute differently to our culture and civilization.”

Why should we care what Steve King believes? We are talking about a public figure who is advocating against diversity and inclusivity in America, and he is not alone in his sentiments. King's statements have already given fuel to white supremacists like the KKK and as we know, eugenicist ideas have deep roots in American culture despite the fact that they were pushed underground following World War II. King's statement that other “sub-groups” have not contributed as much to Western civilization as white Christians inherently devalues racial minorities and their position in American society. If you have not already done so, I implore you all to read up on Iowa Representative Steve King, as well as President Trump's "Dutch counterpart" Geert Wilders.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/03/12/iowa-rep-steve-king-muslim-children/99099712/

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/14/politics/kfile-steve-king-prediction/

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/13/politics/steve-king-babies-tweet-cnntv/index.html

That Damn Darkside Strikes Again: Portrayals of Transgender People in Movies

            Now that there is more discussion of transgender people in society it is becoming more acceptable for film makers to make movies about their lives. This is a good trend in one respect. The mere fact that it is not too taboo to get these movies made is a positive step to be sure. But there is still a dark side. (Hmmm…where have I heard that phrase before???)

            I have struggled with whether to celebrate films such as The Danish Girl or Dallas Buyer’s Club for their portrayals of transgender women as more than two dimensional oddities for the amusement of audiences. The characters were portrayed respectfully. But they were played by men. Do the positive effects of exposing wider audiences to positive stories about transgender people and normalizing them in society outweigh the fact that they were not portrayed by transgender actors? Native Americans were portrayed by white actors whose skin was painted to make them look like Native people. But eventually real Native American actors were finally used to portray these people, well until Johnny Depp anyway. Maybe with time the same thing would happen for transgender people. And if this were the case, waiting for progress and opting to support movies in which men portray transgender women could be good. The more support these movies receive the more they will be made and the sooner transgender actors will be chosen to play transgender people. I wasn’t sure if this was the right conclusion but there often aren’t easy, clean cut answers to questions like these. So I had made up my mind I would choose to support these movies in the hopes that my decision would create a positive end result. But that all changed this weekend.

            A Facebook friend who is a transgender women posted a heartbreaking video about a movie being made about Angie Zapata who was murdered by a man because she was transgender. My friend was upset because Angie was being played by a male actor. It was a complete erasure of who Angie was, her lived experience, and her murder. She was killed because she was a woman born in a male body. Seeing my friend’s pain changed my mind in an instant. I cannot support the erasure of the lives of transgender people any longer.

            There is still no easy answer. There may be transgender people who believed as I once did that any positive depiction of a transgender person is a good thing and small steps are better than no step at all. However, for me, after seeing the pain Angie’s erasure caused my friend, I know my choice is to hold out for transgender women actors to play transgender women. The lives of transgender people are under attack literally and figuratively. We do not just vote in the ballot box. We vote with the choices we make every day including whether or not we buy a ticket to a movie.

White Guys, God, and Uteruses

            I feel especially bitter today, so I thought I would talk about politics. Oklahoma state representative George Faught recently introduced a bill that would make it illegal to abort pregnancies due to fetal genetic abnormalities or Downs syndrome. At face value, the bill sounds fairly mild compared to the legislature that men in suits tend to implement as far as women’s bodies are concerned. However, when it was pointed out that the bill had no exceptions- including none for cases of rape or incest- Faught defended himself by saying that rape and incest were the will of God, and therefore those pregnancies should be protected as well. “Life, no matter how it is conceived, is valuable and something to be protected. Let me be clear, God never approves of rape or incest. However, even in the worst circumstances, God can bring beauty from ashes," he said.

            At first, he was reluctant to state that rape and incest were the wills of God. He only came forward with this answer when pressed by democratic representative Cory Williams asked him these questions directly. "It's a great question to ask, and, obviously if [rape and incest] happens in someone's life, it may not be the best thing that ever happened," he said. "But, so you're saying that God is not sovereign with every activity that happens in someone's life and can't use anything and everything in someone's life, and I disagree with that."

            This is the best time for a woman to be alive. Looking back at every period of history that we have covered in class, things were far worse for women than they are currently. We are an educated and humane people. And yet rape and incest- two of the worst things that can happen to a person- are being described as “maybe not the best thing that ever happened” by a man that was elected to a position of political power. A man that describes carrying a child that the woman does not want because of an interaction that she did not want is “beauty from the ashes”. All of his defenses are backed up by his crude biblical interpretations. In a country where we allegedly have a separation of church and state, why is it that religious beliefs are still allowed to play a part in legislature on any issue?

This issue is pertinent to class because women are, once again, having their rights challenged and torn down by old white dudes. We tend to discuss that at length. This issue is important because not only does it represent the fact that we are still at an age where women’s bodies are controlled by men, but it also shows that religion plays a large part in the government. We need to acknowledge and examine this issue if we expect to do anything to change it.

#ThePatriarchyIsTricky

#It’sAlwaysTimeForTheGulag

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57aWGJW0XbA

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/03/25/oklahoma-lawmaker-defends-pregnancy-from-rape-and-incest-as-beauty-from-ashes/?utm_term=.d066de2f844e