Okay so I was really annoyed after reading this article. Why do people go through so much trouble to point out differences that determine what group is superior and what group is inferior. If there is ever a case where there is true inferiority and superiority, the differences would be obvious, I think. There would be no need to go above and beyond to point out the differences that make something better than something else. If this Freud character was so smart, he would construct all of his research before deciding that women who don't have vaginal orgasms are frigid...there is no such thing as a vaginal orgasm, so all women are frigid. I am sure there was some information regarding the fact that if women have some sort of organ that is SPECIFICALLY FOR PLEASURE, it might have something to do with some sort pleasurable feeling, like, I don’t know, maybe a freaking orgasm.

The thing that really pissed me off was the fact that people took it so far as to perform clitoroidectomies on women. Are they so scared that the slightest evidence of women having something that resembles a penis might give them some kind of power? Here's an idea: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS POWER OF THE PENIS!!! IF SOMEONE IS POWERFUL, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE A PENIS!! Who knows what if the most powerful men in the world have some of the smallest peni? What if a mans' penis is smaller than a woman's clitoris (lol)? Is he less than a man? Some may argue thst he is. Maybe before we decide to elect Barack, we should check his pants first! Furthermore, why don't we take a look up Hilary's skirt; she is pretty powerful. Just to make sure...

Thongs, Videos and Porno's...

After considering the articles by Hammonds and MacKinnon and replaying our class discussion, I must say that though I feel these articles are a bit far-fetched, there are valid points. Advertisement now promotes sexual violence toward women and does desensitize men (and women) to the sacredness of sex. According to MacKinnon, “Male dominance is sexual”, and as men control what is viewed as sexy; men also define the sexuality of women. However, I do not believe that all of these images of women are perpetuated by men. I do not feel the articles explored this fact enough. If it was a man who created a thong, it was the woman who decided to wear it. If it was a man who distributed pornography, it was a woman who posed for the picture or starred in the video. If it was a man who decided that it would be sexy to slide a credit card down the crack of a woman’s ass, it was a woman who willing stood to become his ass-ATM machine. I do not feel the articles, nor our class discussion, explored the accountability of women in the sexual objectification of women.

Must we continue to let this continue?!?

Why is it that just as Hammonds stated in her article entitled Toward a Genealogy of Black Female Sexuality: The Problematic of Silence she states that "African Americans continue to be used as the terrain upon which contested notions about race, gender, and sexuality are worked out." During my reading of the article I became inquisitive and frustrated. Mainly frustrated because you know how most things you do not realize until they are brought to you attention... well this was one of them. I did not realize that we let our sexuality continue to cripple and reduce us as the incredible black women that we are. Why is it that we have to continue the bullshit referring to our past sister Sarah Bartmann when her genitalia was referred to as being "primitive" defining our sexual appetites thus also as Hammonds goes on to further say "the black female embodied the notion of uncontrolled sexuality. And in tying it all together "racial difference was linked to sexual diference in order to maintain white male supremacy during the period of slavery."

Relating this to the movie "Something New" I draw from the part on page 175 of the article when Historian Darlene Clark Hine defines part of culture being "the behavior and attitudes of Black women that created the appearance of openness and disclosure but actually shielded the truth of their inner lives and selves from their oppressors." When I read that I wondered if this could possiblity be the explanation from why Black women are perceived to be outspoken, loud, and willing to say whatever we feel. Could it be that we are so open trying to shield and hide who we really are or is it that we are so loud because we for a large majority of our lives in history as Black women had been silenced for so long that we now will speak out and say whatever it is we feel. Just as in "Something New" during parts speaking on race and sexuality. Especially when the women come together and speak on men in their lives and experiences. Before I looked at the movie "Something New" as a romantic comedy but now as I stated above see the movie as an eye-opener to situations that we still current that cannot be ignored in relation to race.

Ironically enough, yesterday in another one of my women's studies classes (Gender, Health and Cross Cultural Perspectives) somehow we found ourselves discussing interracial dating and many members of my class were offended and felt that Black men who are leaders in our community that date, marry, love white women loose creditability within the community but because Black women rarely date white men its ok because there reasons are easier to justify. Why is it so difficult for some people to understand that love is complicated and it doesn't know races or religions or genders, and that's the beauty of it. I have spent my entire life dealing with race and hearing that I am too white or I'm not black enough and because I am biracial my experiences of being a Black woman are always challenged and critiqued. It becomes frustrating at times when I can't be taken seriously by some of my fellow Spelman sisters because I grew up in a different envioronment, or I have a different texture of hair or because my father's family is not from this country and I feel like I am often discredited. In all truths I am still discriminated against, the only difference is that I experience oppression not only from Whites but from Blacks as well. I think that was the hardest thing to swallow for Kenya; her friends and family didn't respect her decision to date outside of her race, they disapproved and joked about it, so no matter how much she loved Brian or how understanding he was, at the end of the day she still had to here from the people she loved and trusted that she was making a mistake. I remember being in highschool and the Black side of my family totally disapproving of my decision to date a White guy and I was so confused because I thought it would be ok since I was mixed, that situation made me question my identity for years and my family still has a problem with me dating outside of my "race"? WHAT RACE? What race do I belong to? After all of our struggles with civil rights and after we've come such a distance why does race still play such a major issue in our lives?

"Who's is it?"

Toward a Genealogy of Black Female Sexuality: The Problematic of Silence

Hammonds digs deeply in the silence beset upon black females and harnessing of their sexuality. The relevance of acknowledging institutions' influence/accountability such as black churches and historically black colleges in their contributions to the maintenance of silence about sexuality (177) resonates with me most.  Assuming the prevailing religions (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) in our society, the holy texts already are embedded in patriarchy that are designed to control the freedom and expression of women so that they remain serviceable to men. Therefore, the writers/translators do not discuss the issues related to WOMEN free from male interaction. So not only are they heteronormative but constantly oppressive since the very essence of a woman is deemed as shameful- inability to worship when menstruating, sinful masturbation, worthiness only privileged to those virtuous or who "saved themselves for him." Even stressed in HBCUs especially the valued good girl at Spelman is who gets to meet mama while homegirl at Clark remains the "jumpoff" (as a male associate explained) remains on the side as a secret. As religion traditionally remains as the forefront of black culture, we unconsciously perpetuate the "virtuous woman" concept without ever understanding whether or not it is truly the choice of the individual woman that works best for her as she expresses her faith in her creator or is it a tactic that is ignorantly followed to continue the lack of women's ability to be pleasured in a male dominated society that only recognizes her being as "serviceable" to HIS needs...? This brings me to my point that too many women have been trained to silence their concerns and challenges on the HOLY word that in turn leave them voiceless, misguided, confused, and/or limited in their self expression and freedom to explore in pursuit of embracing their own sexuality- something that cannot be defined by anyone else other than the individual. While the lid covers the truth and diversity of our sexuality, it is left to that of the White race to exploit and misinterpret our sexuality before we can even understand it for ourselves first.  As Hammond stressed it is important for us to reclaim our bodies as well as subjectivity (177) so that we may not only challenge the racist and sexist notions but to also to celebrate and own ourselves for the individual and unique women that we are unafraid & uninhibited when affirming our sexuality in any society- "Naming ourselves rather than being named, remembering how WE look. "

Something new?..or rather something old in a new media?

The movie “something new,” which I’m sure was meant to break down the social barriers, in reality simply played on the fears of the average black woman. This movie only reinforced the major stereotypes of black women. It showed the “different types of black women” and showed how they all came together to talk about sex, and their sexuality. The movie, even looking visually transitioned from a more conservative Kenya to the fun, frisky, natural hypersexual female. It was as if to tell me that I was not going to truly be happy or free until I start living this sexually pleasing life with this white man. As if I don’t find some way to please this white man by changing my whole lifestyle or demeanor I will never truly be “living life.” This reminds me of the classic Hottentot presentation, only instead of being on a block, she is in a movie. Hammond discusses how “the racial difference was linked to sexual difference in order to maintain white male supremacy during the period of slavery” (173).  Kenya, a strong independent black woman had it all, and at the end of the movie risks everything to be with a man who doesn’t change at all.

Why is it always in the female’s nature to change and risk everything? Why can’t I see a movie where the white man risks everything to be with his black partner? Another thing that disturbed me was her inability to choices. It is like throughout the movie she loses sight of what she feels is truly important, her career. One of the major choices she lets go of was towards her body. It was like in the Hammonds article, “toward a genealogy of black female sexuality: the problematic of silence,” when she talks about the black female’s sexuality. She talks about how “it has been renderedexposed, hypervisable” (170). In the scene after they come back from hiking, Kenya’s rights are officially taken away. If you notice, she told the landscaper that the relationship was going no further. Kenya even states coming in the door that her stance was no, there was no point where she consented to sex. This is a classic issue of “no meaning yes.” It is films like this that create this fantasy in men’s mind that if they simply push harder, they can get what they want, or rather, take what they want as seen in the movie. This seen tells people that black women can be “tamed” and “molded” into this sexually being, if one pushed hard enough. 

Something New (Movie)

Having seen "Something New" several times, I intially took it at face value as a romantic comedy. However, after thinking back on the movie in relation to gender roles and stereotypes, I have noticed a few things. First, although Sanaa's character was Ivy-league educated had an amazing job, and owned her own home, her life was still made to seem seemingly incomplete because she did not have a man. As a result, her mother was determined to bring fulfillment to her daughter's life by attempting to set her up. In contrast, Sanaa's brother who dated several different women throughout the movie was not portrayed as one who lacked fulfillment in his life. His indecisveness was not questioned rather taken as harmless dating. In addition, I also noticed the class and racial differences within the movie. For example, the man Sanaa is pursuing is a white landscaper. Although he owns his business, the movie suggests that he is by no means rich. In contrast, Blair Underwood's character is a wealthy, African-American male. At the end of the movie, Sanaa's character ultimately ends up with the white landscaper. In the movie, Sanaa chooses love rather than appearances. I wonder though, if the color lines were shifted, and Blair Underwood was the landscaper, would he have even stood a chance at winning Sanaa's heart?

Catherine MacKinnon - Sexuality

“Women often find ways to resist male supremacy and to expand their spheres of action. But they are never free of it.”

There is no part of our lives as women that isn’t in some way affected by sexual objectification. Catherine MacKinnon’s examination of female sexuality was difficult to read because it was so frank and dire. Women exist with the threat of sexual abuse in a state of fear and denial since female sexuality is largely defined by male dominance.

My reaction to this reading is one of disbelief. Reading that men are more willing to aggress against women after viewing sexually explicit material shocked and disappointed me. The fact that such material is still available knowing that it could cause such harm to women illustrates women’s inferior position in society. The subsequent statement that a third of men would rape a woman if they knew they wouldn’t get caught left me stunned. Are women that devalued that such an announcement is made with no public outcry? I don’t even know what else to say.

Global Identities: Theorizing Transnational Studies of Sexuality

With the article "Global Identities: Theorizing Transnational Studies of Sexuality," by Grewal and Kaplin, I must acknowledge that I was very perplexed by the true ideology of transnationalism and the numerous definitions and connotations that it could be identified with. Previously, I had never fully grasped the concept of transnationalism, and always related it to the understanding of other countries, cultures, and intersectionality. However, I now understand the transnationalism is just another word for "globalization," the IMF, the World Bank, and other forms of exploitation and capitalism. In the article, the authors defined the fourth definition of transnationalism as pertaining to "a form of neocolonialism." I find it very compelling, the authors' utilization of the term "neocolonialism" as opposed to the popular term "postcolonialism." (as if Western domination and exploitation of communities of color is a thing of the past). In the area of Women's Studies, I was aware of the intersectionality of race, class, gender, sexuality, and world politics. However, I was never able to fully grasp the connection of transnationalism and sexuality. Though the authors provide key indication of not abandoning the term altogether, they do imply the overuse of the term-which, in my opinion can take on a variety of meanings based on one's race, gender, sexuality, religion, and social environment.

On the issue of sexuality, the authors goes into of different spheres and how the issue is not included into issues of race, class, and religion. Too often do I hear various religions institutions utilize religious text as a means to define sexuality-specifically when it comes to members of the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender/transexual communities. Normally one can walk into various sermons/lectures, and hear members of the clergy condemn homosexuality and "it's evils." Then when sexuality is discussed in the area of the social sciences, it is always related to the sexuality of other cultures (specifically people of color). I also enjoyed how the authors utilized the current issue of human trafficking and it's relationship transnationalism. It appears that transnationalism consists of the freedoms to transcend into other cultures and nations, as long as one has the right to fully exploit and control the societies that reside in those specific areas.

The problem of silence

What happens when you are seen not heard. During the information Age black women can be seen around the world, but are voices are seldom heard. In television and movies, most of the scripts are not written by black women. Black women who appear in music videos rarely have control over what they wear, or how they appear. The consequence, black women do not have any control, therefore they have no power. In the words of Hortense Spiller, a literary critic, Black women are the beached whales of the sexual universe, unvoiced, misseen, not doing, awaiting their verb(171).

After reading Evelynn M. Hammonds Toward a Geneality of Black Female Sexuality: The Problem of science, I thought of all the different archetypes that represent black women today. The Jezebel, the Mammy, and the Saphire all stereotypes derived from slavery. Along with the practice of scientific racism, i.e Sara Baartman, limiting the scope of what black women are, was one of the many methods in an attempt to dehumanize black women. Today, we have expanded the list of archetypes to include the welfare queen, the Bitch, and anything that connotes anger.

Why is this a problem. What harm do archetypes and silence cause? Individually, I know who I am and what type of individual I am. This was my original thought process before starting the women's studies major. Patricia Williams articulates the concrete reason this is an epidemic. It is an issue of a perceived appearance dictating a false reality. One page 170, she speaks on how her otherness reflects through her student's attitudes. We need to break silence so we can for the first time shout out to the world and announce who we are.

Transnationalism?

The Inderpal Grewal and Caren Kaplan reading entitled, “Global Identities: Theorizing Transnational Studies of Sexuality” discussed a number of definitions or understandings of the word, “transnational”. Prior to this reading, my understanding of transnationalism was as a movement which sought to loosen boundaries between countries, emphasizing culture versus boundaries and also to draw on peoples connectivity as a whole. However, this article spoke about transnationalism in no less than five different applications and emphasized the limits of transnationalism in that it creates binaries which do not allow a discussion about sexuality that might be intersectional. While this took up the bulk of the article, what was most interesting to me was what the authors had to say about gender and sexuality.
The statement that, “Gender and sexual difference have become understood as attributes of bodies unmarked in any other way, despite copious evidence that all of these modern identities are interconnected.”(Grewal and Kaplan, p. 572) This again, reminded me of the concept of intersectionality. I am not sure but I believe this statement suggests that one’s sexuality or experience is molded not only by their sexual encounters and anatomy, but also by that person’s social and cultural environment. I think the article was saying that in a transnational frame, sexuality should be thought of in terms of the the culture as well as the moment. Although the language of the article was easier than past articles, I think my unfamiliarity with the concept of transnationalism is making it difficult for me to get to the core of the article.

can a society thrive without a hierarchy???

Reading "sexuality" made me annoyed and feel hopeless. I experienced annoyance due to the fact that i am fed up with gender inequality and the sexualized hierarchy women are subjected to. Why is it that some males find it necessary to dominate and dehumanize females simply because of differences in our biological makeups? is it because they are subconsciously afraid of the power they know women possess and feel it is their duty to dim our lights through "restriction, repression, and danger?"
The issues MacKinnon addressed can be tied to slavery and race relations in the U.S. The basic ideological axes that MacKinnon refers, allowed/not-allowed, can used to describe the enslavement of Native and African Americans and the way in which the so-called "inferior" races are deprived and dominated. Masculinity is having it; femininity is not having it the same way in which White is viewed as having it and "other" is seen as not having it. They way MacKinnon describes women as "coping with objectification through trying to meet the male standard, and measure their self-worth by the degree to which they succed" can also be used to describe how African Americans cope with racism and prejudice. Are hierachies necesary? Can a society run without the construction of the haves and the have nots? or is the domination of one race or gender an extension of Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest? and is this the only way a society can be run?

Defining "Transnational"

Grewal and Kaplan explain in “Global Identities: Theorizing Transnational Studies of Sexuality” the problematic use of the term “transformational” in the U.S. Academy. They explain how transformational has been defined interchangeably as migration, political economy, diasporic, neocolonialism, and “NGOization of social movements” (571). With these definitions of transformational, inequities and inequalities in other cultures have been ignored and minimized. This crosses over into sexuality as well. The West with its scholarship and influence has labeled other cultures as “primitive” in their sexuality practices.

While noting the problematic use of transformational, Grewal and Kaplan display the divides in the study of sexuality. They depict that the first divide is the “separation of sexuality from the study of race, class, nation, religion, and so on” (571). Grewal and Kaplan exhibit that the Western body or people are characterized as the normative body while all other cultures and people are regarded as primitive and abnormal. Science and scholarship has allowed the Western model to become the heteronormative for family and sexuality. The second divide would be the divide in international and American studies and its relation to sexuality. The third divide is the split between tradition and modernity. With this divide, the West labels the rest of the world as traditional and barbaric creating a binary divide. Finally the fourth divide would be the global and local spheres. This is where the local and global are considered opposing forces that “never contaminate each other” (573). Overall the purpose of the article is to raise a critique on the scholarship of sexuality globally. In addition to their critique, I believe Grewal and Kaplan should have provided an appropriate term of “transnational” that would improve the study of sexuality. What is the best definition of transnational? How can the divides in the scholarship of sexuality be eliminated?

Something New

The dynamics of this movie are quite interesting. I realized the impact of differential access to education and how it afforded Kenya the chance at everything (financial stability, home owndership, independence) but "keeping a man." It was also interesting to view the relationship that Kenya shared with her mother versus her father. While her father was more supportive for her to further her career and become as successful and self accomplished as possible, her mother continued to harp on the absence of man in her daughter's life. Also, the influence of Kenya's friends created an unwelcoming space for single women. She was constantly tormented for not having a man instead of celebrated for understanding that she had options and could be as selective as she wanted or even to ask what it is that she wanted. I am not against the institution of marriage or committed dating but I do feel however that too much attention is set by the societal norms/pressures to attain that man prize. At the beginning of the movie we could tell that Kenya led a seemingly boring life that lacked all spontaneity and excitement. Such dullness was represented in the plain beige walls and furniture, no music, business attire, and routine behavior. During the season of Valentine's Day, she was forced to evaluate her life in terms of her single life while others celebrated their spouses and loved ones. Finally, a coworker fixed her on a date with someone to complete her ever so empty life. It seemed to me that the date was of desperation in an attempt to rescue Kenya and not necessarily one that was genuinely introduced based on common interests or potentiality which is to me is problematic because its giving off the message that simply having A man in your life can be the answer. In fact, once she allowed herself to be free in loving this white man, her life became "fuller" as she had more culture and spunk in her style of dress, louder colors on the walls of her house, and natural hair. Kenya's character aroused so much attention from friends and family because she was the non-serviceable type of woman- those that are self managed, educated, career oriented, etc. which made her less appealing to the men that she had previously dated. When she eventually found love or some type of affinity towards the man she was introduced to, because of his race she was ridiculed for her feelings; therefore, she was continually being oppressed by her own family and friends based on the influence of socialization on how she should feel and what she should do with her feelings. It was as if she was trapped in box of how to appease everyone except for herself. Should she venture on the traditional relationship with the successful black man that she had no chemistry with or struggle to cross the barriers between races in the white landscaper? Either way her own happiness was somehow less important because she was going to have to settle for or prove herself in either decision. The lack of freedom she had in her own adult life was quite sad as she struggled daily to assert herself as an independent woman. How free can women ever be when always oppressed, by their own kind especially, on how to even express creation's most natural components....how to love?

The black female body!

Along with other readings i felt that once again this resembled that impact of politics, white surpremacy and certain binary categories on sceintifc research involving the black female body. Its seems that alot of the points involving black sexuality and the assumptions due to the stereotypes of black women are still present today. The author gives examples of how blues was used as a way for black women to expose and endorse their sexual stereotypes, and although i can understand that through their eyes that could be seen as a from of female empowerment i also agree that it was not completly benifical to the cause. I felt that the connection between music and black sexuality is still a issue today when dealing with the portryal of black women in music videos and the media as a whole. However, in relation to the opposing idea of the use of silence, i can understand this as being seen as a defense mechanism as well. Although it seems to be somewhat apparent that sexuality among the black community, especially black women, is not usually discussed, in a way i am beginning to see how that same silence that is used to protect to that sacred sexuality of a the black women, it can also become a burden. By constantly being silence by choice can cause a person to become confused about their sexuality as whole and therefore misconstruction their views of how important and relavant sexuality is in the forefront. From being silence by choice to being silenced by demand, the overall view on black sexuality has come to be misconstrued, insignificant, and/or problimatic to the black community.

Sexuality as a Social Construct

Reading Catharine A. Mackinnon's "Sexuality" confused me. I don't think I fully grasped the concept of what she was talking about. I think her point was to use Feminist Theory as a means to explain sexuality. She writes "A theory of sexuality becomes feminist to the extent it treats sexuality as a social cosntruct of male power:defined by men, forced on women, and constitutive in the meaning of gender." So basically in our society sexuality has been defined in terms of men, and in their favor. By using Feminsit Theory to analyze sexuality, we as a society have to take sexuality for what it is (in Mackinnon's case, male-dominated and defined), and by doing this we can begin to change it.
One question that Mackinnon brought up that I think was really interesting and a very valid question was whether what defines women as different is the same as what defines them as inferior, which in turn would be used to define women's sexuality. This was interesting to me because I remember talking about this in Intro. to Women's Studies. For example, some may think that the difference in sexual organs between men and women is what makes men superior and what makes women inferior, which in turn would define sexuality for women as being oppresive, while men's sexuality would be dominant. Another point that Mackinnon brought up was the fact that some people do not consider rape an act of sex, but moreso an act of violence, but to agree with her, if the man wanted to be violent why wouldn't he just hit her? I think that rape is an act of physical abuse (violence) as well as sexual abuse (violence) and should be treated as such.

Sexual Conquest

"It is descriptive: who does what to whom and gets away with it? (MacKinnon: Sexuality).  This quote clearly describes what I read in the Sexuality piece by Catharine A. MacKinnon.  Women are constantly looked upon in a sexual magnifying glass.  Women are seen as sexual objects and are judged on the level of the way they portray their sexuality.  Women fall into line from the extreme of having self-worth to participating in pornography.  These two ends of the spectrum force women to have to side with one end or play the safe side in the middle.  Wherever women fall into place is perfectly acceptable because all women should have the freedom to choose how they want to portray themselves.  Yet on the other hand it feels like women still have to try to meet the male standard in order to be accepted.  Because of this self-worth or pornography are measured on how much the woman succeeds based on male approval.  This freedom for women to choose is under the society of inequality.  Men are free to make all of the sexual conquests they choose while women are judged based on the amount of sexuality they demonstrate.

This inequality between men and women forces me to question why men are seen as conquers when they sleep with multiple women, while women are labeled as "hoes" when they do the same thing.  These men play into the labels of male superiority and domination while women are supposed to be passive and submissive.  So when a women sleeps around with multiple people why is she looked down upon?  This inequality continually limits women to falling into the closed door of the "proper" woman.  Using pornography as an example, women are seen as objects for sexual use where men desperately want to posses the woman.  Pornography is an extreme level of women being sexual objects, but is apparent in everyday life.  Women are constantly surveyed and analyzed based on their demonstration of sexuality.  This domination of sexuality allows for rape and sexual abuse against women.  Women are a target to be sexually abused and discriminated against.  From women being judged on their sexuality to being forced into sex, who gets to decide why women are victimized and why people get away with being the victimizer?  

Sexuality - Mackinnon

In this article, the author makes a clear distinction on what classifies theories as feminist. As we have discussed in the opening of this course, feminist theory attempts to describe, explain and analyze the conditions of women and their lives. Mackinnon further explains that just because someone is biologically female does not classify their thoughts as feminist. Theory becomes feminist when it is argued that women are looked as less than man, as defined by man, and to a degree, when woman is able to be viewed as less than human as results of patriarchal dominance and idea. Because women are different from men (the norm) we are then classified as inferior, powerless, and different. Feminist theory combats these ideas and criticisms by analyzing the social construct of male power, and then confronting it.

Putting it all Together

Please forgive the length (I sparred alot).

Female sexuality is defined by male dominance. In a nutshell I think that is what Catharine MacKinnon was talking about in her article “Sexuality”. On page 476 MacKinnon addresses the negligence of women‘s sexuality in a long paragraph of “if’s”. She concludes that paragraph by saying that only when these “ifs” become a reality will “sexuality itself be regarded as unimplicated”. What I took from this powerful paragraph is that women’s sexuality is non-existent; it’s obviously present but not acknowledged. This point correlates with Hammonds’ article “Toward a Genealogy of Black Female Sexuality: The Problematic of Silence” where she states “White [black] men have increasingly been the focus of debates about sexuality in the academy and in the media, the specific ways in which [black] women figure in these discourses has remained largely unanalyzed and untheorized”(170).

Another aspect discussed n MacKinnon’s article can serve as a sort of catalyst to a point talked about in Hammonds’ article. “The fact that male power has power means that the interests of male sexuality construct what sexuality as such means in life, including the standard way it is allowed and recognized to be felt and expressed and experienced , in a way that determines women’s biographies, including sexual ones”(477). It is by the standards constructed by the dominant force in our society (white men), that women’s sexuality was created and presently is defined by. The Hammonds article takes the next step in showing how these constructs of sexuality have influenced the black community. Hammonds first uses the Hottentot Venus as a historical reference point. Sarah Bartmann and the characteristics of her body were used to create not only a racial hierarchy but a sexual hierarchy as well. It is because of this and things of this magnitude that “the construction of black female sexuality [is seen as] inherently immoral and uncontrollable” (Hammonds 172). Since that time there has been a fight to redefine black female sexuality. “Although some of the strategies use by these black women reformers might have initially be characterized as resistance to dominant and increasingly hegemonic constructions of their sexuality, by the early twentieth century, they had begun to promote a public silence about sexuality”(175). While attempting to combat the negatives associated with black female sexuality, black women have resorted be keeping quiet as a way to not bring attention to the definition of black female sexuality already set in place (Politics of silence). In doing so “black women have also lost the ability to articulate any conception of their sexuality” (175). This silence within the black community reminds me of a chapter in Gender Talk that argues that the black community’s desire to keep black issues silent and out of the public’s eye is actually doing more harm than good.

My blog is already getting lengthy so I’m going to end it now. In closing, these two articles really play on each other even though one caters more towards the black community and the other is more general. They both see the creation of female sexuality as a result of male dominance and they both acknowledge that changes need to take place if any progress is to be made.

migrate to the US for what?!?!?

As I read through this article I attempted to accept it as a form of education. I was learning about the term "transnational" and noting the 5 "primary ways in which the term transnational does a particular kind of work in the U.S. academy in general" (570). For the most part I understood the concepts of migration [1], economy [2], diasporas [3], and feminism [5]. Unfortunately the fourth concept, neocolonialism, took me for a spin.
Throughout the reading, nothing really sparked concern. However, while reading the bottom of the first column on page 573, I became curious. The section discussed the migration of people to the United States in relation to sexual identity. The explanation of this "movement from repression to freedom" (573) lead me to believe that many people migrate to the United States specifically for the sexual freedom, liberating polictics in relation to one's sexuality, and the place "where they can express their true nature and sexual identity" (573). PEOPLE MIGRATE TO THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE THEY FEEL THEIR SEXUALAITY IS MORE ACCEPTED HERE?!?!? WOW. I never knew that! Completely new to me.

This word TRANSNATIONAL!!!!

When reading Grewal and Kaplan I was a little confused as to what exaclty they were trying to say. All I knew was that they were using these words transnational, globalization and sexuality.
After continuing to read I realized what the message was between both of the authors or at least this is what I pulled from it. Sexual identities are indentities that are similar to other types of indentities but they are ones that hold power relations. Transnational is a word that was introduce to me for the first time when reading this article it was explained to be one that address the assymmetryof the globalization process.
Both authors break down the five different ways in which the term transnational has done a particular kind of work in the U.S. academy. It points out transnational flows, and yet ties it all into migration. It is important that we understand as feminist in practice that culture is more relavant than our nation and that our indentity is linked to whatever we define our culture to be.Bernal says that " Embracing globalization and transnationalism as forces that render the nation inconsequential may appeal ....."(p.570) It is also important that we recognize the seperation of spheres the seperation of sexuality from the study of race, class, nation, religion, etc That is why each of these categories are seperate from one another even though they all play apart in our culture they are also significant by themselves for a reason.
The study of sexuality is one that has been limited in the U.S. Academy in order to address the aspect of human life. It is well known that when one begins to study their own culture we begin to see the shift with in our own dynamics. In conclusion, " Such interdisciplinary work will enable us to understand global indentities at the present time and to examine complicities as well as resistances in order to create the possibilty of critique and change." (p.574)

Transnationalism: A global conversation about sexuality

Much of the academic discourse about sexuality is derived from the European male point of view. Standards of measurement for an acceptable “true theory” are upheld by the assimilation of the “normative body” created by the West. The “normative body” concludes that the practices of cultures outside of the United States and Europe are “primitive.” It suggests that the freedom to express a “non-oppressive” sexuality can only be accomplished in or influenced by the power cultures of the West. Grewal and Kaplan introduce how the “normative body” of the Western nations limits the transnational approach to the study of sexuality.

I understand the transnational approach as a way to address the issue of inequality and cultural changes promoted by the introduction of globalization. An issue discussed by the authors was how the transnational approach intersects sexuality with globalization. They state that “ignoring transnational formations has left the studies of sexuality without a tool to address questions of globalization, race, political economy, immigration, migration, and geopolitics.” For instance, the transnational approach would address the affects of Micro-loans on the social economic status of impoverished Bangladesh women as influential in creating a positive change to gender and class relationships. The conventional disciplinary approach would suggest that due to primitive cultural practices of the Bangladesh people, the only way that Bangladesh women would experience the freedom of equality would be to migrate to a more accepting Western culture.

Does My Physical Essence Entice You, Mister?

"If gender is a social construct, and sexuality is a social construct, and the question is, of what is each constructed, the fact that their contents are identical--not to mention that the word "sex" refers to both--might be more than a coincidence."--MacKinnon (1998)

I was immediately intrigued by the work of Cathernie A. MacKinnon.  She is more than just a feminist. Oh but she is the lawyer who was instrumental in defining sexual harrasment as sexual discrimination.  Such a feat was a progression to women's position in  society.  One of the main social constructs is sexuality. How did this construction come about?  Mackinnon jokingly asserts that it must have came from the stork like everything else, right?  So does this mean that the stork is really a man?!   Must be, because the way in which sexuality is structured is in the benefit of man.   And on the flip side, the women are blamed for their luring sense of sexuality.  It is never the man who is seen as the hunter, not at least in solidarity.  The man must be enticed by the sexual allure of women.  Gee, this must be in our biological make-up as well.  Our physique just seems to entice men from every which way.   And again, I say thank you to the stork!

Sexuality created by the stork, the stork masked, who really embodies the androcentric mentality of a man, who perpetuates economic inequalities through the maintainece of capitalism.  In other words, captialism creates sexuality. Sexuality  sustains livelihood through the capitalist structure of American soceity. Included in this unequal structure are acts that are quite mind boggling.  Take for instance, rape.  Macknnon points out that rape has been conceived as violence, not sex, which works to obscure the elements of sex.   I interpret rape as  as sexual violence.  Why do the descriptiors have to be dichotomies?  This makes absolutley NO sense.  Rape defined as the forcing of another person to have sexual intercourse against thier will.  This threat often involves violence.  The defintion illustrates that the sex and violence constitute rape, it should not be seperate.  The act involves both vioelcence and forced intercourse.  Rape makes a man feel as though he has power. Power because a man's sexuality is measured by his performance.  Women's sexuality on the other had is detemined by thier appearance.  Their appearance that is only meant or at least for the purposes to entice men. It is evident that both are socially constructed to suit the opposite sex.  But what happens to those individuals who identify with the LGBT community?  Does sexuality take on a different meaning?  You betcha, there are social constructions to confine every type of social affinity groups into barriers as a way to ensure that the masculinist structure prevails.