What it Takes to Make the First Lady Great

Posted on September 16, 2016August 2, 2021 by Former Student

“We want our children and all children in this nation to know that the only limits to the height of your achievements is the reach of your dreams and your willingness to work for them.” Melania Trump spoke these words at the 2016 Republican National Convention. Perhaps because these words were so poignant and eloquent, it did not take long to journalist Jarrett Hill to show the American public that Melania did not come up with them. Instead, she plagarized Michelle Obama’s 2008 speech from the Democratic National Convention. Shockingly, despite the fact that the First Lady’s intellectual property was stolen on the national stage, no one from the Trump campaign was fired. The Trumps got away with it with no significant loss in support.

But why are Trump fans so loyal to Melania and the Trump clan? Obviously, there is no simple answer to this question, but Ben Garrison, in this May 2016 cartoon, taps into some of the worrisome perceptions about possible future First Lady, Melania Trump and why the American public might be supportive. This cartoon primarily cites the centerfold of the Trump campaign, “Make America Great Again” to contrast the capabilities of Michelle Obama and Melania Trump. However, the cartoonist only makes strides to represent their differences to be “great” through the depiction of their bodies. All of the visual differences between Trump and Obama point to one underlying message of the cartoonist: Michelle Obama is less equipped to be a “great” first lady, and has not carried out the position properly. Garrison argues though, that Melania will be able to make the “First Lady great again” for reasons of her physical presentation, the color of her skin, and her femininity.

Immediately, my eye was drawn to the green dress on Michelle Obama. This color green invokes a monster-ish feel, which is in direct contrast to the red dress on Melania. Melania is depicted in an elegant flashy gown, with pearls and fancy make-up. In fact, Melania’s slit dress is reminiscent of the dress Angelina Jolie wore to the 2012 Oscars. Michelle on the other hand, is wearing chunkier jewelry. Her whole look is far less upscale than the way that Melania’s is portrayed- white gloves, ball gown in all. Garrison uses this tactic to demonstrate that Melania will bring a level of glamour to the White House in the same way a movie star would, while Michelle’s dress in an ogre-green makes strides towards dehumanizing her. In other words, Garrison depicts Melania in an expensive outfit, Michelle in one that is “cheap”- Melania is rich and glamorous, while Michelle is poor and less than human. But the notion that their physical representations matter in the evaluation of their “greatness” contributes to the pervasive sexist undertone of the entire cartoon.

Furthermore, there is a racist visual message that is very difficult to ignore. Michelle’s facial expression is in a fixed and disapproving scowl, and the hand on her hip makes her appear stand-offish and enraged. Her whole presence invokes the stereotype of the angry black woman. In her article, Controlling Images and Black Women’s Oppression, Collins points out, “ As overly aggressive, unfeminine women, Black matriarchs allegedly emasculate their lovers and husbands” [1]. This racist bias holds that black women are oftentimes so “aggressive”that they push people away. This depiction of Michelle as scowling is degrading because it not only traps her in the stereotype of an angry black woman, but also sends the message that she is not worthy of admiration. Melania on the other hand, is in a gentle and approachable pose, with a happy smile on her face. Garrison is furthering his argument that Michelle was the kind of First Lady that leaves room for improvement, since she was so aggressive and mean, while Melania is soft, approachable and worthy of admiration. But underlying this attempt to place Melania in a positive light, is the unignorable racial bias that part of the reason Michelle is angry and mad is not only because she is not “great” but she is not great in part because of the color of her skin.

Lastly, and perhaps most blatantly, Garrison is saying in this cartoon that Michelle failed at her role as a good first lady because of her masculine figure. Michelle’s bulging muscles and strong stature are in direct contrast to the ultra-feminine pose of Melania. In fact, Melania’s figure is almost hyper-sexualized. The large slit in her ball gown is suggestive at best, and an explicit objectification of her body at worst. Furthermore, Michelle is flat chested and lacking curves, in comparison to her busty and curvy counterpart. Not only is this an attempt to emasculate Michelle and reveal her as less “womanly” because of the shape of her body, it also sends the message that Melania is more valuable as a first lady because of her physique. Through the depiction of their bodies, Garrison is sending the message that Melania is going to be better at this position of first lady than Michelle ever was because she is looks more like what a woman “should” look like. There is nothing to do with the compared content of their brains, or their hearts for that matter, but rather there is an explicit message that the shape of their bodies and their sexual attractiveness is what should be compared.

Garrison asserts that Melania is better at this conceived role for three main reasons; her physical beauty, the color of her skin, and her perceived femininity. He makes strides to depict Michelle as unattractive and harsh looking, while Melania is physically beautiful, elegant, and well-dressed. Furthermore, Melania is a “great” candidate for First Lady because her presence as a white woman is far less threatening than the depiction of Michelle as an angry, menacing black woman. Lastly, Garrison depicts Melania as a clear preference for First Lady because her body is the feminine ideal. She is curvy, voluptuous, and sexualized, while Michelle is strong in stature and more “manly.” This last idea in particular furthers the idea that a woman matters, only if a man finds her attractive and would want to have sex with her. In all, the extreme contrast in the physical appearance of both women is built on the notion that a woman has worth because of the way that she looks, and only if she looks “great.”

This cartoon is so wrong for so many reasons. In this cartoon Michelle is attacked for not only being a woman, not only being a black woman, but being a black woman who is not as “sexy” as Melania Trump. Garrison and his hateful opinions reveal a scary voice in the American story. Garrison’s is a voice that screams and taunts and hides behind the concept of “free speech.” I will admit, I oftentimes want to believe that this voice has no power. But with the 2016 election coming up, it is more important than ever to reveal Garrison’s voice for what it truly is- a scared whisper stemming from a hateful mind and a fearful heart.

Works Cited:

Garrison, Ben. “In Trump’s America, the First Lady will be Great Again!” Illustration. Grrgraphics. Web. 16 Sept. 2016.

[1] Hill Collins, Patricia. “Controlling Images and Black Women’s Oppression.” Introduction to Gender and Sexuality Studies. Apr. 2016. 16 Sept. 2016.

Burger or Blow Job?

Posted on September 16, 2016August 2, 2021 by Former Student

“Sex sells.” This is a phrase that is ever popular in the advertising world and is used to sell products, services, and businesses alike. This strategy is usually seen as effective, but sometimes advertising companies purposefully push boundaries past what is deemed acceptable in order to evoke shock value in their viewers. In 2009, Burger King did just that with the release of an advertisement promoting their new “Super Seven Incher” burger. The advertisement had a limited release; it was only made public in Singapore, but was pulled from the market very shortly after it began circulation due to its controversial nature.

The images of the advertisement are overtly sexual and intend to depict a woman performing oral sex on the “Super Seven Incher.” The woman is the focus of the advertisement, as her profile from the neck up is shown on the left side of the ad. She is a white woman, has a blonde bob, and a face full of makeup. Her eyes are wide and her red lips are parted in an oval shape. Coming out from the right side of the page is the Super Seven Incher, aimed directly at the woman’s mouth. The advertisement is shaded darker at the corners and becomes increasingly lighter as the focus moves inwards towards the mouth and the burger. Below the image of the woman and the burger are the words “IT’LL BLOW YOUR MIND AWAY” in white, bold letters. Below the phrase is a yellow panel depicting the burger along with a drink and fries and a price of $6.25 for the whole meal. The description of the meal is in the lower right hand corner of the ad.

The target audience of this advertisement is very obviously the heterosexual male and it is supposed to be viewed through the framework of the male gaze. The sexual nature of the image is attention grabbing and conveys the message that by eating the Super Seven Incher, they will receive as much gratification as they would from receiving oral sex. By depicting the act in this way, the ad is designed to create a fantasy for heterosexual males, which can be fulfilled by eating this burger. Eating this burger will make heterosexual males happier, more satisfied, and more appealing to women, according to the ad.

Depicting the woman in the advertisement in such a hyper-feminine way insinuates that the woman’s sole purpose in the advertisement is to provide pleasure and act as a sexual object. Creators of the ad specifically used a young white woman with bright red lips and blonde hair, characteristics that are routinely associated with sex appeal, to target their audience. Although the advertisement was released in Singapore, the woman is white which reinforces the westernized beauty ideals that we see across most media. By portraying the woman in this way, the ad creators have established that this is what a “real woman” should look like and this is how she should act. The woman is submissive to the man and his desires (as represented by the burger) and the ad links her femininity to sexual objectification. Sex sells, but usually only if it is in a heteronormative way. If the roles had been reversed and an image was insinuating that a male was performing oral sex on a female, the reactions would have been different. People would have been taken aback by the overt sexuality, since a male gratifying female sexual desires is not something often portrayed in contemporary media. The same goes for if a woman was illustrated performing oral sex on a woman, a man on another man, or any other combination of gender identifications.

The imagery of the advertisement is extremely sexual and this is furthered by the use of language surrounding the ad. The name of the burger itself, the “Super Seven Incher,” has nothing to do with the taste appeal of the burger. It does not describe what is on the burger or its quality, but instead describes the length of the burger. This burger length is a not so subtle reference to male genitalia, adding to the visualization of the sexual image that is portrayed. In the quote under the burger, the words “IT’LL BLOW” are larger than the rest of the words on the page, immediately catching the viewer’s attention. Slang terms for performing oral sex are “blowing” or “giving a blow job,” so the use of this specific language was no accident. The most glaring use of language to conjure up sexual images was in the description of the burger in the lower right hand corner of the advertisement. The advertisement tells its audience to “Fill your desire with something long, juicy, and flame grilled” and “Yearn for more after you taste the mind blowing burger” Both of these particular quotes describe the burger, but they do so in a way that expresses the longing and need of the heterosexual male to have his desires fulfilled. The “yearning” and “desire” that is expressed can refer to the male’s need for sexual gratification, but can also refer to the female’s desire “for more,” not in reference to the burger, but alluding to it as a representation of male genitalia. Using the images along with the specific choice of words furthers the message of the advertisement and adds to its shock value.

Although the ad was removed from the market, it was successful in the regard that its shock value made it widely circulated and talked about. It successfully perpetuated the image of traditional gender roles and used sexual imagery to maintain heteronormativity. Its purpose was to push boundaries, spark conversation, and evoke a strong emotional response from its viewers, whether it was one of desire or disgust. By this ad fulfilling its purpose, Burger King got the publicity that it wanted, a publicity that has lasted longer than they could have imagined.

Works Cited:

Stransky, Tanner. “Burger King’s Super Seven Incher Ad: Subtlety Is Dead.” EW.com. N.p., 24 June 2009. Web.

“Top 10 Tasteless Ads.” Time.com. N.p. Web. <http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1907218_1907236,00.html>

Respect Me For My Brains, Not My Body

Posted on September 16, 2016August 2, 2021 by Former Student

Picture this. You are a blonde, caucasian woman. Perhaps you have large breasts. Perhaps you are frustrated with societal assumptions that because you are blonde, you must not be intelligent. Perhaps you are on the lookout for a company to purchase new glasses from, as you just got a new prescription. Enter Oogmerk Opticians, an eyewear company from Belgium. Their ad campaign, entitled “Get The Respect You Deserve”, contains a simple depiction of the same blonde, white, large lipped, large chested woman with one difference. One of the women is wearing a pair of glasses. In what is an extremely simple cartoon, both women are gifted a singular descriptive adjective below their depictions. The woman without glasses is labeled “easy”; the woman with glasses is labeled “hard”(See picture to the right). While the intended purpose of this advertisement is to get women to buy glasses, its main success is perpetuating effects caused by the sexual objectification of white women, namely through self-objectification. Furthermore, this advert does not even skim the surface on the wide ranges of stereotypes and objectifications unique to non-white women.

Culturally, women are objectified in a number of ways. The most prominent kind of objectification seen is sexual objectification, which occurs “when a woman’s body or body parts are singled out and separated from her as a person and she is viewed primarily as an object of male sexual desire” [1]. This dynamic is constructed through a society-wide hierarchy that places white, cisgendered, heterosexual males at the top. Sexual objectification of women can lead to a variety of outcomes on a scale from seemingly harmless to some of the worst experiences people will have to go through in their lives. A direct offshoot of this practice can be seen as the societal scrutiny of women’s bodies which create a wide range of standards and, often, unattainable images for how women can and should look and act. This analysis will focus namely on the experiences of white, heterosexual, cisgendered women, who exist at the top of the femininity hierarchy. However, it is extremely important to remember that these interactions and expectations exist in a wide range of unique ways the varying intersections face these challenges.

Stylistically, this advertisement makes its message crystal clear. The subtle nature of utilizing so few words in this advertisement draws up the image of a picture being worth a thousand words. The secondary sex characteristics, both the enhanced breasts and enhanced lips, depict an obvious statement about the assumed sexual behavior of the women. The viewer is then coerced in a simple manner to adopt this train of thought. Namely, that women who wear glasses are smart and/or stuck up, and therefore are “hard” to get into bed. This parallel structure seen is in no means a novel idea and claims its foundations around the segmenting of the female body. The females depicted are segmented so that the points of focus are their breasts and faces. Societally, women are commonly “seen as parts, rather than a whole”, namely their sexual body parts [2]. This stems from a depiction of sexual desire that reduces women to “a mere tool for sexual purposes,” or to a “sex object” [3]. While this conversation focuses mainly on cleavage, of any variety, as a depiction of a marker for essential female sexuality, the linking of the lips in this instance only aids in painting the portrait of a sexualized woman. Considering the unique role breasts play in conventional femininity, it is not a surprise that they are such sexualized part of the female figures in this advertisement. Breasts are utilized more than any other part of female anatomy in advertising and media images, that society “can barely catch a glimpse of side boob without thinking it’s sexual” [4]. However, an intriguing focus is made in this advertisement as well by enhancing the lips and linking these sex characteristics through color. This makes a subconscious association for the viewer regarding sexual acts that only works to underscore the overarching message.

This sexualization of secondary sex characteristics is solidified with the conquest related terminology applied to each woman. By stating the ease in which, if wanted, a heterosexual man could bed these two women, the objectification is internalized and able to cause a cascade of self-objectification and its effects. Furthermore, this diminishes the ability of women to appear educated, which reinforces the societal threat of women’s intelligence to the patriarchal hierarchy. By viewing these images in a sexual connotation, this concept of women being educated is erased from the thoughts of any potential customers, which allows the grounds for the tag line “get the respect you deserve”.

The language used, albeit simplistic, is probably the most problematic part of this advertisement. The message that women have to control their image in order to be respected, and that one can only be respected if they are “hard” to get into bed, constructs a pre-existing societal framework in which women are judged, as beings, solely for their appearance and not for their character. By evoking these images and concepts in this advertisement, the company is pining to tap into the appearance anxiety of the women viewing it. Appearance anxiety and body shame have been seen heavily in women who have been objectified, due largely to self-objectification [5]. The coopting of these symptoms of sexual objectification has one purpose: to trick women into feeling that they can change societal beliefs about their sexual promiscuity by buying Oogmerk glasses. This is a clear example of the rhetorical appeal of pathos, as its intention is to sway the emotions of its audience [6]. Through an explicitly minimalist approach, combining visual and verbal messages, these effects caused via sexual objectification are exploited to make sales and inherently reinforce these standards and requirements for existing as a “successful” woman. All of this ultimately ties to support the deeply ingrained societal dynamic of sexual objectification of women, which “no woman can opt out” of [7].

While ultimately this is not the most problematic use of objectified tropes surrounding the ties between female sexuality and female body parts, it highlights an overarching problem seen in the advertising industry today. Too often, there are problematic outcomes, like the power dynamics of rape and sexual assault, that stem from these beliefs that women exist as objects for men’s sexual desires.

[1] Szymanski, D. M., L. Moffitt B., and E. Carr R. “Sexual Objectification of Women: Advances to Theory and Research 1 7.” The Counseling Psychologist 39.1 (2010): 6-38. Web.

[2] Pappas, Stephanie, and LiveScience. “Our Brains See Men as Whole and Women as Parts.” Scientific American. N.p., 2012. Web. 16 Sept. 2016.

[3] Papadaki, Evangelia. “Sexual Objectification: From Kant to Contemporary Feminism.” Contemp Polit Theory Contemporary Political Theory 6.3 (2007): 330-48. Web.

[4] By 50 Million Liters Since 2007. “The Sexualisation of Breasts – The Circular.”The Circular. N.p., 03 Mar. 2014. Web. 16 Sept. 2016. <http://thecircular.org/the-sexualisation-of-breasts/>.

[5] Szymanski, D. M., L. Moffitt B., and E. Carr R. “Sexual Objectification of Women: Advances to Theory and Research 1 7.” The Counseling Psychologist 39.1 (2010): 6-38. Web.

[6] “Pathos.” Writing Commons. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Sept. 2016.

[7] Fischer, A. R., S. K. Bettendorf, and Y.-W. Wang. “Contextualizing Sexual Objectification.” The Counseling Psychologist 39.1 (2010): 127-39. Web.

An Analysis of Facebook Misogynists

Posted on September 16, 2016August 2, 2021 by Former Student

Last year, in my high school class’s Facebook group there was a debate I’d like to discuss as it still infuriates me to this day. For context, I’m from a very small, affluent town in Connecticut. My town is known for being quite liberal, generally pretty progressive , and very well-educated. The public school that we all attended is ranked by U.S. News as being number 4 in the state and number 184 in the country. 99% of students who graduate from our high school go to college. For comparison, the national average of high school graduates who enroll in college is 65.9% according to The New York Times (2014). The percentage of Americans who actually attend and graduate from college is even lower. Every single person involved in these conversations is now attending a reputable college, including University of Indiana, Southern Methodist University, and University of Michigan. I don’t say this to brag, but rather to contextualize these comments and explain why I was so shocked by them. Given our shared background and education, this incident was unexpected. To further contextualize this, this occurred on social media with the knowledge that is was a form of mass communication. The people involved were aware of who would be seeing their posts. In order to analyze this, I will be examining some screenshots I have from the private group in which they were posted, and relating their contents to a variety gender and sexuality studies concepts, such as gaslighting, identity politics, and misogyny.

Despite having been graduated for nearly a year at the point when this incident occurred, someone decided resurrect our class Facebook group by creating a post in support of Donald Trump. When a fellow classmate, who happens to be female, spoke up about her dislike of the candidate, two male students felt the need to respond with the following comments: “95% of Hillary supporters are women…BOOM roasted” and “You’re allowed to vote from the kitchen these days?” These comments led me to believe that these boys thought that female supporters of Hillary Clinton do not count and are invalidated in their belief simply because they are women.

As degrading as these comments were, what happened next was, to me and to many others, absolutely enraging. Another former classmate of ours posted a porn video that depicted a female porn actor advocating for a woman’s right to voice her opinion, only to be interrupted by a male porn actor shoving his penis in her mouth. Many people, including myself, were shocked that this boy would look up this video and post it in a group that was intended for school-related information. Despite this, many of my former classmates, both male and female, liked this post before group administrators (who were former student government members, so ex-classmates as well) removed the post. Prior to this however, more hatred and misogyny were spewed at the students who asked for it to be removed. Though it was a relatively small group of boys participating in this hatred, I was still shocked at the number of students participating and what they believed was okay to say, particularly coming from as liberal and well-educated of as place that we do. Ironically, this all occurred on International Women’s Day (March 8th), which, in my mind, solidified the point that we need this day to celebrate women seeing as we still face this misogyny, even from our classmates and supposed friends who are college educated.

I’ve included some of the comments below. These comments included such things as “#nomeansyes,” followed by “and yes means anal,” which reflected an incident we had during our Senior year, when the Women’s Empowerment Club created a rape awareness campaign, and put posters around the school with the statement “Rape is not a joke,” many of which were vandalized with the phrase “lol”. This displays the mindset of many of the students involved in this debate, where they truly don’t see women’s rights or rape (which certainly extends to more than just women) as an issue.

Their comments showed to me that these boys see gender as a clear dichotomy; there are only men and women. Not only that, they perceive these two genders in a clear hierarchy where women are the lesser of the two. Their statements not only diminished women but also served to reinforce this dichotomy and created a notion of having to “choose sides” between men and women, or even between feminist and misogynist. The fact that this one boy thought he was “roasting” Hillary and her supporters by calling them women furthers this notion as it’s clear he thought this was an insult of some sort. Furthermore, this displayed a weak and simplistic version of identity politics, where these boys tried to create a sense of comradery and alliance because of their gender. Their beliefs are being shaped by their gender identity and the convictions that come with that. I believe that many of these students, as white, cisgender men, who were raised in a very affluent town, have never been the subject of oppression or faced anyone telling them they are lesser. Most of them have never truly faced hardship, which I can say confidently as I have known the majority of them since they were in diapers. They are able to make these statements because of their position in society.

The student who posted the video defended his actions the next day with this post below. He felt he was justified because, supposedly, girls from our class had messaged him telling him that they agreed that the other girls in the group, who were defending their right to be seen as equal, were being ridiculous. Because he had some support from females, it was okay. This again ties into the idea of identity politics where he is attempting to justify his beliefs on the basis of his gender and the support of the other gender. Additionally, it could be argued that he is gaslighting, where he is manipulating others into questioning their own beliefs. He refers to this whole situation as a “joke,” trying to diminish the impact of his words and mold the perception of his actions. He tries to defend his own character, implying that if he’s a kind person he couldn’t have done something offensive,insisting he’s “never said a mean thing” to any of his opposers. This likely won’t be shocking, but he was not a kind person in school. He considered himself a class clown of sorts, and was constantly making fun of others, but always under the guise of humor.

The outrage that followed these posts were undermined by the original posters complaining that feminists don’t have a sense of humor and that they couldn’t take a joke, which, from their perspective, is clearly these posts were. The people involved in both these posts and the anti-rape poster incident (which are groups that include many of the same members, unsurprisingly) excuse their words and actions with humor. Words have power. Actions have power. They are not excused because you think they are funny. There were many comments in this thread that told people to “take a joke” or “chill out” or “get a better sense of humor”. However, I believe that the comments they made are rude and insulting, and should certainly not be taken as a joke. This idea that women don’t have a sense of humor when they try to defend their rights as people is derogatory and degrading. This “joke culture” is harmful because it invalidates feminists’ claims as humorless without attempting to understand their arguments, valuing humor as the most important factor. It also attempts to minimize the impact of the offending statements and the culpability of those who make them because they “aren’t meant to be taken seriously,” which is problematic because not only are the perpetrators not seeing the other side of the argument, they often don’t even recognize that there is a problem. They don’t see that feminism and comedy can coexist, and that one does not negate the other.

The claim was made that “feminism definitely doesn’t have a sense of humor,” to which I must respond: I’m sorry that I don’t find rape funny. I’m sorry that you think I’m a “bitch” for arguing that all humans – male, female, or otherwise – should be seen as equal. I’m sorry that I can’t “just chill my nips” and accept injustices. I’m sorry that completely undermining another human and treating them like subhuman for factors that are out of their control is not hilarious to me. If that means that I don’t have a sense of humor, then so be it. I’d rather be able to see the value of a human than be able to take a joke. I’d rather be a feminist than a comedian.

What Do You Mean, Justin?

Posted on September 16, 2016August 2, 2021 by Former Student

In recent years, Justin Bieber has become one of the world’s top celebrities with the expansion of his singing and modeling career. Beliebers (as Justin’s dedicated fans call themselves) keep up with all the latest news and gossip regarding Justin’s life, relationships, and, of course, the most current songs. When most fans think of this pop music icon, the words “handsome,” “sexy,” “stylish,” “friendly,” and “cool” may come to mind. However, “sexual predator” should possibly be added to this list of favorable words. When Justin Bieber released his hit single “What Do You Mean?” in 2015, it became the fastest single record to reach number one on iTunes (Lyons). Though a catchy beat, “What Do You Mean?” promotes rape culture through masculine dominance in the heterosexual relationship portrayed through the lyrics as well as contradictory actions and gestures throughout the music video.

Rape culture is a term coined in the 1970s by feminists in the United States as a tool to “show the ways in which society blamed victims of sexual assault and normalized male sexual violence” (What is Rape Culture?). In her book Transforming a Rape Culture, Emilie Buchwald defines rape culture as “a complex set of beliefs that encourages male sexual aggression and supports violence against women” (What is Rape Culture?). Though many view sexual assault and rape as predominately a masculine act that disproportionally affects women, as education has progressed, the belief has evolved to include the fact that it can happen to anyone regardless of gender identity. Along with the progression of sex education, the law has changed to encompass different aspects of sexual assault. Today, the law provides strict guidelines for the definition of rape, but rape culture has normalized this sexual violence in society through passively condoning rape. In terms of the law, lack of explicit verbal consent to any sexual act means that the sexual act is rape, which is a federal crime. However, pop culture often normalizes and victim-blames sexual violence through sexual objectification of women in music, movies, advertising, and TV shows.

Specifically exploring the lyrics of Justin Bieber’s “What Do You Mean?” reveals of the promotion of rape culture. From the beginning of the song and throughout the chorus, Justin Bieber asks “What do you mean?” then proceeds with, “When you nod your head yes, but you wanna say no. What do you mean?” (Levy, Boyd, Bieber). Here lies the main problem in the lyrics: lack of consent. Though Justin uses this lack of consent to create sexual tension, it emphasizes women’s sexual indecision, which is a key component of rape culture. Rape culture simplifies this process of consent, letting one partner dominate the decision. Portrayed as the “good guy” on the surface level, Justin Bieber works to figure out what the woman actually wants. Just as Justin exemplifies, rape culture depicts the everyday, average guy as the “good guy” so that there is no way he could possibly be thought of as a rapist (Bridges, Pascoe). This ideology can then lead to the perpetuation of “playing hard to get” in order to earn the affection of a potential mate. The “game” of “playing hard to get” steers further into dangerous waters as it not only establishes the belief that “no” can equal “yes” in the journey of pursuit, but commends those who ignore consent. As non-verbal language becomes prioritized over verbal language, misinterpretation of meaning becomes more common, further promoting rape culture (Redkar). This tactic and use of non-verbal cues contrary to verbal language becomes a key component of Justin Bieber’s music video subsequently discussed.

Later in the song, Bieber states, “you’re so indecisive of what I’m saying,” (Levy, Boyd, Bieber). Not only does this statement not make sense grammatically, but it also adds a harsh stigma to female indecision. Often, this sense of indecision and hesitancy occurs in an uncomfortable or precarious situation as a personal warning sign to proceed with caution. In this situation, the woman experiences indecision due to Bieber’s dominant sexual actions as well as consistent pressure for her to make up her mind. Just like the woman in the music video, women are allowed to be indecisive about sexual activities and this indecisiveness should be a red light for their partner to let them have their space to figure out what they personally want to do. This does become dangerous, as Bieber exemplifies, when the partner takes it upon him or herself to determine what the other is thinking. Bieber’s lyrics make it seem that unwanted sexual actions or misinterpretations are the fault of the women because she was not clear what she wanted, adding “Better make up your mind” and “You’re so confusing” (Levy, Boyd, Bieber). He pressures her into making a decision as “we’re running out of time” (Levy, Boyd, Bieber). Though she clearly is sending him mixed signals about her true feelings, he forces her into a decision, once again telling her “Better make up your mind” (Levy, Boyd, Bieber). Due to her indecision, Bieber makes the decision for her and assumes that since they’ve had sex before, she wants to have it again: “Wanna argue all day, make love all night” (Levy, Boyd, Bieber). However, sex is not black and white, like Bieber depicts; people are allowed to engage in some sexual activities without going all the way to sex every time and to discontinue activities at any point. Further, in this lyric, Bieber sexualizes female aggression by linking arguing to sex, romanticizing a toxic relationship dynamic. This suggests that rather than being seen as mutually exclusive, conflict and intimacy are both key components of an ideal relationship. By normalizing violence and conflict within this idealized relationship dynamic, Bieber’s music video endorses another aspect of rape culture.

Justin Bieber’s music video for “What Do You Mean?” continues to promote rape culture by hiding the lyrical meaning through contradictory actions and gestures. The video’s broader narrative framework expands the meaning of rape culture, starting from the beginning of the music video. The scene of the video opens with a dark, stormy night as Justin Bieber and John Leguizamo stand outside a motel. Justin hands John money, making him promise “the girl won’t get hurt,” but John, handing Justin a lighter, replies, “you play with fire, you might just get burnt.” Later in the video, it is discovered that Justin is paying for the fake kidnapping of the woman he meets in the motel room and him. The screen then flashes to the motel room with a woman waiting as a clock begins ticking, immediately creating the tension and pressure surrounding the impending situation. The woman then answers the door to Justin, instantly sexually drawn to him. As the video progresses with on and off sexual intimacy between Justin and the woman, the tension builds. Soon after, they are both taken by men in masks, tied up, and driven to a warehouse in the trunk of a car. At the warehouse, Justin is able to use the lighter, given to him by his kidnapper, to burn the ropes and escape. Here, they run to a door on one of the top floors, which leads to outside. As the pressure builds, the music suddenly stops; Justin holds out his hand and turns to her saying, “Trust me. Do you trust me? Take my hand.” Breathing heavily, she takes his hand and they jump out of the building, landing on huge air-pillows in the middle of a party. As the “kidnappers” take off their masks smiling, the woman discovers it was all a trick, grabbing Justin and kissing him as they begin to dance (JustinBieberVEVO).

From the beginning of the video, the woman is immediately sexually drawn to Justin Bieber, contrary to what the lyrics imply. The video content works to conceal the content of the lyrical connotations, a common theme in encouraging rape culture (Bridges, Pascoe). The woman does not appear to be bothered by Bieber’s demands and questions, going along with all he wants her to do and again acting contradictory to the lyrics. In the lyrics of the song, the woman seems unsure of her feelings as she “nods” her “head yes,” but she wants to “say no” (Levy, Boyd, Bieber). However, the video makes it clear that she is sexual attracted to Justin and wants to be intimate with him as she immediately grabs him as he enters the motel room. Her actions make it appear as a normality for women to abide by the demands of a man, not questioning their own feelings or desires; masculinity is, therefore, equated with power in a heteronormative relationship.

The story line of the music video is a key element used to take away from the lyrical connotations and indecision. The broadened narrative throughout the music video does not at all tell the story of the lyrics from the song. The lyrics create this tension surrounding the pressure on the woman to be intimate with Justin and his frustration with her indecisiveness. However, Justin Bieber’s scheme throughout the video is just a test of her trust: a ploy to get her to make a decision about their relationship and to earn her trust so that she will have sex with him. This terrorizing view of romance, contrary to the rape culture influences, is not the way to go about love. Rape culture portrays violence as pleasurable and desirable in a relationship. This creates the view as the masculine figure in a relationship as the protector. Once again, equating masculinity with power.

Though a common cultural icon, Justin Bieber is a key contributor to the promotion of rape culture in society today. The lyrics to as well as the music video for his recent hit “What Do You Mean?” encourages masculine dominance and violence against women in heterosexual relationships through lyrical connotations, actors’ actions, and setting. Rape culture not only creates the problem of sexualized power within relationships, but supports heteronormative relationships. In a rapidly changing culture regarding gender and sexuality, this constructs yet another barrier to breaking down norms. Justin Bieber is just one example of the countless celebrities encouraging rape culture, further enforcing the monolithic ideology behind heteronormativity.

Works Cited

Bridges, Tristan, and C.J. Pascoe. “Pop Music, Rape Culture, and the Sexualization of Blurred Lines.” Feminist Reflections. The Society Pages, 12 Nov. 2015. Web. 06 Sept. 2016.

JustinBieberVEVO. “Justin Bieber – What Do You Mean?” YouTube. YouTube, 30 Aug. 2015. Web. 06 Sept. 2016.

Levy, Mason, Jason Boyd, and Justin Bieber. “What Do You Mean? – Justin Bieber.” Google Play Music. Warner/Chappell, Inc, Universal Music Publishing Group, n.d. Web. 06 Sept. 2016.

Lyons, Sofia. “How ‘What Do You Mean’ Promotes Rape Culture.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 04 Sept. 2015. Web. 05 Sept. 2016.

Redkar, Nikita. “4 Reasons Why Telling Women to ‘Play Hard to Get’ Perpetuates Rape Culture.” Everyday Feminism Magazine. Everyday Feminism, 30 Nov. 2015. Web. 11 Sept. 2016.

Sorry Infiniti, We Don’t Live in a Post-Gay Society

Posted on September 16, 2016August 2, 2021 by Former Student

Ellen Degeneres once asked, “Do we have to know who’s gay and who’s straight? Can’t we just love everybody and judge them by the car they drive?” Apparently not. Earlier this year, Infiniti released an ad drawing a parallel between the process of coming out, often one that denotes pain and societal rejection, and choosing a different luxury car model. The ad, titled “Legacy” opens with a young man pulling up to the driveway of his elaborate childhood home, taking a deep breath as he anxiously prepares to meet his father. We see the man with his arms crossed, reminiscing over pictures of himself and his father, while dramatic music filled with regret looms in the background. When his father, a serious, conservative looking older man joins him in the living room, the young man takes one final glance at a picture of the two of them at his graduation and confesses, “look, this isn’t easy for me either.” Stammering, he continues, “I’m sorry if you don’t like it, but it just feels right,” leaving readers anticipating for the young man to come out. Immediately the scene intercuts to the young man racing down the highway in an Infiniti, and we learn that “it” actually refers to his decision to pursue one luxury car instead of another. Panning back to the living room the disapproving father remarks, “This isn’t how we raised you.” The young man pleads with his father, asking him “Didn’t you ever want to try it,” posing a dangerous double entendre. Cutting him off, the father declares “enough.” In their final interactions, the young man pleads, “you must have known I was a little different.” Having the last word, the father remarks, “this isn’t how we raised you.” The final scene of the ad shows the young man racing off in his sports car, with a message from Infiniti encouraging viewers to “start your own legacy.”

However, this pseudo-coming out narrative is problematic for many reasons. For instance, the experience of coming out isn’t marked by the privilege of driving a sports car. Despite the disapproval of his father, the young man can drive off in his sports car and “start his own legacy.” Unfortunately, for many LGBTQ+ individuals, the legacy of coming out results in homeless youth, countless suicides, and overall societal rejection. The reality is that individuals who do not confine to heterosexuality suffer from socio-economic injustices, and constructing an ad that commercializes homosexual identities is deeply, morally troubling. Encouraging viewers to “create their own legacy” reveals an assumption underlying the ad’s creation that being gay is analogous to a break in tradition. The luxurious Infiniti provides an escape for the young man, signifying his privilege in remaining unaffected socio-economic and cultural degradation. This proves to be extremely disrespectful to countless LGBTQ+ individuals who encounter reduced job prospects or remain impoverished after being shunned by their family; for these individuals, purchasing a luxury car is not an option. Gay and transgender workers are increasingly subjected to high rates of discrimination regarding hiring, firing, and wages, according to the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law. The Williams Institute found that gay and bisexual men are positioned to earn ten to thirty-two percent less than their heterosexual male counterparts. As a result of increased workforce discrimination, a gay and transgender pay gap transcends the work place, further rendering the privileged portrayal of homosexuality far-fetched from reality. Likening the experience of coming out to the decision to forgo a luxury car not only posits sexuality as a choice, but also associates the intolerance facing individuals who fall outside heterosexuality with privilege.

Additionally, the ad frames the coming out experience within wealthy White American home also, reveals an underlying assumption of homonormativity undergirding the makers of the ad. Ignoring the intersectionality surrounding homosexuality dismisses the racial dimensions of power and privilege in coming out narratives. To the same extent that heteronormativity has subjugated homosexuality, homonormativity has associated changes in societal perceptions of “coming out,” ignoring the lack of progress experienced by minorities. While the coming out narrative is becoming more frequently associated with societal normalization, the experience of individuals not privileged by race is ignored. In this way, the coming out narrative has evolved to exclude the discriminations faced by those who cross intersectional boundaries. Unfolding the pseudo-coming out narrative in a traditional WASP household, with a brick mansion and manicured lawn, the ad perpetuates notions of homonormativity and diminishes the experiences of minorities whom, belonging to two marginalized groups, face intense discrimination and prejudice. As a result, the stories of minorities, who struggle with racial and homophobic discrimination are made invisible, which perpetuates the failure of society to recognize, validate, and empathize with the experiences of the “not so traditional gay.”

The makers of the add create a double entendre underlying question “Didn’t you ever want to try it” portrays the desire to transcend heteronormative boundaries as tempting and rebellious, which simply is unreflective of the reality of crossing these norms. While the young man is portrayed as rebellious and exciting in his decision to “try it,” identifying as homosexual in a disapproving, unaccepting family is far from attractive. Findings from the Williams institute indicate that 40% of homeless youth served by housing programs and youth shelters identify as LGBTQ+. Consequently, many young LGBTQ+ individuals refrain from expressing, out of fear of isolation and rejection from their families.

If Infiniti was trying to brand itself as an ally of the LGBTQ+ community, it failed. If executives constructed this ad off the notion that society has normalized homosexuality, then they are very wrong. While the ad makers may see modern America as post gay, the reality facing gender queer and homosexual individuals is one of discrimination, violence, social rejection, and often suicide. Creating a framework that claims to see all forms of sexual orientation equal ignores the social reality that heterosexuality is so embedded in society that queer individuals continue to face overt discrimination. The media is a powerful tool that should be used to dismantle social constructions that discriminate against marginalized groups, and Infiniti could have used their corporate power to construct an ad underscoring the pain of coming out or enlightening viewers on the intersectionality that transcends homosexuality. Instead, the makers of the ad decided to appropriate the coming out narrative in order to increase car sales, which is deeply upsetting in a society where LGBTQ+ individuals are targeted, marginalized, and subjugated daily. Unfortunately, as long as the reality among queer individuals is one of lived discrimination, we can’t pretend to not see or be affected by sexuality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzzMJuFskUQ

Why Women Should Stop Trying to Dress Like Everyone Else at Work

Posted on September 11, 2016August 2, 2021 by Former Student

http://fortune.com/2016/08/27/women-in-business-double-standard/

It is no secret that the tech industry is primarily male dominated. This article discusses the varying strategies a woman should take part in to appear professional in accordance to their male counterparts. There are several ideas about what a woman should wear in order to be taken seriously, such as clear nail polish instead of colorful polish. However, those who are successful are confident and comfortable with themselves and don’t follow a formula. Additionally, there are several double standards in the workforce, such as a woman inviting a male colleague out for drinks. Although not how it should be, it is recommended to err on the side of caution in these situations. Moreover, the article encourages woman in the workforce to find their allies and remember they have a voice too.

This article reminded me of a select few parts of Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz’s “The Reply to Sor Philotea” because the article has to do with the difference’s between men and woman in education and the workforce. Cruz states, “she should dress me in boy’s clothing” and “the natural adornment of one’s hair is held in such high esteem, I cut mine off” (15). Sor Juana is trying to figure out how to blend into this male-dominated society. Even though times are clearly very different, some of the same questions still apply.

Ode to the Clitoris

Posted on May 16, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

Hey guys! The other week at the Sex Positivity Fair I heard a song playing and I figured I would share it! It is not only very funny, but also informative! Hope you enjoy it and get a good laugh!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXM7WoaIUo4

Grant Proposal: Feminism and Classics

Posted on May 11, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

Alex Kane

Dr. Gonzalez

GSS101

11 May 2016

Grant Proposal

Introduction:

My project is to help create a new course for Davidson’s Classics Department. The goal of this course would be combine two important, seemingly contradictory, fields—Gender and Sexualities Studies and Classics. The course will begin by providing an overview of the history between feminism and classics, and how classicists have been in serious conversation with feminist theory since the 1970s, and the difficulties that have arisen from that discourse. The course will then apply a feminist lens to various aspects of antiquity, addressing various questions and problems. And hopefully, this course will add important nuance to a vital part of Davidson’s academic program.

Justification:

Classics and feminism are vital to one another. Classics needs feminism in order to stay relevant and interesting as we move further into the 21^st century, and as we begin to value and study those who have been traditionally marginalized or ‘othered’ on account of race, gender, class, and sexuality. Without it, not only will classical studies become boring for students, it will essentially become irrelevant. And further, applying a feminist lens to classics will only deepen our understanding of the ancients—how they lived, what they thought, and what their actions meant. Likewise, feminism needs classics. So much of our society today—yes, even our problematic, elitist patriarchal structures—are handed down from the ancients. Knowledge of our past is certainly necessary to understand our present. And we can certainly learn a thing or two from the women of antiquity.

Methods:

I will start by doing extensive research over the summer, working with a professor who also feels strongly for the inclusion of feminist theory in the study of classics. The research will focus on two main areas. The first is the struggle of the feminist within the profession, such as fewer promotions and less pay then men in the field. The second is the difficulties that feminists have when ‘doing’ classics through a feminist lens. For instance, they must deal with little evidence (since ancient women rarely wrote), and even the evidence that does exist about women is often written by men, which adds a layer to its complexity when trying to analyze it. The summer will be spent trying to find evidence of these various things, as well as scholars who are actively trying to do feminist work in classics. The end result will hopefully be a syllabus for a class that can be taught within the Classics Department here at Davidson.

The Privilege of Higher Education

Posted on May 11, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

Seeing the importance of being afforded the opportunity to even be in a position to receive higher education is a blessing, in my opinion. Knowing this, and also knowing that so many other minority students do not get this opportunity, it becomes even more valuable when students of minority descent make it to these positions of power and give back to the community. I try to do my best and convey the importance of valuing education, but more so valuing passion with students I tutor. I work with middle schoolers and I feel middle school is a crucial point in time where you are either broken or built up. Being able to give positivity to the students that I work with gives me so much joy and sense of pride knowing that I’m helping them grow good habits, grow strong positive mindsets, and grow altogether.

Being at Davidson College is a wonderful opportunity and it has happened through some means of privilege. What immediately comes to mind is affirmative action- i.e. scholarships to college, scholarships to higher level high school institutions, high school programs with fancy connections who are dedicated to placing minorities in the elite colleges, minority quotas that colleges seek to fulfill, and so on. But what is not usually thought about is the fact that there still exists some faction of students across the world who do not have even the most basic of opportunities to even consider college, think about college, let alone attend college. They do not have the parents, guidance counselors, friends, family to provide them with the knowledge necessary, the tools necessary, the mental empowerment necessary to promote higher level education. We were all provided with something, some opportunity, in whatever shape or form, that helped to enable us to do well in high school, to value education, to even apply to Davidson College.

A form of support that has helped me gain access to higher education besides my parents teaching and my drive to do great education wise was the help from Leadership Enterprise for a Diverse America (LEDA). This is a seven-week intensive program that helps children focus on their writing, critical thinking skills, and ACT/SAT testing methods. They also stay with them throughout their undergraduate career in college for support in any area whether it be financial aid, academics, or personal problems. I appreciate their services because they helped me to gain access to prestigious colleges across the nation as well as scholarships that helped me to attend this higher education. I wish more people knew about opportunities like this because this would give them a better chance and a better understanding of how to get into top schools around the nation.

Grant Proposal: Teaching Marginalized Identities in the Industrial Revolution

Posted on May 11, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

History, as it is taught in primary education, provides the foundation on which individuals understand and attempt to make sense of the progression of society as they grow and develop into adulthood. The way history is taught and the particular histories of marginalized groups is ignored or glossed over impacts how people understand different groups, their contributions, and their importance. The Industrial Revolution is often heralded as a major turning point in global history that has significantly shaped the world into what it is today; however, the experiences of women, especially middle and working class women, are often taught superficially at best, while the experiences of gay men are largely overlooked. This creates false assumptions about what these groups did or did not contribute during this pivotal era, and promotes a homogenous, heteronormative understanding of modern history that positions women’s work and the existence of gay men as new phenomena. “Understanding” history in this way creates negative stereotypes, narratives, and perceptions of these communities that make achieving social equality more difficult.

I propose to do a comparative study of how the Industrial Revolution is taught in high school history classes with regard to gender, class, and sexuality in 10 schools across the United States, half of which would be public and the other half would be private. This study would seek to reveal differences in the way students are taught about marginalized groups in a critical era in history, and would endeavor to assess the strengths and shortcomings of different approaches. The end goal of this project would be to create a curricula that could be applied in both public and private high schools that would more accurately reflect and teach the experiences and contributions of women of different social classes and gay men in the Industrial Revolution. Given the influence of education in shaping students’ perspectives and understanding of the world around them, I will study and seek to answer the central question of how high schools can best teach the Industrial Revolution to promote a fair, equitable understanding of the experiences and contributions of marginalized groups, thinking specifically about the intersections of class, gender, and sexuality.

It is important to note that the underlying assumption in this study, beyond that the Industrial Revolution is taught in ways that do not reflect the social reality of the time, is that the Industrial Revolution primarily affected and so is taught in relation to white people in Western nations. This assumption should also be problematized in the final curriculum developed at the end of this project. This grant would enable me to examine the curricula of different public and private schools representing different regions of the United States to understand how the Industrial Revolution is taught similarly or differently, and to offer changes to better reflect the experiences of primarily working and middle class white women, as well as white gay men in the hope of giving students a better understanding of the contributions and experiences of these groups.

Alternate Grant Proposal Assignment: Virginity as a Social Construct Poster at 1972 Sex Positivity Fair

Posted on May 11, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

As an alternative to the Grant Proposal assignment, Caroline Okel, Vance Graves, Felicia Zi, and Collin Epstein created a poster for the Sex Positivity Fair hosted by 1972, ‘a group at Davidson College focused on gender expression on campus and issues affecting women’, according to their Facebook page. We chose to examine virginity as a social construct, hoping to start a conversation with attendees at the fair about how they experience virginity. We researched information on four topics related to virginity that caught our interest, and provided sticky notes and pens so that those who came to the fair could respond to our poster by adding their thoughts to it.

One of the topics that we were interested in exploring for our poster was the comparison between the expectation that people have for losing their virginity versus the experience that they actually have. As Hanne Blank describes in her book Virgin: The Untouched History, we are able to define virginity without describing its loss. She recognizes that we “speak of virginity loss rather than virginity itself… [because] virginity is because it ends” (Blank 96-97). Their definitely is a fascination with the topic of “the first time,” especially in a college setting, but we have noticed that for most people we know, the first time was not all what it is cracked up to be. For example, in Laura M. Carpenter’s Virginity Loss, she interviews people about their stories of losing their virginity. As Bryan Meyers summarizes in her book, “It was just so unbelievable that this, like, this thing you talk about your life is actually happening. And honestly, I think that… it’s not as, like, as mind-blowing as you expect it to be” (Carpenter 72). Therefore, we asked individuals to answer questions about their expectations that they have for their first time or that they had prior to their first time. We found that those who had not lost their virginity expressed desire for a first time with someone they loved and that they feel comfortable with. When actually discussing the first time, the sticky notes expressed more of a feeling of less than ideal conditions such as disappointment, a lack of feeling changed by the experience, and awkwardness. One person simply answered “NO” when asked if it met their expectations. This portion aimed to shed light on the fact that the first time may not be a romantic, life-changing moment like the virginity loss scenes portrayed in popular movies like Titanic and The Notebook and that this is perfectly okay.

A topic that was initially a starting point for conversation in our group was the definition of virginity. We were interested in social and cultural constructions of virginity, and the myth of the hymen was something we discussed and included in our poster, with the main takeaway being that no medical definition exists for what constitutes virginity. One of the open-ended questions we asked on the poster read, “How do you define virginity?” People posted a variety of answers, demonstrating that different individuals defined virginity differently, and that virginity had a different value for every individual. An answer that we found particularly striking was, “IT ISN’T REAL.” Our group also discussed stigmas and double standards surrounding the idea of virginity, such as social perceptions of male versus female virginities. We included a few memes from pop culture films to demonstrate these double standards, and people seemed to find them not only amusing, but relatable. A female responded to the question, “How did your parents influence your views?” with, “My parents taught me that virginity is purity. I should wait until marriage.” Another female responded with, “Same!”, demonstrating that these gendered perceptions still exist in today’s society. Given that most of the posts were anonymous, it was difficult to find connections between people’s answers and their gender, but the clear variety of answers demonstrated that virginity meant something different for everyone. Ultimately, our group was pleasantly surprised with the amount of people willing and eager to participate in the open-ended questions. It was interesting to generate conversation about a topic that is not normally discussed in everyday conversation and read what people had to say about it.

Another one of the topics we researched for our poster on virginity as a social construct is virginity in the LGBT* Community. We examined how views towards virginity differ between the straight and LGBT* communities. For example, it is often debated as to whether or not lesbian women can actually lose their virginities. This belief stems from the idea that one cannot have sex without the involvement of a penis. In order to change how we look at virginity in the LGBT* community, we need to change how we look at sex. Perhaps we, as a society, view things from a very heteronormative viewpoint. This is due to compulsory heterosexuality, a concept put forth by Adrienne Rich in “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” (1980). With this concept, it is believed that for most people, straight is the default sexuality. This view is very constricting when it comes to looking at how we view sex, and therefore the construct of virginity. Because we asked questions about what people believe to be sex, it was interesting to see whether or not Davidson students would comply with compulsory heterosexuality when answering questions. Interestingly enough, many of the students who answered questions about what they believe sex to be, left gender out of their answer, like when one student wrote that, “Sex is when two or more people have intimate relations with their sexual organs.” Another student just defined sex as, “when all parties orgasm.” It appears that these students took away something from our poster, or perhaps already came with thought that that when we discuss sex, we need to be more inclusive of other sexual orientations and gender identity.

We also explored historical and cultural representations of virginity in our poster. Historically, virgins have been represented in Western cultures in a series of narrow roles: women as pillars of virtue, men as pathetic or eccentric, and both as holy or deified. Cultural images of virgins contribute to what Barbara Risman refers to as “gender as structure” at the “interactional level of analysis: cultural expectations” in her essay Gender as Structure. These images are crucially dependent on a very heteronormative definition and expectation of gender.

Female virgins in history are usually portrayed as exceptionally virtuous, usually because of their virgin status (ex: Queen Elizabeth I). Culturally, virginal leaders garnered more respect as virgins, perhaps because of their apparent rejection of men.

On the other hand, men are typically portrayed as pathetic losers (ex: Steve Carrell in the 40-Year-Old-Virgin) or as eccentric geniuses (ex: rumors about Sir Isaac Newton). In either case, the attitude in which these men are viewed is a sort of bemused surprise. In contrast to women, the expected state for men is as not a virgin. However, failure to conform is not regarded as deeply shameful for men as it is for women.

The role both men and women have filled as virgins has been as holy people (ex: Joan of Arc, St. Augustine) and as deities. However, even as deities, male and female virgins are represented very differently. There are vastly more female virgin goddesses in Western traditions (ex: Artemis, Athena, the Virgin Mary) than male virgin gods (Jesus). Additionally, the implications for male and female people differ in that all women are implicitly expected to be Mary, but no/few men are held to the standard of Jesus.

It is important to understand that our telling of history is an important component of how we construct our culture. The clear dichotomy between male and female virginity represented in our culture reinforces the concept of “compulsory heterosexuality” that Adrienne Rich describes in her essay Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence. Learning about how virginity has been understood and portrayed historically allows us to understand virginity as a social construct, and puts the responses of students who reacted to our poster into a wider cultural and historical perspective.

Grant Proposal

Posted on May 11, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

Gender Boxes and Genital surgery: Are they Really So Different?
Grant Proposal
By Abbey Corcoran

Background: In a fit of inspiration fueled by the madness of our upcoming finals, my friends and I went to a trampoline park in Charlotte a couple weeks ago to let off some steam. While we were signing the waivers, I was appalled when I was unexpectedly confronted with having to check one of two boxes: male or female. When I tried to bypass the question, I was told I had to fill it out or forsake trampoline-ing. After I begrudgingly finished the waiver I watched parents as they filled out waivers for their children. I was amazed by how many were willing to select one of the two boxes for their children (with no qualms), which had given me such pause. Having just finished my book review on Contesting Intersex, I was feeling particularly skeptical of parents making decisions for their children and, I began to wonder what the difference is—if there is one—between parents marking something on a waiver and consenting to some sort of action based, loosely, on the subject matter they seem to have little reservations about addressing on waivers.

Research Question: I would like to look at the correlation and causation between parents’ willingness to sign waivers and forms delineating the gender/sex of their child and parents’ willingness to consent to gender reassignment surgeries on behalf of their children.

Method: Such a research question would require parents to fill out an anonymous survey, which would be designed to deduce what difference, if any, they found between checking a gender box for their child and consenting to surgery for their child. The potential demographic for the survey would most likely need to be limited by both geography (limit it to one county etc.) and age (only parents of children ages 0-4, for example). Incentive to participate would be ideal, if the budget allowed and the survey would be promoted and distributed vis-à-vis social media.

Altruistic Component: Separate from the survey, I would also be interested in creating a virtual presentation (ideally a video) educating parents on the socially constructed origins of gender and the dangers of the gender binary to accompany with the survey. Although a participant would not have access to the video until after they had completed the survey (as to not sway their answers), ideally the video would be shared in conjunction with the survey on social media platforms.

Budget: This grant would be utilized to cover compensation for the participants and for the production of the educational video.

This study would hopefully help us to understand the positionalities of parents, both when checking waivers and consenting to surgery, provide the intersex movement for bodily autonomy more material, and help us to understand something there is little scholarship on –the thought processes of parents when dealing with sexual nonconformities.

Grant Proposal: Intersectionalities Between Migration and Latino Studies

Posted on May 11, 2016May 11, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

Andres Sanchez

Prof. Gonzalez

11 May 2016

GSS 101

Grant Proposal: Intersectionalties Between Migration and Sexuality

For my Grant Proposal, I aim to expose Davidson students to the ways in which queer Latino groups, specifically migrants of Latino roots, attribute sexuality as a cause for their migration to the U.S from their native country. The reason I chose this topic is because of my reading of Lawrence La Fountain-Stokes’s Queer Ricans, a work which focuses on assessing the ways in which Puerto Rican migrations in the 1950s was contributed just as much by the issue of sexuality when compared to social, political, and economic issued existent in Puerto Rico. When it comes to migration, people automatically focus on the idea of race and never really think about the role one’s sexuality plays into the matter.

The idea of my proposal involves inviting La Fountain-Stokes to be a guest speaker at Davidson and provide insight on his book Queer Ricans as well as his personal experience of being a gay Puerto Rican and the experiences of gay Latino immigrants he was exposed to during the publications of his work. My plan would not only include a lecture by Lawrence La Fountain-Stokes but would also focus on getting students engaged in the discourse by setting up Sexuality event cosponsored by OLAS, the GSS Department, the Hispanic Studies Department, and the Latino Studies Department. This event would focus on creating atmosphere of an art exhibit with different student groups presenting issues concerning migration, Latino Identity, and sexuality. The room where the presentations are exhibited would be open to anyone who wishes to learn about intersections of sexuality and Latino studies. The event would also require the reservation of the 900 room in Alvarez Union as well as money for materials students can use to create presentations and food. This event would be held hours before La Fountain-Stokes lecture.

By providing an exhibit event before La Fountain-Stokes lecture, the students would be given the opportunity to research the topic at large and learn about the intersectionalities of Latino Studies and sexuality while at the same time gaining knowledge essential to understanding La Fountain-Stokes lecture.

To make such event possible a budget would have to be made for the payment of Lawrence La Fountains’s lecture, the reimbursement of materials used by students for the exhibit, the money used for food, and payment to provide La Fountain-Stokes with lunch at a restaurant nearby. In addition, there would have to be approval by OLAS, the GSS Department , the Hispanic Studies Department, and the Latino studies Department.This event would hopefully serve to introduce students to the field of Latino Studies and the ways it intersects with migration and sexuality.

Works Cited:

La Fountain-Stokes, Lawrence. Cultural Studies of the Americas : Queer Ricans : Cultures
and Sexualities in the Diaspora. Minneapolis, MN, USA: University of Minnesota
Press, 2009. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 10 May 2016.

Grant Proposal: Preferences in Children with Severe Special Needs

Posted on May 10, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

Abbey Griffin

GSS 101

May 10, 2016

Grant Proposal: Preferences in Children with Severe Special Needs

I wish to look at gender and sexuality identification in children with special needs, especially children who are nonverbal or non-communicative. I have been working with children with special needs in a classroom at Community School of Davidson for about two years now. All of the children are low functioning. However, what people often do not think about is no matter their mental functioning, the onset of puberty and the influx of hormones still occur around the teenage years. Often this change is confusing for the children and of course they do not function high enough to know what is appropriate behavior in public versus in private.

One of the children seems to have a particular attachment to me, as well as other young women. This got me thinking about sexuality and gender identity. I figure if we can research children who are nonverbal, we can begin to attribute innate desires to the “born this way” debate. It is unlikely that these children are aware of heterosexuality and pressures from society, allowing us to truly examine how gender and sexuality works from a developmental level.

Ethical concerns would need to be addressed and this proposal would need to be approved by the Institutional Review Board. This study would simply have on male and female psychology students entering the classroom as observers. Observers would self-report who seemed to cling to them or stare at them. Any sexual acts that take place, such as children beginning to touch themselves, would also be reported. Since these children are often around women, the inclusion of men in the study would need to be introduced to children before observation so that we know children are not simply attracted to novelty.

It is important for observers to be accurate, so we would train them on how to act and what to observe and record. Observers would also need to be dressed simply, so that attention is not based on attraction to color, texture, etc. Explicitly sexual advances would need to be noted because attraction to women could be in relation to their caring nature or sound of their voice rather than sexuality. Motions and actions of the children would be categorized by scorers into types of attraction, such as sexual attraction versus attraction more generally.

This study would hopefully further explain research on gender and sexuality and the origins of sexuality and gender identity. Observers would be psychology students interested in the study. Observers and scorers would be paid for their efforts as research assistants, which is what the grant would be necessary for.