Unit 1 Synapses

Wow. What a surprise: this class is nothing at all what i thought it was! I imagined scripts on how men and women should converse...I feel a little stupid, actually!

This first unit is about a few things:

• Gender - what is it? What does it mean? When does one become aware of their gender, and are there genders that are not called male and female? What influences gender?
• Women's Movements - when did they materialize? What have they accomplished? What is their agenda and where are they now?
• Men's Movements - what motivates them? What is their purpose? Which ones are anti-feminist?
• Men, athletics and their identities - how do athletics shape the psyche of men in this society

So first of all, I thought I was up on all this gender stuff since I took the Women's Studies course. These chapters really dig even deeper, but from a neutral perspective (my opinion was the women's studies texts were particularly biased and it was difficult for me to read). But I was sadly unaware of some of the issues facing biologically intersexed or gender-neutral people. I don't think I honestly looked at their situations as individuals - I have limited exposure (knowing someone who was born female but identified with and has since changed the outward appearance to match), but I never stopped to consider how truly difficult it would be to be born with this issue. I feel enlightened from the reading.

The information on the men's movements were new to me as well. My husband attended the Sterling Retreats before I met him...yeah, the movement bordered on cult-ish, but I do think he's benefited from the lectures and he still speaks very highly of the program and Justin Sterling, even though Sterling has many critics (overall, my husband is a good guy and I wouldn't trade him in so I can't complain!). I was vaguely aware of Promise Keepers - completely aware of how they would keep men "in their place", which is over women and their family because that is what Scripture says. It's not my cup of tea...but I won't argue that here.

The most fascinating reading, for me, was the Messner section on men and athletics. I am already fascinated with the relationship of identity and sports (religion, parents etc), so the interviews with men in the Reader really captivated me. My husband was a mildly successful college athlete (hugely successful in high school) - I was stunned when I asked him if his dad had been ambivalent about his participation in sports, would he have played and he answered, "probably not". It was especially surprising since so much of his identity then was wrapped up in athletic success...at least that is what I though anyway. As it turns out, sports was the only way my father in law could identify with his son, and his son says that athletics widened the gap in their relationship. Since his dad just recently passed away, it led to some very sad conversations and revelations about the father-son relationship that I never knew about...all because I asked a couple of questions about sports. I think this society put a lot of weight on athletics for me and coincidentally, there isn't a pressure of that magnitude for women except I suppose, being what is considered "pretty" - yet another conversation.

I'm looking forward to the following chapters - I have not read ahead so I don't know where we're headed in this class! But I am fascinated how it all seems to relate in one way or another to other classes I've taken on Women's Studies, Religion and even History. Very fascinating indeed!

Again with Gender

In my Women's Studies class last term we talked a lot about gender identity, and here we go again!
Only this time it's not as depressing.....this time it's just very fascinating. I love being enlightened :).

On the discussion board for this class a lot has been said about many perspectives of gender and sexuality. That, combined with the reading my wheels are really turning.

My "issue", if I should even call it that....
I'm accepting and opened to homosexuality but as I admitted on the board - people who indiscriminately experiment with their sexuality make me a bit uneasy. By that I mean, people who are not actually gay, who decide to "be gay" and then go back to the way they were....like that actress....I can't think of her name but she is that blond actress who lived with Melissa Etheridge for a while then next thing ya know she's dating some guy. What's up with that? Maybe I'm not getting it? In the grand scheme of things does it matter that I don't get it - I am on the verge of being old (something funny: a fellow student mentioned that people who were born after 1980 are more opened about their sexuality and it was like a slug in the gut realizing that people born after 1980 are actually sexually active! God I feel old....). But back to what I was saying...I am not sure I can handle all of the experimenting out there - maybe I'm just too old to get it.

But what the first chapter taught me: sex is biological, gender is not. I think I understood that on an intellectual level but wasn't able to express it. I also learned that there is a strong movement for intersexed people (people born sexually ambiguous or with both sex genes) to accept themselves as such and for the public to accept them so that they don't feel compelled to go under the knife if they don't chose. Knowing a man who was born outwardly a woman, and now finally being freed to live as he felt inside - I feel good about this movement in society. It's not an easy challenge to be born with and we all need to understand it more fully.