As every woman in America knows, it is near impossible to live life without being categorized or stereotyped as either a virgin or a whore. Virgins are desirable, pure, clean and innocent. Whores are trashy, promiscuous, dirty, and cheap. Whores are dehumanized, virgins are put on a pedestal.

This dichotomy or dualism has several effects on both women’s bodies and their sexuality.

• Sexual self-awareness is considered shameful for women. Masturbation is not something “good girls” do.
• Victims of sexual assault are blamed for the assault, especially if they have any sexual history.
• Men police/control women’s bodies by seeing them as nothing but sexual objects.
• Women can not explore their sexuality without being judged.

The list can go on. What can we do about it?

Ok, so we’re all here ’cause of this book, right? Well, I don’t know who wrote this book, but you all have got to stop calling each other sluts and whores. It just makes it ok for guys to call you sluts and whores.

The first to stop using the dualism yourself. Stop using slut, whore, tramp, etc. Call out people who use them, explain why they’re oppressive and offensive to women.

If you’re being harassed at work, school, or anywhere, report it, file a complaint, tell your manager, do whatever you have to. I know it can be difficult and that you may be ignored but you have to stand up to it. The only way to change the system is to challenge it.

If you see someone being harassed, defend her. Or if that’s not possible for whatever reason, help her. Create a support system. Show her that she is not alone.

Reclaim your body from male control. Bring attention to the issue. Write a blog, volunteer at an organization or a campaign. Make your voice be heard! It’s time to stop the silence about women’s sexuality and work towards a more liberating future.

Further resources (books, blogs and organizations):

• He’s a Stud, She’s a Slut, and 49 Other Double Standards Every Woman Should Know
• The Purity Myth: How America’s Obsession with Virginity Is Hurting Young Women
• Transforming a Rape Culture
• Promiscuities: The Secret Struggle for Womanhood
• Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and A World Without Rape
• Slut! Growing Up Female with a Bad Reputation
• Bitch Magazine
• National Sexual Violence Resource Center
• Center for Women Policy Studies
• Feministe
• The Angry Black Woman
• Our Bodies Our Blog

I never once questioned the inequality of research between men and women’s reproductive systems. I just believed that it was to help women, after all, isn’t that what medicine is about? I thought it was “for the best” when doctors would give epidurals, induce labor and do many things to “help” women during child birth. I mean, talk about a paradigm shift after reading these pieces and watching part of The Business of Being Birth.

In a brief conversation at the start of class a previous day, someone was worried/concerned about the future of women because of all this medicalization of women’s bodies. He talked about how cloning may get rid of a woman’s role. Although I’m not sure how he reached that conclusion since cloning involves putting the fertilized egg into a womb so it may develop.

Another classmate nearby started groaning at this conversation because “he’s so patronizing.” She later said that he came off as a someone who thinks he has to defend a woman’s honor. This reminded me of a scene from the television series Scrubs.

Turk: Second, I got your back, so why don’t you cut me a little slack?

Dr. Miller: You have my back?

Turk: Anybody gives you any trouble, and I’ll handle the guy.

Dr. Miller: ‘Cause, uh, little ol’ me can’t.

Turk: Well, I didn’t mean it that way.

Dr. Miller: You know what’s worse than the basic knuckle-dragging scalpel jocks I usually work with? You. You are the worst kind of sexist. You’re one of the sneaky ones who prides himself on saying all the right things when, deep down, what you really think is that I’m just a little girl who needs protecting. Now I would appreciate it if you would apologize.

There were two things mentioned in the piece that surprised me. The first involved a new form of advertising.

A new device allows advertisers to print their messages directly onto the sand of a beach. “This is my best idea ever – 5,000 imprints of Skippy Peanut Butter jars covering the beach,” crowed the inventor. Added the promotion director, “I’m here looking at thousands of families with kids. If they’re on the beach thinking of Skippy, that’s just what we want.”

A quick Google search brings up the website for this service. Fortunately they provide pictures of the Skippy example.

This disgusted me something because I thought that some areas were “immune” (for lack of a better term at the moment) from advertisements. By this I mean the actual sand on a beach, not the beach area in general.

The other part that surprised was a study about cynicism.

A study of children done by researchers at Columbia University in 1975 found that heavy viewing of advertising led to cynicism, not only about advertising, but about life in general [my emphasis]. The researchers found that “in most cultures, adolescents have had to deal with social hypocrisy and even with institutionalized lying. But today, TV advertising is stimulating preadolescent children to think about socially accepted hypocrisy. They may be too young to cope with such thoughts without permanently distorting their views of morality, society, and business.”

While I knew heavy advertising had negative ramifications, I had no idea that it would lead to cynicism in children. Like Kilbourne says, the cynicism warps their view of the world, which is completely wrong and unacceptable.

While looking up information about the author Jean Kilbourne, I learned that she wrote another book titled So Sexy So Soon: The New Sexualized Childhood and What Parents Can Do To Protect Their Kids. Reading the title reminded me of one of my favorite books The Lolita Effect: The Media Sexualization of Young Girls and What We Can Do About It. Unsurprisingly the two books are listed together under Amazon’s “Frequently Bought Together” category.

Advertising greatly affects children’s perception of the world and how they should dress and act. In The Lolita Effect, Durham discussed five myths and deconstructs them.

1) Girls don’t choose boys, boy choose girls – but only sexy girls
2) There’s only one kind of sexy – slender, curvy, white beauty*
3) Girls should work to be that type of sexy
4) The younger a girl is, the sexier she is
5) Sexual violence can be hot

What effects do these myths have on girls just starting to learn about the world around them? Likely a worldview where they believe in this sexualization, that you need to dress sexy without being a slut, that you have to attract guys but still be pure, and more living contradictions they feel pressured to conform to.

*I just want to bring up this post on another blog I feel is relevant to this myth.

The women of the third wave of the women’s liberation movement know that without the existence of sexism, there would be no homophobia.

Finally, we know that as long as the word lesbian can strike fear in any women’s heart, then work on behalf of women can be stopped; the only successful work against sexism must include work against homophobia.

Before reading this piece I never thought about a possible connection between sexism and homophobia. After reading, it made a lot of sense when I thought about it. When it comes to gay men, they are commonly insulted by being called non-real men or wannabe-women, basically saying that being a women is something negative. Women called lesbians are seen as man-haters and a threat to the male-dominated society. Because of this, they are ostracized by people. It is seen as big deal because there is no way to prove one’s sexuality. The insult sticks, the harm is done and it takes a lot to change it.

Another aspect of the reading was about heterosexism.

Heterosexism creates the climate for homophobia with its assumption that the world is and must be heterosexual and its display of power and privilege as the norm. Heterosexism is the systematic display of homophobia in the institutions of society.

Straight privilege is an aspect of heterosexism, not just for heterosexuals but for LGBT people who can “pass” as heterosexual. I often deal with other gay men who have internalized homophobia, about how “faggots” made the rest of us look bad.

Some examples of straight privilege can be found here. The ones I want to bring up are

33. I’m not grouped because of my sexual orientation.

34. My individual behavior does not reflect on people who identity as heterosexual.

Earlier this week I was arguing with someone about why events such Pride parades are important. The guy I was arguing with said that gay people should keep their sexuality to themselves and that it just makes them all look bad. I brought up events such as Mardi Gras, the Mermaid Parade and Love Parade.

He claimed those were exceptions and not all straight people are like that. Even after pointing out his hypocrisy, he refused to listen. I just stopped because it was pointless arguing with someone who refuses to even consider the other side.

Kirk has been called “the quintessential officer, a man among men and a hero for the ages”.

I’m guessing that by having such a high score means the test-taker is someone who strongly feels in line with his/her gender, but my interpretation may be off.

My score landed me in the middle group, “Gender Novice.” Honestly I was surprised with that score and I expected I would be in the second-highest group “Well Gendered.” I assumed that because I have always felt cis* I would belong with the Well Gendered group.  My guess about why I scored into that group is because of my (relatively) open-minded attitude about gender/sex/sexuality.

I was shocked with just how fluid identity can be over time. The author’s own experience with hir** and hir partner. Initially, hir partner was a “lesbian lover” who then decided to become a man.  They stayed together as a heterosexual couple for a few years and they stopped being lovers. Then hir straight partner discovered his gay male side. It felt like a Spanish-novella with all the twists.

The discussion in class about the book left a rather foul impression. I specifically mean the conversations about people who are androgynous/gender-ambiguous. One person saying he wasn’t sure how to react to a gender-ambiguous person. His reasoning being that he wasn’t sure to treat hir as “one of the guys” or as a girl. It upset me that someone would base his interactions with people solely on the person’s gender.

The second person claiming that he was open-minded and respectful but still believed he had the right to police another person’s gender. He mentioned a male-to-female transgendered friend***. He agreed that while in the vicinity of his friend he would use female pronouns and refer to her as female. However, he still thought that no matter how many hormonal treatments, surgical procedures, or what clothes she wears, he will always still think of her as a man. It does not matter what you believe, it is never your position to police or decide another person’s gender/sex/sexuality for hir. That person has the sole responsibility and it is up to that person to decide how they want to be identified.

Unfortunately it is common for those who blur and otherwise threaten (either intentionally or not) the dichotomous male/female gender line to be treated with little respect. For example, Lady Gaga and Caster Semenya.

The rumors of Lady Gaga’s gender still remain despite it being obvious that Lady Gaga is a (for lack of a better term) biological woman. These rumors had gotten so large that E! Online has an article entitled Does Lady Gaga Really Have Man Parts? You can go to the Google homepage and start typing into the search bar “is lady gaga” and the first results to accompany that will be “a man,” “a hermaphrodite,” “a man or woman,” “a boy,” “a transvestite,” and “really a man.”

Lady Gaga even mocks these rumors in her music video Telephone (explicit version). She is brought to her cell and stripped naked by the prison guards and is left wearing fishnet stockings. She then climbs up the bars and essentially flashes the viewer, showing a very notable absence of “man parts.” The guards walk away saying this:

Guard 1: I told you she didn’t have a dick.

Guard 2: Too bad.

Caster Semenya is a World Champion runner from South Africa. Shortly after winning a Gold medal, a media frenzy ensued questioning her gender. From what I understand, the only reasoning being that she does not look traditionally female. Semenya has a well-muscled physique and wears her hair short, so obviously she must be lying about her gender. It’s completely revolting that an (then) 18-year-old’s identity be scrutinized so cruelly with the world watching.

The tests were done and Semenya was allowed to continue competing. Thankfully, for her sake, the medical results are kept confidential.

*Cis referring to the terms cisgender and/or cissexual. Some helpful pages about the term. I am also aware that simply using the term can create negative connotations but I could not think of a simpler way to describe myself.

**Because the author identifies as “no-gender,” I’m attempting to use gender-neutral pronouns.

***I cannot recall if the person was male-to-female (MTF) or female-to-male (FTM) but for the narrative sake of this post, I chose to use MTF.

Although the fourteenth amendment (passed in 1868) guaranteed equal protection under the law for all U.S. citizens, not until 1971, in Reed v. Reed, did the Supreme Court rule that differential treatment based on sex was illegal.

Until the 1970s courts routinely refused to prosecute wife batterers unless they killed their wives, and not until 1984 did any court convict a man for raping a woman to whom he was married and with whom he still legally resided.

This absolutely stunned me. Merely a few decades ago was it legal to discriminate based on sex or that courts would dismiss any case of a man battering and/or raping his wife.

Weitz also briefly mentioned witches.

Women  formed the vast majority of the tens of thousands of people executed as witches during these centuries.

It reminded me of something I had read just earlier that day in a book entitled The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil by Dr. Philip Zimbardo, a professor of psychology famous for his Stanford Prison Experiment.

In the first chapter of The Lucifer Effect, Zimbardo talks about how in order to reduce the spread of evil in Catholic countries, they attempted to locate and eradicate witches. He even alludes to the male influence in this massacre.

Given that the Church and its State alliances were run by men, it is no wonder that women were more likely than men to be labeled as witches. The suspects were usually marginalized or threatening in some way: widowed, poor, ugly, deformed, or in some cases considered too proud and powerful.

Tens of thousands of innocent women killed. For what? To prevent evil from spreading? This witch hunt also brought in a new era of torture devices and techniques. I would like to say that this type of brutality had ended but I would be lying. Women are still being accused of witchcraft and being tortured and killed for it.

In Simone de Beauvoir’s work The Second Sex, she discusses how women are the “Other” relative to men, the “Subject.” She provides several examples of this One versus Other rhetoric, such as “strangers,” “foreigners,” “different,” and “inferior.” These labels make it easier for the “superior” group to distinguish themselves from them. An us-versus-them mentality that occurs often. This phenomenon is also discussed in The Lucifer Effect when used to create hierarchies of dominance and to create an enemy from the other.

The process begins with creating stereotyped conceptions of the other, dehumanized perceptions of the other, the other as worthless, the other as all-powerful, the other as demonic, the other as an abstract monster, the other as a fundamental threat to our cherished values and beliefs.

It’s interesting how a book discussing the evil humans are capable of resonates with feminist literature.