I resonated a lot with Lucy’s presentation about queer representation in YA Literature. In particularly, I wanted to investigate her comment about the subtle use of stereotypes. Lucy claimed that “Openly Straight” played into stereotypes as well as played into stereotypes to subvert them, and that she had to perform a close reading of the text to identify those instances. While I agree there is a lot of unpacking that can be done regarding this text, when reading the case study proposal, I felt that queer portrayals in YA literature were intended to guide youth through their complex identity and relationship with queer identities. Consequently, shouldn’t first impressions play a large role in your analysis of the text’s impact as well? As a result, I was wondering if playing with these stereotypes was a dangerous, slippery slope that young people may not be easily able to navigate.

Personally, much of the literature I’ve read have informed my view on the world, especially when those texts contain content about things I have not (yet) had direct experiences with. In fact, I even wrote a paper freshman year about how the author introduces their reader to new cultures and experiences, and thus has similar responsibility to represent those cultures and experiences fairly. So, in response to Lucy’s presentation, I wonder if the author of “Openly Straight” represented the young queer community fairly by introducing and subverting stereotypes in his text. While the response of our classmates who read the book as teens seemed positive, I wonder what lasting impacts the text had on their impression of the Queer community.

Furthermore, my impression is that lots of Queer literature is realistic fiction, almost like reading a fictional queer child’s diary entries or life story. However, I’m curious about fantasy texts and other forms of representation. Since realistic fiction is somewhat bound by the limitations of creating a realistic narrative in today’s society, perhaps feels it must intentionally addresses queer-phobia, discrimination, and other complex social dynamics that come with coming out or living openly (or secretively) queer in adolescence. While certainly there is benefit to preparing a child with strength to live a positive, healthy queer life, and how to deal with the complexities involved, I wonder about the benefit of escapism. I wonder about fantasy fiction and how queer representation could play out in a completely reconstructed world. For me, fantasy acted as an escape during childhood, and I wonder if having queer protagonists that don’t really have to address their queer identity for the purpose of the plot is a beneficial narrative. As opposed to writing a “gay romance novel” or a “gay fantasy novel,” the texts would be a typical romance or fantasy novel, yet the protagonist just so happens to be queer. This reminds me of the movie “Call Me by Your Name,” since the plot is simply a love story and doesn’t fixate on their queer identities.

We have discussed in class the role of sexuality as a personal identity for non-straight people given the hardships the identity comes with, but I’m curious about the impact of introducing adolescents to a world in which people are so accepting of queer identities that they no longer act as identities. In this narrative, young people would learn that this is a potential reality, a realistic possibility for complete acceptance, and learn not to settle for less. Additionally, adolescents facing discrimination and rejection could read these texts to escape to a superior reality. While I am not versed in this topic, I wonder if texts such as this exist, and I wonder about their (potential) impact on queer adolescents.

I guess overall I am always impressed by the ability of fictional texts to provide an informed perspective of the world as well as propose new realities for their audiences, and I think examining this through a queer lens could be a very enlightening investigation.

Use this post to develop and critically reflect on the topic of your project.  Aim to articulate the central question of your project?

The central question of my project at this point will be: to what extent has the male gaze manifested in how women view themselves? To what extent does empowering women physically in the comfort of their bodies and the sexuality combat the effects of the male gaze?

In my project I will investigate the history of the speculum to contextualize the take back the speculum movement of the 70s. Since the speculum originated through the pain and suffering of female slaves, the device itself, although technically designed for female health, has been used for both good and bad on women throughout history. Given its controversial history, I wanted to see how the evolving views regarding the speculum has paralleled women’s empowerment and feminism throughout the years, specifically in regards to the male gaze. Another context that I found interesting during my research was the argument that gynecology as a practice was developed for men to involve themselves in the only place the weren’t the dominant figure: childbirth. As childbirth was originally conducted between a midwife and the pregnant woman, and gynecology and doctor practices in general were solely conducted by men, this controversial theory emerged. While I hesitate to accept this theory, given that any progress in addressing women’s sexual and genital health is an important and empowering step in the development of women’s autonomy in a sexist society, I believe there is certainly much to be discussed regarding the lack of knowledge regarding female sexuality (biologically and psychologically). As a result, I’d like to explore the history of the speculum in regards to feminism and women’s rights movements.

Ultimately, the history of the speculum and women’s rights culminate in the take back the speculum movement in the 70s. My goal here is to elucidate the connection between the speculum and women’s attempts to combat the male gaze. Since during the 70s the gynecological practice was dominated by male doctors, women used the speculum to symbolize their ability to reclaim their sexuality from men. Since the speculum was used by male doctors to examine women’s genitals, women wanted to demonstrate that they deserve and are capable of responsibility over their own sexual health. During the 70s, women would distribute speculums and encourage one another to look at their cervix with a speculum and a mirror and become more comfortable with their genital anatomy. This act allowed women the ability to determine their own rules regarding their relationship with sex, and break free from the contradictory expectations put in place by the patriarchal society. Furthermore, this was a powerful first step to destigmatizing female sexuality and humanizing how women experience sexuality (and validating that their experience does not have to be a parallel or variation on male sexuality!).

Personally, I struggle with how female empowerment has affected the female gender identity today. While contradictory sexual expectations perpetuate (sexy minx versus conservative wife-material), there is also an intentional dissemination of validating female sexuality, even encouraging masturbation to explore women’s own bodies. I feel that throughout this movement, instead of only humanizing the female, we have hypersexualized her. In media and fashion, this feels apparent, but also in how women view each other. In college at least, I see my fellow girlfriends trying to dress sexy, or not having alternatives to dressing with sex appeal besides aggressively obvious lounge wear (which has also been sexualized by the fashion industry with tighter sweatpants and cropped sweatshirts, connecting lounge wear with sex appeal once again). I want to follow the trajectory of the history of the speculum to connect it to these current events and current questions. I’d like to examine how the sexualization of the female is both a form of empowerment and restriction in our patriarchal society. I’m still wondering how to connect all these ideas, but I think there is a common stream here that I plan to connect before I finally present so we can have a productive conversation all together.

In the end, I want to follow

History of the speculum –> take back the speculum movement –> male gaze –> feminine identity

I plan to ground my analysis of the impact on the male gaze on female sexuality and identity through an investigation of the speculum. I will begin with a discussion of the speculum’s origin to examine the criticism of its nature during the 70s. Then, I will discuss what “the male gaze” meant to women in the 70s, as I believe it differs from the term’s use today. Finally, I will discuss the Take Back the Speculum movement and how it addressed the issue of “the male gaze” and empowered women to look beyond the prescribed gender roles of the era.

 Originally, the speculum was a controversial tool, since it was developed not for women’s comfort and health, but as a means to diagnose issues around genital health and the cervix. It was developed originally through experimentation on slave women without their consent and led to surgery within the vagina but without anesthesia. Given the nature of the speculum, it was a controversial physician’s tool, since looking under the skirts of a women was considered inappropriate under any circumstances.

Over time, the physician’s role evolved into gynecologists, which in the 70s was a role dominated by men. The feminist movement took issue with this, questioning why people of the opposite sex were controlling women’s genitals and sexual health. Since the speculum had its roots in a time period where women’s health and sexuality were strongly neglected and oppressed, in the 70s, the Women’s Health Movement encouraged women to use a speculum on themselves to become more comfortable with their bodies and remove the control of their genitals and genital health from men. While the act symbolically wrestled the speculum out of the hands of dominating, male gynecologists, it also reflects the women’s ability to wrest their own image and sexuality from the hands of men. The feminist movement stated that women define themselves and deserve agency over their body and image, and women will refuse to be defined by the multitude of men that are encouraged to judge and stare.

For my presentation, I would like everybody to read page 37 of Women and Their Bodies: a Course (https://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/cms/assets/uploads/2014/04/Women-and-Their-Bodies-1970.pdf) and “This Most Dangerous Instrument: Propriety, Power, and the Vaginal Speculum” (https://www.jognn.org/article/S0884-2175(15)33792-8/pdf).

Annotated Bibliography

(sorry the MLA indentations didn’t translate to the blog post)

Berger, John, director. The Ways of Seeing (Episode 2). British Broadcasting Corporation, 1972.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZR06JJWaJM
• In “The Ways of Seeing,” John Berger discusses how women view themselves through the male gaze. Through mirrors and classical art, Berger investigates the many ways women are objectified for the male viewer, either by themselves or by portrayals of themselves by photographers and artists. This was published in 1972, so it acts as a primary source of the new discussions regarding women’s liberation in the 70s by employing historical analysis of previous presentations of women. However, due to its date of publication, it lacks a historical view and analysis of the movement in the 70s.

“Vulva Mapping: An Experiential Guide to the Universe between Your Legs.” Foria Wellness, Foria Wellness, 22 Aug. 2018, http://www.foriawellness.com/blogs/learn/vulva-mapping-guide-to-female-sexual-anatomy.

• https://www.foriawellness.com/blogs/learn/vulva-mapping-guide-to-female-sexual-anatomy
• This Foria Wellness Article, “Vulva Mapping: An Experiential Guide to the Universe between Your Legs,” illustrates, encourages, and instructs women to explore their genitals and to become comfortable with this physical aspect of their sexuality. The article intentionally refers to medical and non-medical terminology to include all women in this educational and empowering experience. This article frames itself by referencing the Take Back the Speculum movement from the 70s and recreating the exploratory process. While not a primary source, this article clearly describes the intimate details of an encounter in the 70s as well as indicates the progress society has made since that time. This article successfully illustrates the experience for the modern woman who never attended such an event and provides experiential context on why this may be an empowering act even without the historical context.

Boston Women’s Health Collective. Women and Their Bodies: a Course. New England Free Press, 1970.

• https://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/cms/assets/uploads/2014/04/Women-and-Their-Bodies-1970.pdf
• “Women and Their Bodies: a Course” was the first publication of “Our Bodies, Ourselves” and is an educational piece on women’s sexual health and advice on women’s experiences like relationships, sexuality, pregnancy, abortions, and the medical profession. Half factual and informational and half anecdotal, the Boston Women’s Health Collective created this educational and accessible resource for women to advise them in health issues and normalize the experience of being a woman in a patriarchal society. Knowledge is power, and by educating women about their bodies and healthy expectations on how to be treated, they empowered women. They are often credited with founding the movement for women to Take Back the Speculum and examine their own bodies. This is a valuable resource since it documents the beginning of a powerful movement, although it certainly goes beyond the scope of this case study in its ~150 pages.

Sandelowski, Margarete. “This Most Dangerous Instrument: Propriety, Power, and the Vaginal Speculum.” Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing, vol. 29, no. 1, 2000, pp. 73–82., doi:10.1111/j.1552-6909.2000.tb02759.x.

• https://www.jognn.org/article/S0884-2175(15)33792-8/pdf
• This journal publication outlines the history of the speculum leading up to (and beyond) the Women’s Health Movement in the 70s. It explains why they chose the speculum as an iconic symbol in their movement and its impacts. They discuss that the speculum symbolized men looking at women’s bodies and having exclusive rights to “looking,” and how taking back the speculum uprooted that idea and encouraged women to look for themselves and take agency over their sexual health and identity. This is a scholarly, peer-reviewed source, giving it a large amount of credibility, and its publication date lends its history validity as well since it was published 20 years after the Women’s Health Movement.

Eveleth, Rose. “Why No One Can Design a Better Speculum.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 14 Nov. 2014, http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/11/why-no-one-can-design-a-better-speculum/382534/.

• https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/11/why-no-one-can-design-a-better-speculum/382534/
• This article begins with misconceptions around women’s sexual health in history, then summarizes the history of the speculum in order to contextualize newer designs for the speculum and why they have not been implemented. While this source goes beyond the scope of my case study, it has a good history of the speculum and women’s rights and empowerment nested within it.

“Conclusion and Afterword to Chapter 7: Nazi Medicine and American Gynecology: a Torture Cross-Cultural Comparison.” Gyn/Ecology: the Metaethics of Radical Feminism: With a New Intergalactic Introduction, by Mary Daly, Beacon Press, 1990, pp. 293–313.

• https://archive.org/details/gynecologymetaet00daly
• Honestly this book just in general seems like an interesting radical feminist text, although I probably won’t use this text as a reference for this case study (purely given what I’ve read so far). This chapter I’ve selected is interesting, however, since it claims that many American gynecologists were to some extent trained in Germany, and connected these institutions to Nazi practices in concentration camps, as many of their teachers/professors became involved in prison camps. It intends to highlight the ideology behind American gynecology as well as demonstrate that the patriarchy is a widespread global infrastructure that women must fight, not just part of American society.

After struggling to come up with a research-able concept, I have found my Case Study topic. I plan to ground my analysis of the impact on the male gaze on female sexuality and identity through an investigation of the speculum. While I plan to consider the origin of the speculum and the gynecological practices predating modern times, I will focus on the radical feminist movement in the 70s and the effort to Take Back the Speculum. As the speculum has controversial roots in a time period where women’s health and sexuality were strongly neglected and oppressed, in the 70s, the women’s liberation movement encouraged women to use a speculum on themselves to become more comfortable with their bodies and remove the control of their genitals and genital health from men. While the act symbolically wrestled the speculum out of the hands of dominating, male gynecologists, it also reflects the women’s ability to reclaim their own image out of the view of men. Women are defined by themselves, not the multitude of men that are encouraged to stare.

Annotated Bibliography

Berger, John, director. The Ways of Seeing (Episode 2). British Broadcasting Corporation, 1972.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZR06JJWaJM
• In “The Ways of Seeing,” John Berger discusses how women view themselves through the male gaze. Through mirrors and classical art, Berger investigates the many ways women are objectified for the male viewer, either by themselves or by portrayals of themselves by photographers and artists. This was published in 1972, so it acts as a primary source of the new discussions regarding women’s liberation in the 70s by employing historical analysis of previous presentations of women. However, due to its date of publication, it lacks a historical view and analysis of the movement in the 70s.

“Vulva Mapping: An Experiential Guide to the Universe between Your Legs.” Foria Wellness, Foria Wellness, 22 Aug. 2018, http://www.foriawellness.com/blogs/learn/vulva-mapping-guide-to-female-sexual-anatomy.

• https://www.foriawellness.com/blogs/learn/vulva-mapping-guide-to-female-sexual-anatomy
• This Foria Wellness Article, “Vulva Mapping: An Experiential Guide to the Universe between Your Legs,” illustrates, encourages, and instructs women to explore their genitals and to become comfortable with this physical aspect of their sexuality. The article intentionally refers to medical and non-medical terminology to include all women in this educational and empowering experience. This article frames itself by referencing the Take Back the Speculum movement from the 70s and recreating the exploratory process. While not a primary source, this article clearly describes the intimate details of an encounter in the 70s as well as indicates the progress society has made since that time. This article successfully illustrates the experience for the modern woman who never attended such an event and provides experiential context on why this may be an empowering act even without the historical context.

Boston Women’s Health Collective. Women and Their Bodies: a Course. New England Free Press, 1970.

• https://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/cms/assets/uploads/2014/04/Women-and-Their-Bodies-1970.pdf
• “Women and Their Bodies: a Course” was the first publication of “Our Bodies, Ourselves” and is an educational piece on women’s sexual health and advice on women’s experiences like relationships, sexuality, pregnancy, abortions, and the medical profession. Half factual and informational and half anecdotal, the Boston Women’s Health Collective created this educational and accessible resource for women to advise them in health issues and normalize the experience of being a woman in a patriarchal society. Knowledge is power, and by educating women about their bodies and healthy expectations on how to be treated, they empowered women. They are often credited with founding the movement for women to Take Back the Speculum and examine their own bodies. This is a valuable resource since it documents the beginning of a powerful movement, although it certainly goes beyond the scope of this case study in its ~150 pages.

(Also whoops I finished this on Thursday and forgot to post until I began editing for this weekend’s revisions. Finally got it up though!)

Although I will first discuss my impression of the ONE National Gay and Lesbian Archives and the Ladder, I will also reflect a little bit on the Corona Virus, since I’ve spent a large amount of my spring break being preoccupied by the virus. I’m sorry if this blog is jumbled and disjointed. To be honest that reflects my own thoughts at the moment: disconnected and confused.

Personally, I was not expecting a presentation from the speaker at the archives. For some reason, I was under the impression that we would be arriving at the archives and exploring the texts and resources available to us there for inspiration. As a result, I was really excited when we walked in and I saw the stacks of books and the alluring second floor imagery, and so I was disappointed by the length of the presentation and the limitations of looking at the complete extent of texts. However, I did find the creative ways in which the LGBTQ communities supported one another in clandestine ways intriguing and I certainly will refer to my notes from the presentation when beginning my case study.

While reading The Ladder, I was quite moved by the statement “In order to achieve the future that they sought, they seem to have felt the need for a tradition and a history that would legitimate their presence and validate their hopes” (Valentine 146). I know I’m going on a tangent with this thought, but here goes. During these challenging times of self-quarantine, I’ve pondered the concept of our desire to keep up with a familiar routine and try to behave as normally as possible even in such a novel, bizarre experience. Why do we have such a desire to return to the familiar in situations that are completely new? It is fascinating to examine the differences between familiarizing foreign concepts through a recognizable framework, versus attacking the nuances of the unfamiliar without the ease of a common comfort. On one hand, I absolutely understand the comfort and validity that comes through familiar routines, references, and formatting, but I find it curious that as humans we have such a strong desire to understand foreign concepts and situations through the lens of previous and common experiences. Certainly that makes us more comfortable when dealing with them, but if we are always trying to appropriate new experiences as familiar ones, don’t we limit our ability to fully experience, understand, and explore the new? If I try to liken lesbian relationships to straight relationships, I’m sure while there are certainly many similarities that would be highlighted, I’d miss some important distinctions if I just tried to understand them in an easy, comfortable, heterosexual lens. I am certainly guilty of relying on familiar frameworks and universal experiences to understand uncommon concepts, but I like to think there is some merit in recognizing that all these distinct experiences are not the same, and to draw comparisons is actually limiting their validity and diminishing their value as independent concepts of their own. I suppose I’m just captivated by the idea of breaking these traditional forms of legitimacy, and whether the outcome would be successful in invoking more open mindedness towards new ideas or not. I think introducing the first person into scientific texts is a fantastic example of this. On one hand, it introduces these new, distant concepts as a distinct individual’s experience, but on the other hand, people may be more inclined to dismiss the science since it was not framed in the expected, “respectable” form of publication.

Sadly, I concede that much of this discussion does not lend itself directly to the quote I sourced from. In this case, I think the value of integrating an iconic lesbian historical figure into a contemporary format consumed by the media has great value in integrating the lesbian experience into “normal” society and consumption. Absolutely, framing the DOB’s controversial text in a respected, familiar way makes the content accessible to a broader range of readers, and in some sense legitimizes their publication in many ways. So, the familiarity had tremendous value in legitimizing their movement. However, in general, while I think it is challenging, I believe society would benefit from taking the care to treat unique situations as distinct, legitimate experiences of their own.

I wanted to focus this blog on two topics. First, I wanted to focus on the drawings Jody made on the chalkboard. I had not made the connection between Diotima’s speech and the Enlightenment framework. I found that connection particularly powerful since a lot of people live their lives thinking they cannot make a difference. No matter what they do, as long as they don’t hurt the people in their lives, they don’t feel like they have a legacy. Furthermore, people believe this idea that it’s impossible to predict the future, since it will be so vastly different from our world today. How could people in England in the 1700s predict the United States in the 21^st century? And yet, somehow the Enlightenment ideals persist, something that had existed in their time. Thus, I found it quite compelling to examine how Enlightenment ideals began with Plato, came to fruition in England in the 18^th century, and still act as an axiom for 21^st century academic thinking (“God-trick”). While it may be hard to predict the future and feel as though us, as individuals, have an impact, it is important to acknowledge that society is always constructed of humans. As a consequence, it’s quite interesting to see what ideas remain consistent and how they are perpetuated. It made me wonder about where our current frameworks, that feel like they’ve been here forever (and I may not even question), originated. How much of society has not changed since Ancient Greece? Does the Ancient origin of ideas impact my view of the modern world? These are very vague ideas since I’m still grappling with them. I suppose I’m mostly curious with the history of ideas, where we can trace the origin of our society’s key characteristics, expectations, axioms, and frameworks, and how these origins inform our understandings of society today.

Secondly, I wanted to discuss “Hedwig and the Angry Inch.” Although we talked a lot in class about the abuse present throughout Hedwig’s life, I immediately connected it to the Greek Societies, and questions about abuse that we investigated in discussion last week. Hedwig’s abuse closely mirrors the homosexual abuse in Greek culture. Older men are expected to make advances towards young boys, courting them, and once accepted for their “virtue,” their relationship becomes a mentor/mentee dynamic. The younger is supposed to absorb wisdom from the older partner and mature throughout the relationship. Furthermore, we do not have evidence describing the young boy’s impressions of the abuse, and whether he considered it abuse at all as opposed to a valuable (yet traumatizing) mentorship, since it was considered so normal in society. As a result, it is understood that as adults, those abused/mentees in Greek society became the abusers/mentors. I found that Hedwig mirrored this structure almost exactly. Hedwig presumably had been abused throughout childhood, and perhaps thought that was normal and expected for a long period of her life. She also depicts her abusers like David Bowie and Zeus among others, powerful influences in Hedwig’s music. So, we see her abusers assume the role of a mentor. Similarly, as an adult, Hedwig abuses her husband Yitzhak and Tommy Gnosis, and assumes mentor roles for both of them, expecting them to live in her shadow throughout their musical education and experiences. These abuser/abusee, mentor/mentee relationships are not portrayed in a particularly negative light, and instead shown as just another part of life. Although this struck me as odd, I wasn’t completely sure what message the directors of the film or story intended to send. Perhaps there is a clear message such as demonstrating how today’s society doesn’t stray too far from the problematic aspects of ancient societies we’ve seen in the past, or perhaps it was simply a part of Hedwig’s drag story, with no intentional commentary. Overall, I think Hedwig’s story (to some extent) was intended to demonstrate how so much of our society today mirrors ancient Greece and encourage us to question the origin of ideas. In the cyclic abuse, the idea of soul mates, and the Enlightenment framework, we see reflections in Plato’s symposium and Ancient Greece culture, “Hedwig and the Angry Inch” as well as modern society. Ultimately, Hedwig and the Angry Inch make me consider where our current culture originated and encourages me to be critical of certain expectations in relationships and independence.

In our discussion about the Symposium, we framed the conversation around understanding that this play is the only record we have of a Symposium, so there is no way to tell distinctly what was comical hyperbole and what actually mirrored the structure and discussions of Symposium. Similarly, within the Symposium, we heard solely from adult males, and noted a distinct absence of the young, sexually abused boys and the women in Greek society. As a result, I’d like to explore further the danger of a single story.

In 2009, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie gave a Ted Talk titled “The Danger of the Single Story.” She discussed how we are susceptible to accepting a single story as fact, when in reality it is solely a singular narrative from a singular point of view. She discusses primarily how the absence of African Literature creates a Westernized space where other literatures and cultures are not welcome. She also discusses how once moving to the U.S., she was initially critical of the degrading “third-world country” title given to Africa, but then realized that Americans were being fed a single story. This story presented a beautiful landscape with wild animals and senseless wars between tribal people. Although this was the popularized narrative, this is not the experience Adichie had in Nigeria, and she was alarmed by how impressionable people are by just a singular narrative. If we hear one story, we are inclined to believe in its truth, even if it is the only story we hear about a topic.

Similarly, in “Waiting for Godot” by Samuel Beckett, a play I had to read for another class, one character discusses how in the bible there is the tale of two thieves who are on the cross with Jesus, one becomes damned, the other saved. However, only one of authors of the new Testament wrote about these thieves, the others don’t mention the thieves at all. And yet, we choose to fixate on this story. Humanity likes to focus on this single narrative as a representation that if we make good decisions, we will be saved. However, I think this instance of human delusion represents instead the willingness of humanity to believe what we want to hear.

In my psychology class we learned about attribution theory, which argues that humans will explain their observations with their existing beliefs. We learned this in the context of a relationship; if you are in a loving relationship, and your partner is late for your date, you assume that it must have been an unfortunate occurrence, since your partner would never willingly disappoint you, but if you are not in a loving relationship, you may blame the event on your partner’s unreliability and negative attributes. However, I believe this can be applied beyond relationships. Humans want to be right, and we will take an existing piece of evidence in favor of their beliefs and trust it over all evidence to the contrary. For example, as we discussed in class, women’s genitalia and sexual function were originally explained through a male lens. Since men achieve orgasm through penetrative sex and idealized the penis as a sexual organ, their clinical studies of the time supported their theories that women who did not also achieve pleasure in this form of sex were sexually inferior in some way. We are tempted to collect evidence to support our existing beliefs. We know now that we cannot trust this narrative as science.

In the Greek plays we read (even beyond Symposium), we are reading a single narrative: the narrative of the elite, literate, white males. While we may be tempted to trust this as a form of anecdotal history, in no way can we accept this as encompassing the entirety of the Athenian experience. Upon closer inspection, we must recognize that this is a single story. We must be wary of the single story and our human inclination to understand it as fact. We must build our critical eye and look to see beyond the surface, titular characters, and seek to understand the periphery characters and omitted narratives.

Last week’s readings were particularly engaging, yet I found myself laughing at MacKinnon’s sassy reflection on the history of sexuality. Although I was thoroughly entertained by her presentation of ideas, I was also struck by the simple truths she highlighted. She points out clear flaws in the previous direction of the history of sexuality, primarily by acknowledging silenced voices. Although she makes a strong argument for the silenced voices of sexually abused women and children throughout history, I felt that argument fell short as a criticism of the subject, since a similar argument could be applied to all sorts of history. Those who were socially inferior did not have their history documented. They were not deemed important enough to be represented in narratives of those in power, and they were unable to document their history themselves, since many were illiterate. Since Western society values well-documented anecdotes and evidence through tangible scripts and artifacts, the stories of those unable to own possessions for themselves and incapable of personally documenting their stories in a “credible” way are lost. In one of my other classes, we discussed the impact of this in African history, as a result of the slave trade. We have few documents that express the experience of the slave from the slave’s perspective, and our history textbooks are left to guess their personal experiences from the documentation of the slave owners. However, African people came from a culture that valued oral history, and their experiences are passed on through the form of Sorrow Songs (as W.E.B. Du Bois coined the term), songs generated on plantations reflecting the slaves’ inconceivable and unbearable suffering, and stories shared by word of mouth passed from generation to generation. We can agree and understand that these oral histories may not be specifically accurate to any historical event, but instead, the evolution that occurs through the myriad of additions added by each singer or storyteller ends up encapsulating an entire generation of colored peoples experiences, potentially more accurately than any singular narrative ever could. As a result, the “I” of the songs and characters of the stories become symbols that accurately and emotionally translate the experience of the slave. Although this may not appear in the history books, when we hear these songs and stories we are moved with a power that is beyond a “credible,” evidenced textbook history. If we look closely, we find that the silenced people throughout history have found ways to speak, yet in the Western World, we still choose to ignore their voices. Since their history does not model the form of our own, we refuse to acknowledge its validity.

We intentionally disregard the slave narratives since they are not in any way objective or tied to a specific historical event. They are too subjective. We view history as an objective truth, despite all the evidence indicating otherwise. This brings me to the second topic I wanted to explore. Subjectivity. A large portion of our discussion revolved around subjectivity and objectivity in different forms of writing, and its strengths and weaknesses. Personally, I think each have their place. While subjectivity is valuable for many reasons, it both benefits from and is hindered by its call to emotion. By speaking in the first person, the audience is required to face that it is a person communicating, and it may incite (warranted) doubt at the information presented, as well as encourage a potentially less-welcome emotional response. As a result, sometimes it can be clearer to attempt to explain something as objectively as possible. However, I do not believe that any text should be purely objective, since the “god-trick” then encourages those to forget the biases of the person that come behind the message and, similar to theatrics, suspend our disbelief for the extent of the paper (and then later forget the disbelief completely). This trend of academia to present ideas objectively despite the obvious biases of the researcher behind the document encourages me to look to my own history. Growing up in Virginia, I always find idiosyncrasies that contrast with the mindset of the west coast. Mostly they’re amusing, but sometimes they can be quite alarming. For example, we were taught that Robert E. Lee, the general of the South during the civil war, was good, since he did not actually believe in slavery. He just fought for the South since his family was from Virginia. That is really fucked up. There is no excuse to justify that decision. Thinking about that now as an adult, it is honestly scary to consider the subliminal messages passed on to me through the perspectives presented to me as a child. What am I insensitive towards? What beliefs have I not yet been forced to question but I carry with me despite their insensitivity? In what ways am I problematic? Being raised by my father as very masculine and being taught by primarily white men in high school, do I carry sexist notions? Do I present them unintentionally through minute thoughts and actions? Honestly? Probably. And that’s terrifying. But what would be worse would be to present my biased, problematic point of view as fact. And that is why I value subjectivity so highly. Confronting the context in which ideas occur is key to understanding their value and limitations. In high school we had to analyze historical documents for their origin, purpose, value, and limitations, and I think that if I carry that analysis with me forward, in both how I present my own ideas and interpret others, I will be better for it. Hopefully as we move forward, academia will move away from the “god-trick” presentation, and instead encourage insightful introspection through subjective writing. I also hope academia encourages students to look for these existing biases, even in subjects like the sciences that claim objective fact.

When reading Lysistrata, I was taken aback by a few things. First, I was surprised that although the play’s description may seem feminist, with women taking initiative to control the government to end a war, the women’s dialogue had the opposite effect. The women in the beginning constantly put themselves down and clearly regard themselves as “mere women,” secondary to men, which was a disappointing realization. On the other hand, I was very surprised by the sexuality of the women. When Lysistrata first suggests that the women practice celibacy, the women object, claiming that it would be too difficult to give up. This was refreshing, since the common trope in current media is claiming that men want sex and women do not have the same desire. This ends up desexualizing women, completely dissociating sexuality from their beings by perpetuating these false stereotypes on such a large scale. Thus, I found it rather freeing to hear about women that enjoyed sex openly, even if it wasn’t in a particularly empowering context. I wonder where and when the shift occurred causing women to shun their sexuality.

Regardless, although these women end up with all the power in the play, I found it interesting that it didn’t resonate as an empowering story. However, upon closer analysis, I believe that although the women physically held all of the power, they still perceived themselves as secondary citizens, and this inferiority complex permeates the play. As a result, I find myself questioning the many ways in which power dynamics work. Although someone may tangibly hold the power, if they are not aware of the power they wield, they may as well not have it at all. Instead, I believe power has more to do with confidence, personal identity, and societal expectations. This presents a bleak future, since I feel that often people can’t relish and appreciate their empowered role in society if they view themselves as inferior, which is a very difficult mentality to change (especially when it has been systematically put in place for many years prior). I’m curious what theories exist to help resolve these identity issues in relation to power.

On a completely different note, I was also quite impacted by the comment Dr. Chiara made about militarism and sexuality, particularly the fact that the word “vagina” literally translates to “sheath.” I had never been confronted with thinking about sexuality through the lens of militarism, and it makes me question what other subliminal messages have been passed on indirectly. What comes to mind first is a text we had to read in my anthropology course freshman year, In this paper, the anthropologist claimed that medical descriptions of insemination had sexist tones. She pointed out the many ways the sperm was given active, dominant vocabulary regarding its movements, while the female anatomy was given receptive, passive language. While I felt in that context the anthropologist was pushing a little too hard to find that evidence in the text, I believe that it is common to find that language and subliminal messaging in other mediums and texts. It may seem obvious that these subtle presentations of sexism come through in media, it is difficult to acknowledge the discrimination that can be found in scientific documents. We often look up to science as an objective research tool, above the impact of societal expectations, but we often forget about the human that has a role in producing the science. This role causes the inherent biases that carry through in the resulting papers. It may not be intentional, but it certainly reflects the attitudes of the current society. Dr. Chiara’s comment inspired be to be mindful of the messages I am receiving, and to think critically about subliminal messages that may appear through untraditional mediums.

During small groups, there was a question raised by Kinsey regarding the relationship between sexuality and identity. Although it was specifically targeting Foucault’s thoughts on the subject and was a product of our previous class’ discussion, the concept stuck with me after class.

While Othered (non-heteronormative) sexualities often feel compelled to “come out” to their friends and family, heterosexual people feel none of the same pressure. Although it seemed implicitly logical, I tried to name a societal or cultural reason behind this compulsion. What I came to, is that heterosexual people don’t feel like their sexual identity defines them in the same way that Othered sexualities do. Often, people choose to identify and distinguish themselves from others with characteristics they feel make them “different” from other people, whether it’s something they are passionate about, or a personal characteristic or descriptor. We cling to these identities and feel like we are not living honest lives if the people close to us are not privy to these characteristics that define who we are, what we may define as our identity. These identities often appear as minority groups or opinions we align ourselves with. As a white person, I’ve often been the majority race present in a room, so I’ve never had to think about that as a personal identifier. However, there have been moments when I’ve suddenly become aware that I’m the only Jew in the room, and I find myself in these moments strongly clinging to this identity and recognizing how my religious background has distinguished how I see my environment. Our many “Othering” identities strongly influence the way we view and interact with the world and act as a personal foundation. However, since a heterosexual sexual orientation is assumed due to our heteronormative society, the Othered potentially feel compelled to live honestly. As a result, they feel a necessity to address their sexuality with their immediate social network, and eventually publicly. Furthermore, claiming these labels potentially can normalize the experience. If there is a word for your “Othering,” that means there are others, and claiming this label can unite people with similar experiences which can be an empowering move towards normalizing the experience once many people claim this identity.

However, claiming any identity can sometimes do more than the intended effect, a topic Hans effectively addressed in class. While someone may have some sexual orientation or gender they may feel necessary to announce to live honestly, sometimes these identities can come with baggage. This baggage can appear in different ways. First, identifying with labels can often implicitly align someone with movements and stereotypes associated with labels. For example, by claiming the identity of a gay man, you may implicitly align yourself with the gay rights campaign for legalizing marriage, even if you may not approve of marriage as a political establishment (a topic Hans also brought up as well). Secondly, suddenly your other labels and parts of your identity can often appear second to this new sexuality. An example raised in our small group was a theory that Foucault was a gay man, yet closely guarded this secret so as not to be branded a “gay philosopher”. Instead of being known and respected for his work, he’d be recognized as an empowered gay icon, or perhaps his ideas would be discredited due to discrimination. While some may bask in the empowerment of having this label as their primary identity, others may feel like it is restricting, or as a classmate phrased it, “limiting the human experience.”

Although I did not heavily participate in the class discussion, I really enjoyed hearing my internal conflict reflected by other participants. I personally have struggled and internally debated this topic before and will continue to do so. While I find labels restricting and often try to avoid claiming labels for myself in the hopes for a more fluid, non-committal identity, I cannot discredit them completely, for they have also brought comfort to others and myself.