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.