The music video of the song begins with a guy complimenting Hailee Steinfeld saying “You’re just not like most girls.” After hearing his comment, she leaves him and starts singing, which her lyrics show why that cannot be a compliment and demonstrates the guy’s bias toward girls. It is not indicated specifically what type of stereotypes the guy has, but when he says ‘most girls’, it has a negative connotation that most girls are not special, boring, etc. He is using gender to emphasize and categorize how special Hailee Steinfeld is to him, instead of focusing on her as an individual human being. Her lyrics criticize his claim by implying that all girls are different (“No two are the same”) and special.
Some girls, feel best in their tiny dresses
Some girls, nothin’ but sweatpants, looking like a princess
…
Most girls are smart and strong and beautiful
Most girls, work hard, go far, we are unstoppable
Most girls, our fight to make everyday
No two are the same
The idea reminds me of constructivism, “The Social Construction of gender” by Judith Lorber, that the social environment is the biggest factor in gender. Every society classifies people as “girl and boy children” and “fully adult women and men,” which constructs similarities among them and differences between them (Judith Lorber 55). The problem arises when the pervasiveness of gender as a way of structuring social life demands that gender statuses be clearly differentiated. It hinders people from thinking outside the box, leading them to condemn those who do not follow gender norms or their interactions become limited to the gender stereotypes. The song accurately demonstrates such issues in society and the frustrations girls face when interacting with other people. However, the lyrics and the criticism are limited to – what girls wear, how they look, their beauty, etc. – which are important messages but not enough to address the challenges women face in society. It sounds as if the only problems in terms of gender are appearances and beauty when there are so many other biases that prevent women from enjoying their rights.
I have attended the Chelsea Manning event that I looked forward to since I contributed to hosting her as a co-president of Amnesty International. She began by sharing her childhood story and then her journey as a whistleblower and transgender. In search of a sense of belonging that she could not feel in her hometown or the UK, she moved back to the U.S. at the age of eighteen and continued to be lost until she joined the American Military as an intelligence analyst. Her job was to work with simple algorithms and machine learning related to Iraq and Afghanistan war around 2010 when she found out that civilian apps and technology can be easily militarized. She realized the ethical dilemmas of the technology, that time and the interest of the people are used as data for commodities and the military. The released classified documents not only contributed to such information but also included USA Military war crimes and direct evidence of the killing of Iraqi and Afghan citizens. When she spent a significant amount of time in solitary confinement, she lost connection with the world and people. This led her to wish to finalize her journey and improve her life, coming out as queer. After that, she spent four years focusing on improving her life, advocating for queer rights, and getting hormone therapy. She faced general human rights violations in prison including queer rights and prisoner rights, such as not allowing her to grow her hair or no access to hygiene products. She fought back against the violations by building community and speaking up, where she realized building community is the most important part of advocating for human rights. Her story was very inspirational and informative because it addresses the multiple fault lines in U.S society with her narrative.
Superdads: “How Fathers Balance Work and Family in the 21st Century” by Gayle Kaufman
Book Cover for Superdads: How fathers balance work and family in the 21st century
The introduction to “Super dads” starts with what the author’s observation at the bus stop: unexpectedly, there were more dads than moms waiting for elementary school children. This was surprising to the author because as she states: “The point is that fathers are no longer an anomaly at the bus stop. I call these men “new” dads or “involved” dads, a sign that times are changing and men’s role as fathers are changing too. (Kaufman 2013).
GAYLE KAUFMAN is a Sociology professor at Davidson; I never had a chance to take her class, but it is a great opportunity for me and also other students who read my post to be able to ask questions directly to the author of the book. She specializes in gender equality, parental leave policy, and modern families, also she published her second book “Fixing Parental Leave”, explaining her observation of the policies of Sweden and the UK.
Throughout the book, Kaufman mainly explains the new dilemmas and social expectations involved fathers face when it comes to work and families. For instance, one of the interviewees explained how he cannot find time to spend with his daughter while working overtime. She categorizes ‘new dads’ and ‘old dads’ to explain the generational differences and the discrepancies between them. Then, she argues for both individual and societal level solutions that could potentially alleviate the problems new dads face. She presents the solutions by showing the interviews she has done with dads who successfully balance family and work. One of the examples were focusing less on the success in the workplace and interacting with superiors or employees.
Kaufman’s methods are mainly qualitative and include multiple interviews of both “old”, and “new and involved” dads. By presenting her interviews, she gives details on the challenges the dads face balancing between work and family. Moreover, she provides interviewees’ detailed narratives of how they dealt with the problem and found balance in doing both.
To give an overview of how Kaufman develops her overarching argument, she first introduces the problem statement in Chapter One: Introduction, Chapter Two: Becoming a father, and Chapter Three: Work-Family Dilemmas, describing the challenges of balancing between work and family. Then, she analyzes dads in three categories in each chapter: Chapter Four: “Old Dads”, Chapter Five: New Dads and Partial Solutions, Chapter Six: Super dads, and Chapter Seven: Single Super dads. Throughout Chapters Four to Six, while introducing the concepts she also suggests solutions by introducing the personal narrative of the interviewees.
First, to summarize the presented issue, one of the interesting findings was that fathers consider their roles as having two full-time jobs, considering their job at home ‘a second shift’. Evidence suggests that men these days are going through what women went through when large numbers first entered the labor force. In short, the facts demonstrate the pressure and feelings of imbalance men face and the consequences it brings to their lives and families. The significant cause of the problem is too much time at work – overtime and being on call. Fathers who work unusual hours face stress over not being at home when “normal” fathers are supposed to be at home.
In the second part of her observations, she also describes the lives of “old” dads as the opposite of “new” dads, who often expresses the sense of loss that he was not there, knowing that he has missed “anything that has happened” at home. Masculinity and the provider role remain prevalent among old dads, who grew up in a society where people and scholars emphasized the importance of separate roles for men and women—the instrumental role for men and the expressive role for women. Men’s primary roles as workers and providers were seen as key to the functioning of family life and the larger society. Despite the differences between old and new dads, a recurring theme in both generations is that the fathers have long hours of work and a lack of time to spend at home. However, when she interviewed the old dads, men often talk about their own individual aspirations as a motivation to work long hours. Yet, they are grounded in external pressures and standards to which men compare themselves. As a result, “the force causing them to work both surrounds them and is internalized by them, creating normative patterns, understandings, and definitions about work. Another important theme in old dads is their reliance on their wives who become the primary caretaker and a parent. They express concerns over their missing roles of appearing as a parent to their children.
While some fathers stick to a more traditional view of their role as a father, most of the younger fathers Kaufman talked with seeing themselves as involved dads. They are not completely dismissive of their monetary contributions to their family, but they do not define themselves as breadwinners. The transition from an old to a new identity as a father leads us to the third part of the book, where the author attempts to suggest a solution for the struggles the ‘new paternal identity’ presents. Kaufman closely examines the lives of fathers who claim to have found a good fit between their work and family. It is not necessarily that they have made major adjustments to their work lives but rather that they find themselves in positions that are amenable to family life. One of the noticeable similarities of these respondents is that they have jobs that offer a good deal of autonomy which may be used to arrange better work schedules for themselves. For instance, Walter really enjoys the flexibility in both his daily work tasks and his need to answer to his boss. He has control over what he does and when he does it. As he suggests, this freedom is particularly useful for a father of two preschool children, and he takes advantage of this flexibility when his family needs him. Another factor that determines the good balance and work effort is the father’s attitude toward his career. The fathers who are not aspiring to move up the ladder but work to make sure to get the job done to have more laid-back work experience and energy to focus on family. Gary, one of the interviewees, says he used to work longer hours and was more driven to work, sometimes trading home for work on weekends. Since his son was born, he works a more regular schedule, which means fewer hours, and he appreciates time at home, including time with his son and extra sleep. Kaufman brings interesting insights by examining the respondents and suggests that the work environment and the attitude toward work significantly matter.
The book primarily focuses on ‘new dads’ who try to find a balance between work and family by looking into the respondent’s lives on an individual level. The strength of the book comes from a narrow topic that it goes over multiple possible explanations of the problem and solutions. Moreover, the detailed experiences shared by some of the successful ‘new dads’ can be a practical guideline for readers struggling with similar problems. For those who are not fathers that find it difficult to emphasize the situation, it is easier for us to understand the context by reading about their personal experiences.
The weakness that came to mind was its lack of focus on policy and institutional analysis. Corporate policies related to paternal leave and social services such as child care are an important part of the welfare system to encourage parents to continue their work while taking care of their children. However, the author focused more on the cultural and social factors of new dads, which was helpful and insightful, but made me wonder about any legal difficulties that hindered them from balancing between work and family. For the same reason, I also expected to see policy suggestions and a review of government responsibilities that governs the lives of working parents. However, her second book reinforces the weakness by addressing the policy issues through comparative case studies of countries. The title of her second book is “Fixing Parental Leave: The Six Month Solution” which gives more detail on policies and institutional solutions.
Personally, the book was very interesting because I could not help but compare her observation to South Korea, a country I grew up in since there has been a growing number of involved dads even though still less compared to other developed countries. The public is unwelcoming toward these fathers due to the outdated stereotype that a child must be taken care of by mothers and also the majority of members in communities related to childcare are women. Moreover, government welfare and policies discourage fathers from participating in childcare with many companies refusing to provide paternity leave. I read the book with great interest since it touches upon the area of study that I enjoy learning more about: growing social and policy issues of involved dads.
In conclusion, as a female college student who rarely has a chance to analyze the struggles of working fathers, the book provided a new perspective on child care and work-family dilemmas. I also think it would benefit the fathers and mothers, who try to understand their spouses, as a guide and reference for raising their children. Moreover, the text could be used to argue for specific child policies or social systems because of the vast background information the book provides.
Growing up in South Korea, a homogeneous country where more than fifty percent of the population believes homosexuality is not justifiable (World Values Survey 2017-2020), I am unfamiliar with the history and significance of drag shows. So, after I received an email from Dr. Gonzalez about Q&A Drag Show, I searched about its history and development. It was interesting to find out that the first instances of drag were during the Victorian period when English actresses impersonated men in theater, after the long history of theater and stages excluding female participation. The impersonation of the opposite sex was popular until 1933 when Hollywood’s production code banned the culture. After that, drag balls, what we know now as a drag show, mainly featured homosexuals and people of color impersonating the other sex that provided space for marginalized people in society.
Going to the event was a new and interesting experience for me, both the performances and the audiences (students). Each performer impersonated a character with a story and message they want to deliver to the audience, for instance, the first performer was a pop star, and the last performer portrayed body positivity and self-love. Each stage was more than just impersonating the other gender, it was also about expressing themselves through dance, music, and engaging with the audience. Students, including me, were excited and attentive. I loved the confidence performers had and the energy I could feel from the crowd that everyone was enjoying and appreciating the moment.
Recently, there has been a gradual increase of feminism, queerness, and anti-racism incorporated in popular culture in response to the public, especially the younger generation. Some media accurately portray gender ideas and racial representation, but some screenwriters or producers are ill-informed and fail after attempting to appeal to a younger generation. I will be introducing one of the TV series that comparatively did well for an audience that cares about social justice: a British comedy-drama, “Sex Education.” I would like to focus on [Season one, episode five] of the series written by Sophie Goodhart and Laura Hunter, which says a lot about all three – feminism, queerness, and anti-racism.
In episode five, two important incidents happen simultaneously that show the character’s struggles based on their identity. First, it starts with a nude picture anonymously being released at school -a photo of someone’s vagina, which gets teased for its color and shape. The owner of the vagina photo, Ruby, approaches Maeve -the main female character who accepts clients for sex therapy- asking for help to find a person and stop him or her from revealing her name. Despite Ruby being mean and rude to everyone, Maeve agrees to help without compensation and starts the investigation with Otis -a main male character whose mom is a sex therapist and ends up working as a sex therapist for his peers.
With Maeve leading the first part of the story, the nude picture represents and tackles female anxiety and insecurity that are often not discussed enough. The students in school humiliate and judge the vagina photo that it is ‘brown and shaped weird’ as if there is a specific ‘normal’ way of how the female body is supposed to be. Degrading women based on their body parts is considered Hostile Sexism, which seemed to be engrained in their school’s culture for both boys and girls. Not only does seeing Ruby scared of the threats of being revealed as the owner of the photo portrays the problem of the shaming culture, but also the later confession by Maeve represents the toxic environment of Hostile Sexism. She shouts to Otis why she has been called ‘Cock Biter’ for four years: “Do you know how long I’ve been called Cock Biter? Four years. People I’ve never met call me Cock Biter to my face. I bit Simon Furthassle’s scrote. I had sex with four guys at the same time, I fucked my second cousin. I’ll give you a hand job for a fiver if you like. Do you know how it started? Simon tried to kiss me at Claire Tyler’s 14th birthday. I said no. So he told everyone I’d given him a blow job and bitten his dick, and that was it. This kind of thing sticks. And it hurts, and no one deserves to be shamed, not even Ruby.” (Sex education, Season 1 Episode 5) Her speech sums up the hostile environment girls or women are in this society: the victim-blaming and male gaze. She gets blamed for not kissing Simon back when she is a victim in the situation. While out of revenge, he objectifies her by giving her the name ‘Cock Biter’ which follows her for four years, emotionally distressing her.
While the episode criticizes such culture by showing the female character’s fear and anger, it also reconciles the conflict in the last scene. When everyone is gathered in the hall and the headmaster emphasizes that faculties are looking for the owner of the photo -another insensitive way to blame the victim – girls start to stand up shouting “It’s my vagina!” It represents how they accept their insecurities about bodies and stand up to the shaming culture. The episode touches upon social problems toward women and demonstrates an ideal way of tackling the problem; although it might not be a practical way, in reality, it still is worth watching to reflect on our society.
The second conflict arises when Otis agrees to help Maeve because he promised his best friend, Eric for a birthday tradition they have been doing every year: they dress up in drag and see Hedwig and the Angry Inch together. However, Otis leaves Eric alone to get on the bus and breaks the promise to help Maeve continue her investigation. Left alone, Eric gets his wallet and bag robbed having to walk back alone at night. As a black queer man dressed up, he gets beaten on the road, traumatized, and returns home. Not only does Eric and Otis’ friendship got destroyed, Eric feels broken inside and grows resentment about his identity being humiliated and hated in society. When he comes back home, his dad says: “If you are going to live like this… you have to toughen up.” (Sex education, season 1 episode 5) As an audience, we understand Dad’s frustration and concern about Eric’s queerness, but it represents victim-blaming that he is criticizing his son who is traumatized. Experiencing homophobia from a stranger, Eric gives up his identity and dress up as a straight man when he goes to school the next day. The episode shows the struggle of queer identity in our society including their families and friends that it is hard to find a safe place for them. It is also rare to see the representation of the struggle of people of color identifying themselves as Queer.
Season one, episode five of Sex Education portrays multiple societal problems people feel and experience regarding feminism, queerness, and anti-racism. It shows the struggles and accurately points out what causes them, which makes the show worth watching for people who care about social justice.
