Black Women's History 101

When and Where I Enter: The Impact of Black Women on Sex and Race in America by Paula Giddings

One of my professors recommended this book to me as a good overall beginning to black women in America. I'd already read Angela Davis's Women, Race and Class earlier in the deployment, and this book discusses similar topics. Unlike Davis, however, Giddings provides a much more comprehensive piece on black women's history. Davis focused much more on certain eras, and skipped over others, while Giddings goes basically through each time period and decade and discusses issues that were affecting black women, analyzing issues of race and gender. This means she not only discusses black women in relation to white women, but also discusses black women and black men and how their needs intersected and converged. Overall, a very good intro, and I am thinking about adding a few biographies to my reading list in the future, first off being Ida B. Wells, and possibly Eleanor Roosevelt. I already have a few ideas for Wells, but as far as Roosevelt is concerned, I am sure there are quite a few out there, but which ones are the best?

Intro to Sexism

He's A Stud, She's A Slut and 49 Other Double Standards Every Woman Should Know by Jessica Valenti

Valenti devotes four pages to each of the double standards she discusses. As a result, she raises some good points, but doesn't get too in depth into any issues, some of which overlap quite a bit. Of those four pages, about one is devoted to a section entitled "So . . . What to Do?" Most of these give resources for further research on a topic or simply advise women to speak out.

Basically, it was an entertaining quick read, but mainly an overview. There were definitely a few topics I would have liked to see expanded but Valenti's goal was to highlight some different stereotypes. Also, some of the advice under "What to Do?" is rather repetitive, but once again, at 4 pages per topic, what can you expect?

Her writing is fun and sarcastic. I preferred Marcotte's It's A Jungle Out There, but I think that's because Marcotte didn't try to cover quite as much in a similar amount of pages. Marcotte's book, however, has since become controversial due to the racist nature of the art work. Marcotte has issued an apology and they are going to remove those pictures in the second edition, so I'd recommend holding off before picking that one up.

What's Up, Doc?

For Her Own Good: Two Centuries of the Experts' Advice to Women by Barbara Ehrenreich and Deirdre English

Barbara Ehrenreich is now perhaps most well known for her book Nickel and Dimed, but way back in the day, she and Deirdre English wrote this piece about women, medicine and psychology.

It took me a while to finish this - it was engaging and it wasn't dry, but other things kept coming up that I was slightly more interested in. I think part of the problem is that while their research was probably rather new and groundbreaking in 1978, several authors have since taken similar topics and written books. While there was some new information, for the most part, it felt like a recap of things I had heard/learned in either class or from other books. However, I think it works well as either an introduction or a refresher.

The first section deals with how women, traditional healers and midwives were shut out of medicine as it became a profession and men, who often had no hands on experience and relied merely on book learning (Ken Follett used this as a plot line in World Without End), villainized women who used home remedies and common sense because they lacked formal education. They also mention how witch hunts in Europe were part of this strategy since many of the women accused of witch craft had a knowledge of herbs and healing, and this was used against them. In order to turn medicine into a profession, it had to become more regulated, and men also had to convince others that they had a service to sell rather than an obligation to help others. The book When Abortion Was A Crime also has a good history of men taking over women's medicine, even pushing midwives out by accusing them of being dirty, among other strategies.

Throughout, women's gender and sex was seen as reason enough to keep them outside the medical profession and work in general. Most diseases, no matter what, were blamed on the uterus, and women were seen as incapable of dealing with stress. History went through a shift from the woman as an invalid, unable to do anything because of her frailty, to being a cheerful, active housewife. In all cases, these definitions of womanhood excluded black and working class women since these women didn't have the luxury to be sick or invalid for weeks at a time nor did they have the option of staying home and playing homemaker because their income was vital to the family.

Another point that was kind of interesting was the take on children. With the turn of the century, children also began to be viewed in a different light. Now they became the center point of a woman's existence, but even here the experts changed their minds time and again as to how to properly raise them and what women's duty was. It went from children need a firm hand, to telling women to simply cater to their children's needs ('50s), and until the experts decided that children were horrible ungrateful creatures that needed discipline. And of course, the Oedipus Complex was thrown in, and women were responsible for anything that went wrong with their children - they were either resentful or overprotective.

The book also includes a foreword and afterword which was added to this edition, published in 2004. Expert advice is still prominent as ever as demonstrated by the large self-help sections, and as in the past, it continues to be contradicting and restrictive.

Who Says Feminists Don't Have A Sense of Humor?

It's A Jungle Out There: The Feminist Survival Guide to Politically Inhospitable Environments by Amanda Marcotte

Pandagon's Amanda Marcotte recently released this book, and it had favorable reviews, so I ordered it along with a few other blog-inspired books.

The book is broken down into eight sections with several chapters each. Some of them include advice about how to deal with or spot certain types of people, others attack and mock certain prominent media myths/stories or explain and analyze different cultural phenomenons. If you aren't already a feminist, or don't share her views, this book probably won't change your mind. Her opinions are well-crafted and supported, but she isn't necessarily trying to sway anyone over. Instead, it's a fun, amusing book for an audience that already sees things her way, more or less.

I think parts of it would be entertaining even for people who aren't incredibly liberal, but they'd probably also take issue with a few of her statements or topics, wondering what's the big deal about that, anyway. I enjoyed it a lot. The last section includes some recommendations for further reading and viewing. I own four of her six favorite, feminist-friendly shows on DVD.

Among my favorite sections of the books, I'd have to include "Whither Cats?" In this, Marcotte discusses, how in response to hearing about single women living alone, the public responds with the outcry cats. As she states, people who says this have yet to prove "that cats are somehow antihusband and (2) assuming #1 is true, that husbands are better than cats" (76). After all, cats don't get upset if "you don't change your name to Mrs. Cat" (76). I like cats - can you tell? In theory, I have two, but they are really my parents'.

Speaking of the name change, Marcotte also has a great chapter about that entitled "The Name Change Is No Longer Sexist, So Just Shut Up And Do It." She brings up several arguments that people like to make to support name changes, refutes them, and also offers a few strategies to get people to shut up, such as mentioning "that you'd love to have the same last name as your husband, [but] he was surprisingly less than eager to adopt yours" (185). She realizes that people are going to choose their battles, and for some women, this one just isn't worth the trouble. Still, it's nice to analyze and mock the pressure behind this tradition.

Further Reading

Thanks to snailbiscuits for the link.

I liked this article about women blogging, and media representations of women in film. Definitely worth checking out.

"Pussies of the World Unite" *

These two articles on the Vagina Monologues are worth checking out.

I agree with both authors about the Monologues - they are fun, they raise awareness, but there is also a bit too much essentialism in Ensler's approach to gender.

I first saw the play when I was a freshmen in college, and was blown away. It wasn't as if I had issues with my sexuality before this, but there were some things I definitely hadn't considered. As a result, I ended up buying a copy of the play and locating a hand mirror. (Another book that made me reconsider my approach to certain things was The Curse which I read sophomore year - after that, I never felt uncomfortable or awkward buying tampoons openly again or pulling them out of my bag - it's a natural function, dammit, deal with it. When I was at BOLC II, one of my roommates who was actually incredibly loud and outspoken about many topics was embarrassed to be seen carrying tampoons around a store so I ended up grabbing them - I wasn't about to get a cart for two items)

I saw it again my sophomore year, and then ended up too busy to go my junior year, though I almost auditioned. I even had one of the speeches ("The Vagina Workshop") memorized and "performed" (I'm not much of an actor) it sans the British accent at a Roe V. Wade anniversary event. I really wish I'd actually had the guts to go out of my comfort zone and audition instead of worrying about time conflicts with ROTC.

When I went to see it my senior year after spending the last two years focusing a lot more on my gender studies major, I had a slightly different reaction. I still liked it but many of the approaches seemed almost too simplistic. Other things seemed to support certain stereotypes about race and gender (for example, every production I'd seen had a black woman do "My Angry Vagina" - the black woman has to be angry? That's not the only thing I noticed at the time but it's been over two years). However, despite that the play is rather funny at times, sad at others, and is being used to help domestic violence victims.

The backlash from the conservatives is also entertaining- "oh my God, they used the word vagina!" Also, somehow, The Vagina Monologues are apparently responsible for a lack of chivalry causing a movement called "Take Back the Date" in response. Some people are just idiots.

* That's a quote from the monologue "Because He Liked to Look at It"

Girl in the News

Via Feministing.

Quick summary of the story:

An eight year old girl went to court to sue her father after he forced her to marry a 30 year old man. According to the article, Yemeni law allows parents to make contracts for their children's marriages before the age of 15, but the husband is supposed to wait until the girl is "mature." Obviously, it can be a matter of opinion what ready or mature is, but eight is ridiculous and the courts agreed and removed her from her family. The officials said they were "planning to put her in Dar Al-Rahama [an non-governmental organization that works with children], where she can have a better life and education."

The actual background is, of course, completely depressing. However, it is incredible that this eight year old girl went to court by herself to get out of a horrible situation. Maybe it's just my complete lack of knowledge of children, but how many eight year olds would really even think of going to a judge alone after two months of abuse? Or not be too afraid of their abusers to report them?

Because Obviously It's a Crime If Your Body Rejects a Fetus

I saw this story linked over at I Blame The Patriarchy. I think Twisty's analysis covers it all. While discarding a miscarried fetus into the garbage might not sound like the greatest idea out there, what else was the teenager supposed to do with it? Alert the pilot and give it to him? The article states they decided not to charge her "with any wrongdoing" but it was a miscarriage - what could they have possibly held her for? Disposal of biohazardous waste in a public restroom?

Another Post on Women's History Month

In order to celebrate Women's History Month, one of the units put together an hour-long presentation.  I was one of the few people who showed up that wasn't under an obligation (for example, if someone cancels a meeting because it's at the same time as an event, that tends to mean you should show up to the event instead of the meeting).

 

I can't complain too much because honestly, I should have tried to get involved - I asked our company rep if there was anything planned, but didn't follow up and ask how to participate.  I'm not sure how much of a difference my input would have made, but I still should have tried.

 

I'll also admit that when I think Women's History Month, I don't think of only a celebration of Women's History, but also of a celebration of Feminism, even though the two aren't the same.  There are many strong women that don't identify as feminist (unfortunately).

 

Basically, it wasn't bad, but I was disappointed.  The fliers all had the topic "Women's Art, Women's Vision" printed on them so I was expecting a discussion of women in the arts and the different messages that women might try to convey when using art for political purposes (I guess someone else predetermines the topic for the year).  I showed up expecting a college style lecture, forgetting exactly where I am.  Instead there was a long program beginning with an invocation and the national anthem and ending with a benediction.  In between, there was a slide show, a poem, a skit and a guest speaker.  The guest speaker was entertaining but definitely took the topic in a different direction than I would have expected (she went straight for the word vision, and made the statement "I visualize" to connect her speech to the topic).

 

Of course, I would have been happy with an hour long lecture but since they added all the extra pieces, I think they could have used a slightly different approach.  Being the military, I understand that there will be more of a focus on women's history in the military, and that's fitting - but the slide show should have reflected that.  It should have included portraits/pictures of women in the Revolutionary War, Clara Barton's nurses, the WACs of WWII, and chronologically included everything in between and up to now.  Instead, it was a bunch of pictures of women that are in the Brigade - women that are making history right now, as they put it.  The slide show should have culminated with that but it also should reflected the history of women's service in the military.  Also, they chose the song "You Gotta Be" as the background music for the slide show - it just didn't set quite the right tone for me.  Too obvious; too empowerful.  I'm probably being too harsh on the song.

 

They used the skit to highlight women inventors - I think I would have chosen either different inventions to discuss, or introduced the inventors by some other means.  I understand the difficulty, though - given that people still tend to make comments along the lines of "what's the point of women's history month?  They're 51 % of the population," it can be rather hard to do something to keep the audience interested without preaching at them (I probably would have ended up preaching).  As a result, they used comedy in the skit in a way that I found slightly obnoxious ("work it, girl") but the rest of the audience laughed.  It's important to keep people entertained as well as educate, and I think my idea of entertainment might be slightly different than most (I don't like most Will Ferrell comedies, or anything that involves a man wearing a cross-gendered fat suit).

 

I actually almost didn't go because I was afraid I wouldn't like it - now I know that next year when we are back in Germany, I should make sure to volunteer far ahead of time and maybe put some of my vision into affect.  I wonder if they do anything for V-Day on military posts . . .

Random Thoughts and a Speech

In honor of Women's History Month, the DFAC has decorated its tables with new place mats, or more accurately pieces of paper, with biographies of different important women. I haven't seen them all yet, but so far I've noticed, Janet Reno, Oprah, a few groundbreaking women in the military, and other names I don't recognize (I hope they included Margaret Sanger, Lucy Stone, Mary Wollstonecraft - hey, I don't see the word American in Women's History Month - just to name a few). I think if I were in charge, not only would I have wanted to include biographies of influential and important women, but I'd also want to have pieces of writing by women throughout: excerpts from A Vindication of the Rights of Women, Simone De Beauvoir's The Second Sex, and pieces of poetry by Gwendolyn Brooks, Sylvia Plath, Adrienne Rich. Of course, when it comes to this kind of stuff, I'd be worried about overdoing it - too much poster board, and it could easily feel like a elementary or high school class project. We used to have an annual "Sex Out Loud" fair at my university, and while some of the groups and events were interesting and tried to raise awareness about a sex-related issue or simply celebrate sexuality, there were also a few that just seemed thrown together - a title, a few pictures and quotes.

Maybe I'm just being an elitist here, but I also think that in celebrating these events, be it Women's History Month, African-American History Month, etc. there are two dangers:

- An Oversimplification of History - all these displays are simply quick snapshots of a larger historical period, and ongoing debates. There is usually much more going on than can be seen in a one page bio of someone. It also removes the complexity - for example, Elizabeth Cady Stanton may have been very important to the Women's Movement, but that doesn't mean we can't question her stance and willingness to use racist sentiments to further her cause. And it's not just about her - how often do we really look back at historical figures whom we adore and actually evaluate them, and take them as a whole person? Abraham Lincoln, for example, was incredibly important but that doesn't mean he didn't have flaws. He, too, had racial prejudices, but nobody hears about that in high school. I don't think this should/would diminish his status by any means (product of the times, and yet I hate that statement, it seems like it excuses so many things because not everyone has the same views, no matter what "the times") but instead, would allow us to see the real man instead of a mythical figure. However, I guess when it comes down to it, it's better that people be introduced to the history, inspired to research it more on their own, than not have any events like these at all.

- I also think it can let people think that these struggles are in the past when in fact sexism/racism still exist, and these events are not about looking at a distant past but rather illustrate the progress made thus far. (As we discussed in a college class long ago, it's easy to say "I'm not racist" when comparing yourself to the crazy White Supremacists featured in the media; it's easy to say "Things are so much better, what else do you want" when comparing today to a century ago).

Still, if I ever were in charge, I would, of course, include this piece:

Ain't I A Woman?by Sojourner Truth
Well, children, where there is so much racket there must be something out of kilter. I think that 'twixt the negroes of the South and the women at the North, all talking about rights, the white men will be in a fix pretty soon. But what's all this here talking about?
That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man - when I could get it - and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman?
Then they talk about this thing in the head; what's this they call it? [member of audience whispers, "intellect"] That's it, honey. What's that got to do with women's rights or negroes' rights? If my cup won't hold but a pint, and yours holds a quart, wouldn't you be mean not to let me have my little half measure full?
Then that little man in black there, he says women can't have as much rights as men, 'cause Christ wasn't a woman! Where did your Christ come from? Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with Him.
If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back , and get it right side up again! And now they is asking to do it, the men better let them.
Obliged to you for hearing me, and now old Sojourner ain't got nothing more to say.

The reason I like this speech so much is that it is simple and to the point. After all these other white women were unable to answer men's arguments, Sojourner Truth (whom some of these white women didn't even want at the meeting) gets up, and using simple logic, shuts them all up. Furthermore, she demonstrates the fact that the idea of womanhood was based on the white middle class - for black women, their gender didn't matter, the masters expected the same from them; lower class white women equally had to work, be it in factories or on the farms; it was only in the middle and upper class that the illusion of the delicate woman could really exist (due to the important role women played on the frontier, many Western states granted women the right to vote long before the 19th Amendment).

While very different from each other, it also reminds me of the simple eloquence of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address: they both get right to the heart of the issue in only a few sentences and don't talk around the issue or say more than needs to be said. Maybe I should learn from their example.