Search Our Essay Database

Essay Instructions: Critically examine the contribution of feminist sociological theory to the sociological understanding of ?patriarchy?.


Introduction: (200 words)
- How feminist sociological theory was bought into focus in sociology. Look particularly at the second wave of feminism (1960?s on wards)

- Why did second wave feminism feel a revived approach to feminist sociology was needed?


- How, before the second wave of feminism, there was a danger that gender difference would fall back into biological determination of sexes.

- How the second wave of feminism bought to light the concept of ?patriarchy? but how there was a divide in how Radical, Marxist, Liberal and Black feminists saw the inequalities between women and how this made it difficult to define patriarchy.


Paragraph 1: (1,400)
- An outline of how Radical feminists saw inequalities of women in society and gender difference.

- An outline of how Marxist/Socialist saw inequalities of women in society and gender difference.


- An outline of how Liberal feminists saw inequalities of women in society and gender difference.

- An outline of how Black Feminists saw inequalities of women in society and gender difference.


- The criticisms put forward by other feminists on the weak aspects of the Radical, Marxist/Socialist, Liberal and Black feminists accounts of gender difference and inequalities.

- Account for how the difference in explanations for the inequalities of women caused a danger into explanations for inequality falling back into biological determination as accounted for by structural sociologists.


- A detailed account of how Sylvia Walby (1989), Juliet Mitchell (1974), Michele Barrett (1988) saw that there was a common element in the different types of feminism, which was MALE DOMINANCE. Patriarchy was what grouped the different types of feminism together, according to Walby.

- Look closely at Sylvia Walby?s definition of ?patriarchy? and how she saw Patriarchy as a set of social systems in which men dominate, oppress and exploit women.


- Critically outline and closely examine Sylvia Walby?s six patriarchal structures which restrict women and help maintain male dominance:
- Paid word
- Relations within waged labour
- The state
- Male violence
- Sexuality
- Culture
- What do the six patriarchal structures accounted for by Walby tell us about Patriarchy?
- Outline and critically examine Sylvia Walby?s account of the movement from private to public patriarchy.

- Look at what other feminists say about patriarchy in feminist sociology, critically.


Paragraph 2: (700 words)
- Criticisms of Sylvia Walby?s examination of Patriarchy. What are the strengths and weaknesses of her argument.

- Does Walby make a good and convincing argument? What strong evidence does she use to support her argument? Does she any historical events to support her argument?


- Criticisms put forward by Floya Anthias and Nira Yuval ? Davis (1992) of Walby?s use of the three systems approach.

- The praise put forward by Jackie Stacey (1993) on Walby?s account.


- Are there stronger arguments for ?patriarchy??

- Any General criticisms of feminist sociological explanations of patriarchy such as that of Anna Pollert (1996)

CONCLUSION: (200 words)
- How sociology nowadays gives a gender perspective much closer attention

- Is the feminist sociological theory to patriarchy strong enough? Is it convincing?


- What contribution has the feminist theory brought to our understanding of patriarchy?

- Account for how a rejection of feminist theory does not bring dimension to sociology and our understanding of certain aspects of it.

Essay Instructions: Controlling Images: Representations of Women
Thesis statement
How race, class, and gender stereotypes impact the representation of
women. This generalizations inevitably involve false assumptions that
reflect and reinforce male dominance.

Main Points
-Cultural factors as precursors of the system of inequality.
-Stereotypes as systems of oppression for women
-How the stereotypes portray particular categories of women (based on race, class, gender etc.) to be the subordinates of those from dominant groups.
-How do these portrayals benefit certain groups while disadvantaging other groups.
-How do the stereotypes maintain the gender system.

Sources:

1. Bell hook “Selling Hot Pussy: Representations of Black Female Sexuality in the Cultural Market”

2 .Patricia Hill Collins “Mammies, Matriarchs, and Other Controlling
Images, Black Feminist Thought

3. Yen Le Espiritu “Ideological Racism and Cultural Resistance”

4. Gimlin, Debra. "Cosmetic Surgery: Paying for Your Beauty."

There are faxes for this order.

Essay Instructions: Here is the assignment:

Now that you have read bell hook's "Sexism and Misogyny: who takes the rap?" and watched The Piano, it's time to test hooks' claim. Write an essay in which you explain to what e4xtent you agree or disagree with hooks that The Piano excites audiences withs uncritical portrayal of sexism and misgyny" Keep in mind that you are explaining how much and why you agree with hooks' above statement in order to enact your essay's purpose: to persuade your readers to see that the sexism and misogyny in The Piano are or are not portrayed as exciting and acceptable. Your essay must indicate and be built around this purpose.

This essay is asking you to do two things. First, decide whether or not- and how much- you agree with bell hooks' assessment of The Piano. Second, carefully build a detailed and supported explanation of why you feel as you do. IN order to construct a argument that is convincing, you must refer to appropriate passages in bell hook' text as well as to specific scenes in the film. Remember, you are not arguing for or against gagsta' rap music in general; don't get off-topic defending or dismissing the genre of rap music. Instead, analyze hooks' comparison of the film to gangsta' rap to argue her point that both forms of entertainment wrongfully portray sexism and misgyny as exciting to listen to or watch, but that only rap music is condemned for this. When you watched the film, did you find yourself able to excuse and justify the sexism and misogyny for certain reason? If so, you're agreeing with hooks and you must discuss this. Or, when you watched the film, did you find yourself shocked and unable to excuse, for any reason, what you saw? If so, you're disagreeing with hooks, and you must discuss why. (Keep in mind that if you say there is no sexism and misogyny in the film whatsoever you have, first of all, not responded with any real engagement to the events in the film. Regardless of whether it can be justified, how can the finger-chopping scene be anything other than sexist or misogynist, for example? But worse, if you say that no sexism or misogyny exists in the film at all, you have inadvertently proven hook' claim about the film. She says audiences tend to miss these negative values because we're so accustomed to them and / somehow wish to justify them. If you claim that sexism and misogyny don't exist in the film at all, you are proving this point for her, so be very careful about the trap she's set for you. You will avoid this trap if you stick to the issue: discuss wheter or not the sexism and misogyny are portrayed as exciting and acceptable, just as they are in gangsta' rap music, not whether or not they exist in the first place. If you stick to this issue, you can see how a discussion of strengths or weakness of hooks' comparison of the film to rap music might become relevant). You should assume that your audience has read hooks' essay and seen the film , but their level of engagement has not been particulary critical. In other words, you should help your audience to see aspects of the film or of hooks' opinion of the film that they might have otherwise missed. This essay must be atleast 3 full pages.




Important Sources:

Here is the essay of Sexism and Misogyny : Who takes the rap? By Bell Hooks

For the past several months white mainstream media has been calling me to hear my views on gangsta rap. Whether major television networks, or small independent radio shows, they seek me out for the black and feminist "take" on the issue. After I have my say, I am never called back, never invited to do the television shows or the radio spots. I suspect they call, confident that when we talk they will hear the hardcore "feminist" trash of gangsta rap. When they encounter instead the hardcore feminist critique of white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, they lose interest.

To white dominated mass media, the controversy over gangsta rap makes great spectacle. Besides the exploitation of these issues to attract audiences, a central motivation for highlighting gangsta rap continues to be the sensationalist drama of demonizing black youth culture in general and the contributions of young black men in particular. It is a contemporary remake of "Birth of a Nation" only this time we are encouraged to believe it is not just vulnerable white womanhood that risks destruction by black hands but everyone. When I counter this demonization of black males by insisting that gangsta rap does not appear in a cultural vacuum, but, rather, is expressive of the cultural crossing, mixings, and engagement of black youth culture with the values, attitudes, and concerns of the white majority, some folks stop listening.

The sexist, misogynist, patriarchal ways of thinking and behaving that are glorified in gangsta rap are a reflection of the prevailing values in our society, values created and sustained by white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. As the crudest and most brutal expression of sexism, misogynistic attitudes tend to be portrayed by the dominant culture as an expression of male deviance. In reality they are part of a sexist continuum, necessary for the maintenance of patriarchal social order. While patriarchy and sexism continue to be the political and cultural norm in our society, feminist movement has created a climate where crude expressions of male domination are called into question, especially if they are made by men in power. It is useful to think of misogyny as a field that must be labored in and maintained both to sustain patriarchy but also to serve as an ideological anti-feminist backlash. And what better group to labor on this "plantation" than young black men.

To see gangsta rap as a reflection of dominant values in our culture rather than as an aberrant "pathological" standpoint does not mean that a rigorous feminist critique of the sexist and misogyny expressed in this music is not needed. Without a doubt black males, young and old, must be held politically accountable for their sexism. Yet this critique must always be contextualized or we risk making it appear that the behaviors this thinking supports and condones,--rape, male violence against women, etc.-- is a black male thing. And this is what is happening. Young black males are forced to take the "heat" for encouraging, via their music, the hatred of and violence against women that is a central core of patriarchy.

Witness the recent piece by Brent Staples in the "New York Times" titled "The Politics of Gangster Rap: A Music Celebrating Murder and Misogyny." Defining the turf Staples writes: "For those who haven't caught up, gangster rap is that wildly successful music in which all women are `bitches' and `whores' and young men kill each other for sport." No mention of white supremacist capitalist patriarchy in this piece, not a word about the cultural context that would need to exist for young males to be socialized to think differently about gender. Staples assumes that black males are writing their lyrics off in the "jungle," away from the impact of mainstream socialization and desire. At no point in his piece does he ask why huge audiences, especially young white male consumers, are so turned on by this music, by the misogyny and sexism, by the brutality? Where is the anger and rage at females expressed in this music coming from, the glorification of all acts of violence? These are the difficult questions that Staples feels no need to answer.

One cannot answer them honestly without placing accountability on larger structures of domination and the individuals (often white, usually male but not always) who are hierarchically placed to maintain and perpetuate the values that uphold these exploitative and oppressive systems. That means taking a critical looking at the politics of hedonistic consumerism, the values of the men and women who produce gangsta rap. It would mean considering the seduction of young black males who find that they can make more money producing lyrics that promote violence, sexism, and misogyny than with any other content. How many disenfranchised black males would not surrender to expressing virulent forms of sexism, if they knew the rewards would be unprecedented material power and fame?

More than anything gangsta rap celebrates the world of the "material, " the dog-eat-dog world where you do what you gotta do to make it. In this world view killing is necessary for survival. Significantly, the logic here is a crude expression of the logic of white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. In his new book "Sexy Dressing, Etc." privileged white male law professor Duncan Kennedy gives what he calls "a set of general characterizations of U. S. culture" explaining that, "It is individual (cowboys), material (gangsters) and philistine." Using this general description of mainstream culture would lead us to place "gangsta rap" not on the margins of what this nation is about, but at the center. Rather than being viewed as a subversion or disruption of the norm we would need to see it as an embodiment of the norm.

That viewpoint was graphically highlighted in the film "Menace To Society" which dramatized not only young black males killing for sport, but also mass audiences voyeuristically watching and, in many cases, "enjoying" the kill. Significantly, at one point in the movie we see that the young black males have learned their "gangsta" values from watching television and movies--shows where white male gangsters are center stage. This scene undermines any notion of "essentialist" blackness that would have viewers believe the gangsterism these young black males embraced emerged from some unique black cultural experience.

When I interviewed rap artist Ice Cube for "Spin" magazine last year, he talked about the importance of respecting black women and communication across gender. He spoke against male violence against women, even as he lapsed into a justification for anti- woman rap lyrics by insisting on the madonna/whore split where some females "carry" themselves in a manner that determines how they will be treated. When this interview was published, it was cut to nothing. It was a mass media set-up. Folks (mostly white and male) had thought if the hardcore feminist talked with the hardened black man, sparks would fly; there would be a knock-down drag out spectacle. When Brother Cube and I talked to each other with respect about the political, spiritual, and emotional self- determination of black people, it did not make good copy. Clearly folks at the magazine did not get the darky show they were looking for.

After this conversation, and talking with rappers and folks who listen to rap, it became clear that while black male sexism is a serious problem in our communities and in black music, some of the more misogynist lyrics were there to stir up controversy and appeal to audiences. Nowhere is this more evident that in Snoop Doggy Dogg's record "Doggystyle". A black male music and cultural critic called me to ask if I had checked this image out; to share that for one of the first times in his music buying life he felt he was seeing an image so offensive in its sexism and misogyny that he did not want to take that image home. That image (complete with doghouse, beware the dog sign, with a naked black female head in a doghouse, naked butt sticking out) was reproduced, "uncritically," in the November 29, 1993 issue of "Time" magazine. The positive music review of this album, written by Christopher John Farley, is titled "Gangsta Rap, Doggystyle" makes no mention of sexism and misogyny, makes no reference to the cover. I wonder if a naked white female body had been inside the doghouse, presumably waiting to be fucked from behind, if "Time" would have reproduced an image of the cover along with their review. When I see the pornographic cartoon that graces the cover of "Doggystyle," I do not think simply about the sexism and misogyny of young black men, I think about the sexist and misogynist politics of the powerful white adult men and women (and folks of color) who helped produce and market this album.

In her book "Misogynies" Joan Smith shares her sense that while most folks are willing to acknowledge unfair treatment of women, discrimination on the basis of gender, they are usually reluctant to admit that hatred of women is encouraged because it helps maintain the structure of male dominance. Smith suggests: "Misogyny wears many guises, reveals itself in different forms which are dictated by class, wealth, education, race, religion and other factors, but its chief characteristic is its pervasiveness." This point reverberated in my mind when I saw Jane Campion's widely acclaimed film "The Piano" which I saw in the midst of mass media focus on sexism and misogyny in "gangsta rap." I had been told by many friends in the art world that this was "an incredible film, a truly compelling love story etc." Their responses were echoed by numerous positive reviews. No one speaking about this film mentions misogyny and sexism or white supremacist capitalist patriarchy.

The 19th century world of the white invasion of New Zealand is utterly romanticized in this film (complete with docile happy darkies--Maori natives--who appear to have not a care in the world). And when the film suggests they care about white colonizers digging up the graves of their dead ancestors, it is the sympathetic poor white male who comes to the rescue. Just as the conquest of natives and lands is glamorized in this film, so is the conquest of femininity, personified by white womanhood, by the pale speechless corpse-like Scotswoman, Ada, who journeys into this dark wilderness because her father has arranged for her to marry the white colonizer Stewart. Although mute, Ada expresses her artistic ability, the intensity of her vision and feelings through piano playing. This passion attracts Baines, the illiterate white settler who wears the facial tattoos of the Maori--an act of appropriation that makes him (like the traditional figure of Tarzan) appear both dangerous and romantic. He is Norman Mailer's "white negro," seducing Ada by promising to return the piano that Steward has exchanged with him for land. The film leads us to believe that Ada's passionate piano playing has been a substitution for repressed eroticism. When she learns to let herself go sexually, she ceases to need the piano. We watch the passionate climax of Baines seduction as she willingly seeks him sexually. And we watch her husband Stewart in the role of voyeur, standing with dog outside the cabin where they fuck, voyeuristically consuming their pleasure. Rather than being turned off by her love for Baines, it appears to excite Stewart's passion; he longs to possess her all the more. Unable to win her back from Baines, he expresses his rage, rooted in misogyny and sexism, by physically attacking her and chopping off her finger with an ax. This act of male violence takes place with Ada's daughter, Flora, as a witness. Though traumatized by the violence she witnesses, she is still about to follow the white male patriarch's orders and take the bloody finger to Baines, along with the message that each time he sees Ada she will suffer physical mutilation.

Violence against land, natives, and women in this film, unlike that of gangsta rap, is portrayed uncritically, as though it is "natural," the inevitable climax of conflicting passions. The outcome of this violence is positive. Ultimately, the film suggests Stewart's rage was only an expression of irrational sexual jealousy, that he comes to his senses and is able to see "reason." In keeping with male exchange of women, he gives Ada and Flora to Baines. They leave the wilderness. On the voyage home Ada demands that her piano be thrown overboard because it is "soiled," tainted with horrible memories. Surrendering it she lets go of her longing to display passion through artistic expression. A nuclear family now, Baines, Ada, and Flora resettle and live happily-ever-after. Suddenly, patriarchal order is restored. Ada becomes a modest wife, wearing a veil over her mouth so that no one will see her lips struggling to speak words. Flora has no memory of trauma and is a happy child turning somersaults. Baines is in charge, even making Ada a new finger.

"The Piano "seduces and excites audiences with its uncritical portrayal of sexism and misogyny. Reviewers and audiences alike seem to assume that Campion's gender, as well as her breaking of traditional boundaries that inhibit the advancement of women in film, indicate that her work expresses a feminist standpoint. And, indeed, she does employ feminist "tropes," even as her work betrays feminist visions of female actualization, celebrates and eroticizes male domination. In Smith's discussion of misogyny she emphasizes that woman-hating is not solely the province of men: "We are all exposed to the prevailing ideology of our culture, and some women learn early on that they can prosper by aping the misogyny of men; these are the women who win provisional favor by denigrating other women, by playing on male prejudices, and by acting the `man's woman'." Since this is not a documentary film that needs to remain faithful to the ethos of its historical setting, why is it that Campion does not resolve Ada's conflicts by providing us with an imaginary landscape where a woman can express passionate artistic commitment and find fulfillment in a passionate relationship? This would be no more far-fetched than her cinematic portrayal of Ada's miraculous transformation from muteness into speech. Ultimately, Campion's "The Piano" advances the sexist assumption that heterosexual women will give up artistic practice to find "true love." That "positive" surrender is encouraged by the "romantic" portrayal of sexism and misogyny.

While I do not think that young black male rappers have been rushing in droves to see "The Piano", there is a bond between those folks involved with high culture who celebrate and condone the sexist ideas and values upheld in this film and those who celebrate and condone "gangsta rap." Certainly Kennedy's description of the United States as a "cowboy, gangster, philistine" culture would also accurately describe the culture evoked in "The Piano". Popular movies that are seen by young black males, for example "Indecent Proposal, MadDog and Glory, True Romance", and "One False Move", all eroticize male domination expressed via the exchange of women, as well as the subjugation of other men, through brutal violence.

Contrary to a racist white imagination which assumes that most young black males, especially those who are poor, live in a self- created cultural vacuum, uninfluenced by mainstream, cultural values, it is the application of those values, largely learned through passive uncritical consumption of mass media, that is revealed in "gangsta rap." Brent Staples is willing to challenge the notion that "urban primitivism is romantic" when it suggests that black males become "real men" by displaying the will to do violence, yet he remains resolutely silent about that world of privileged white culture that has historically romanticized primitivism, and eroticized male violence. Contemporary films like "Reservoir Dogs" and "The Bad Lieutenant" celebrate urban primitivism and many less well done films ("Trespass, Rising Sun") create and/or exploit the cultural demand for depictions of hardcore blacks who are willing to kill for sport.

To take "gangsta rap" to task for its sexism and misogyny while critically accepting and perpetuating those expressions of that ideology which reflect bourgeois standards (no rawness, no vulgarity) is not to call for a transformation of the culture of patriarchy. Ironically, many black male ministers, themselves sexist and misogynist, are leading the attacks against gangsta rap. Like the mainstream world that supports white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, they are most concerned with calling attention to the vulgar obscene portrayals of women to advance the cause of censorship. For them, rethinking and challenging sexism, both in the dominant culture and in black life, is not the issue.

Mainstream white culture is not concerned about black male sexism and misogyny, particularly when it is unleashed against black women and children. It is concerned when young white consumers utilize black popular culture to disrupt bourgeois values. Whether it be the young white boy who expresses his rage at his mother by aping black male vernacular speech (a true story) or the masses of young white males (and middle class men of color) seeking to throw off the constraints of bourgeois bondage who actively assert in their domestic households via acts of aggression their rejection of the call to be "civilized. " These are the audiences who feel such a desperate need for gangsta rap. It is much easier to attack gangsta rap than to confront the culture that produces that need.

Gangsta rap is part of the anti-feminist backlash that is the rage right now. When young black males labor in the plantations of misogyny and sexism to produce gangsta rap, their right to speak this violence and be materially rewarded is extended to them by white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. Far from being an expression of their "manhood," it is an expression of their own subjugation and humiliation by more powerful, less visible forces of patriarchal gangsterism. They give voice to the brutal raw anger and rage against women that it is taboo for "civilized" adult men to speak. No wonder then that they have the task of tutoring the young, teaching them to eroticize and enjoy the brutal expressions of that rage (teaching them language and acts) before they learn to cloak it in middle-class decorum or Robert Bly style reclaimings of lost manhood. The tragedy for young black males is that they are so easily dunned by a vision of manhood that can only lead to their destruction.

Feminist critiques of the sexism and misogyny in gangsta rap, and in all aspects of popular culture, must continue to be bold and fierce. Black females must not be duped into supporting shit that hurts us under the guise of standing beside our men. If black men are betraying us through acts of male violence, we save ourselves and the race by resisting. Yet, our feminist critiques of black male sexism fail as meaningful political intervention if they seek to demonize black males, and do not recognize that our revolutionary work is to transform white supremacist capitalist patriarchy in the multiple areas of our lives where it is made manifest, whether in gangsta rap, the black church, or the Clinton administration.









Here is the analysis of The Piano:

Analysis of "The Piano," the movie


The Piano examines the construction of sexuality in nineteenth century colonial New Zealand within the discourses of power that shaped this era. Different discourses of gender and race and their interactions are presented in order to support a narrative critique of the European patriarchal ideology as dominant social structure.

In the opening sequence of the film, the viewer is immediately presented with an image of marriage as entirely contractual: "Today he married me to a man I've not yet met." The protagonist, although she has already been established as strong-willed and non-conforming, is accepting but not altogether optimistic about the arrangement. The viewer also learns that she already has a daughter, but the question of the child's legitimacy are left unanswered. These factors suggest potential conflict with the patriarchal authority of the husband over his spouse's sexuality and introduce the primary power discourse of the plot: that of the female protagonist's commodity status through the negation female autonomy by the patriarchal system.

European patriarchal values are embodied by Stuart's character, he symbolises repression, the narrowing of sexuality into an unemotional discourse of female passivity and male dominance. The film exposes the property mentality which resulted in the devastation of the natural landscape but also in the corruption of personal relationships - above all else, Stuart believes in his ownership of Ada. He demonstrates this by negating her own claim to property in the beginning of the film. Stuart does not hesitate in the trade of Ada's piano to Baines for a piece of land, and refuses to acknowledge her right to it, or understand her anger over this action. His sense of property also extends to her sexuality, he attempts to rape her twice to exert his ownership, to force her into submission, when his sense of control over her is threatened. Stuart is unable to appreciate a sexuality where he is not in the dominant role. After he learns of Ada's adultery and forbids her to continue the relationship, Ada attempts to initiate intimacy with him on her own terms: with her taking an active but gentle role, she does not wish for him to touch her. Stuart cannot handle a situation, especially a sexual one, that requires his passivity, he is disturbed by the idea and it makes him uncomfortable, although he was the one who initially expressed concern that she had not yet "become affectionate". His patriarchal view of sexuality is so limited that he cannot understand Ada's need to establish a level of intimacy she is comfortable with, before they can express mutual affection.

Another way in which power discourses of sexuality are challenged in the film is through the contrast of colonial with Maori cultural value systems. Nineteenth century European culture allowed for only heterosexuality between adults, within the institution of marriage. This is evident in Stuart's reaction to the sex play of Flora and the Maori children; they are embracing trees in a sexual manner while the Maori women watch on, unconcerned. Stuart, upon seeing Flora's behaviour, is shocked and offended. "I'm greatly shamed! You've shamed these trunks." He chastises her, and in the following scene he is shown supervising her as she whitewashes the trees. This shows how sexuality that is not controlled by the accepted power discourse of a marital relationship must be labeled as immoral and obscene. The film also makes the comparison of European female colonialist sexuality with that of the Maori women. The scene in which Baines is doing his washing in the river with a Maori family most powerfully illustrates the distinction: "You need a wife. Its no good having it sulk between you legs for the rest of its life." So Baines is informed by the Maori woman. Here, her wisdom is privileged - her culture accepts human sexuality and desires to be undeniable, rather than shameful. She speaks frankly with Baines about his sexuality, because it is not a taboo topic within the Maori culture. Baines also has sexual relations with Maori women he is not married to, which is not scandalous within their culture. The film appears to be presenting an alternative view of sexuality, one within which power discourses are not an accepted necessity, as they are within the parallel sexuality of the European colonialists. Clothing also plays an interesting role in the juxtapositions of the two cultures - the Maoris are not ashamed of nudity, their dress is practical for the environment, and the women dress comfortably. This contrasts with the dress of the colonialists; both sexes wear many layers of restraining clothing, but it is the European females whose dress is especially confining, with a tight corset and large, awkward hoop skirt, symbolising the cultural restrictions of femininity.

Baines' sexuality and his concept of it is much less culturally constructed than that of Stuart, since he himself has less of a patriarchal colonialist identity. He has the Maori facial tattoo, and speaks the language, he also maintains less of a power position over them than does Stuart. Baines has respect for equality, both across race and gender; the Maori women in his house are not subservient as they are in the other colonial households. Baines values female sexuality, he also recognises that women have a right to it - he does not use violence against Ada because he is not interested in enforcing his will over hers. He recognises the value that the piano has for Ada, which Stuart fails to do. Through Baines The Piano challenges the traditional power discourse of sexuality within marriage. The concept of sexual ownership is shown to be false, even though the nineteenth century patriarchy treated women themselves as property. Ada rejects sexual relations with her husband - her sexuality still belongs to her, and she enters into the sexual contract with Baines by choice. Ada is aware of her sexual power over Baines: she realises it when Baines leaves the church hall out of frustration and humiliation when she will not let him sit next to her. Also, the film does not portray her adultery as an act of immorality; it is sex without love that is critiqued in the film, explicitly by Baines. Implicitly, Baines' sexuality negates male domination. He talks to Ada like an adult equal, while Stuart treats her like a child.

Both Ada and Baines deviate from the traditional institution of European culture: they require love to have a sexual relationship, and love equates freedom from power discourses. This is strikingly juxtaposed with Stuart's concept of sexual relationships. Stuart seems completely ignorant that affection must be earned through trust, respect and love - none of which he shows towards Ada. Baines and Ada both undergo a turning point in their feelings towards each other. For Baines it is when he gives the piano back to her, because he cannot continue with their contract. "I want you to care for me." For Ada, it is after this act of kindness that she realises her attachment to him, their sexual involvement has become emotional also. Here a reversal of conventional emotional stereotypes is explored. Male emotional vulnerability as a result of sexual relations, rather than female, is privileged, and represented by Baines character: "...Does this mean something to you, Ada?... Do you love me?" In many ways this is a film which privileges respect and appreciation of female sexuality and is strongly opposed to its exploitation. This can be seen through the presentation of nudity in the film - male nudity is revealed more than female, and the portrayal of Ada's naked body is more discreet than the portrayal of Baines'. The film uses this technique to express the necessary privacy that should surround intimacy; the concept that sexuality must involve emotional interaction as well as physical is also conveyed.

In the film, the piano as an object takes on the symbolism of Ada's body, and her sexuality. It also is traded, and for both the trading of the piano by Stuart and Ada's arranged marriage by her father, the attachment of misplaced property value is privileged; the piano is no more Stuart's to trade than is Ada by the males who hold authority over her. Because the piano is her most powerful instrument of expression, the action by Stuart to trade is almost like his act of cutting off her finger - actions of cruelty, the castration of her autonomy. Stuart and Baines' handling of the piano both echo their concept of female sexuality. Baines is aware of the piano's value to Ada, his first act of compassion is to have it tuned. This demonstrates Baines' respect for it and for his respect of female sexuality in general. The piano gains conscious sexual significance for him as it comes to represent Ada's body. Early on, he is depicted polishing it in the nude, there is a ritual solemnity about this action that indicates he is serious about his attraction to Ada, that sexuality for him is not about power but about respect and adoration. The attempted rape scene of Ada byStuart in the forest is juxtaposed with images of the Maori men thumping and banging on the piano, conveying a message of physical disrespect and violence. Ada is saved only when Flora comes to find her in distress "They're touching your piano!" The film privileges the acts of violation occurring simultaneously as being connected, emphasising their symbolic similarity.

In the denoument, the piano ceases to symbolise Ada's sexuality - it represents more her misery, as the centre of her tragedy. Her new life in Nelson with Baines is portrayed as a rebirth of sexuality, the death of the piano and near death of Ada as the burial of sexual repression, the loveless power discourse between her and Stuart. Ada wears a black veil while learning to speak, and Baines kisses her through the veil and then lifts it to kiss her lips. The veil, being black rather than white, may symbolise the fact that Ada is not sexually 'pure' but as this is a traditional patriarchal value it is insignificant to both of them. The purity of their union is in their love for each other, the quality of sexual respect and equality that connects them. The scene conveys the concept that the sexuality Ada and Baines endorse is based love and acceptance over lust, but also on unrepressed emotion. The return in the final moments of the film to the image of Ada attached to the piano under the ocean and her contemplation of the silence that exists there serves to reinforce her independent identity - that her experiences are part of this and she will hold on to them, rather than transform herself to fit her new life. Although the film endorses the convention of the sought after union between lovers as bringing happiness, it does not present it as a mergingof identity - they have found a space within which they can express their sexuality freely, but it remains their own, for there is no triumphing of one discourse over another.

The Piano is a film which succeeds in its study of sexuality, and the destructive effect of institutionalised power discourses upon personal relationships. It emphasises the need for cultural acknowledgment of an individual autonomy, thus destroying the morality of the nineteenth century patriarchy which dictated sexual repression and ownership. Love as an integral element of sexual relations, with the definition of love conveying mutual respect as well as desire is presented as a major theme in the film, and sexual relations as a requirement of oppressive transactions such as arranged marriage are shown to be not only irrationally unjust but potentially tragic.






These are some of the ideas that I come up with, preferably if they seem reasonable, I would prefer them to be used in the essay:

They are exciting and uncritcally because rap serves the purpose of describing a world that many cannot relate to or want to confront. THe violent lyrics forces us to see what's going on in our country.

They aren't exciting and criticallly portrayed because people interpret the movie differently than what the director intends. The director might instend the audience to see the movie in a historical context but many audiences fail to grasp this idea. Rap sends a message for a change and glorifies life in a violent way.

The Piano and rap music oppress women

Director is trying to get a point across with the Sexism and Misogyny portrayed in the movie Piano.

Women are viewed as objects. The Piano symbolizes Ada's body.

Ada was treated like a child by Stewart but more like a women by Baines

When Ada demanded that the Piano be thrown overboard, one of her feet got stuck to the rope of the Piano. She manages to still escape. The shoe may symbolize Ada's finger.

Essay Instructions: Choose one question from part one and one question from part 2. (each essay should be about 2 pages)
PART I: CHOOSE ONE QUESTION,
PART II: ANSWER QUESTION #1 or #2
You will answer a total of two questions.
(the articles that you need for this assignment are included after the instruction. )
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PART I-
Answer the following question.
(Please specifically answer the question. And follow the instruction bellow and apply the 2 theories )

1- Read article #1 (Cherrie Moraga). then Use a feminist theory of your choice (radical, liberal, socialist, multicultural, and postmodern) to explain the impact of homophobia and intolerance on the life of Cherrie Moraga and on the lives of gays and lesbians in general. Discuss how you would develop a research plan to ?test? this theory using feminist methodology. (Be sure to include how you would incorporate the assumptions of the methodology into a study of the effects of homophobia)
___________________________________________________________

PART II
Choose one of the following essay questions.
1. Read articles # 2 and #3 and then discuss the concerns of hooks and Dyson regarding misogyny and gangster rap. In your discussion, incorporate one feminist theory (radical, liberal, socialist, multicultural, and postmodern) and one theory of development (cognitive theory, social learning theory and schema theory) to explain both the causes of and solutions for the problem. Be sure that any solutions flow logically from the theory.
______________OR

2. Read article # 4 and then Discuss some of the problems for boys that are at the heart of the educational process (as defined by Sadker). Which theory of development (cognitive theory, social learning theory and schema theory) best addresses these problems? Why? Which sociological theory (Functionalist, conflict, symbolic interactionist) best addresses them? Why? Incorporate both explanations and solutions from each perspective in your discussion.

___________________________________________________________

Article #1 Cherrie Moraga and Chicana Lesbianism
By Tomas Almaguer

(Cherrie Moraga was born in Los Angeles in 1952. She is of Chicana/Anglo descent, which has influenced her experiences as a lesbian poet, playwright, essayist, editor, teacher, and activist. Almaguer argues that her writings offer a lucid and complex analysis of the predicament of many Chicano/Chicana gay and lesbian members of society face. The quotes in his analysis are from Loving in the War Years by Cherrie Moraga)

An essential point of departure in assessing Cherrie Moraga's work is an appreciation of the way Chicano family life severely constrains the Chicana' s ability to define her life outside of its stifling gender and sexual prescriptions. As a number of Chicana feminist scholars have clearly documented, Chicano family life remains rigidly structured along patriarchal lines that privilege men over women and children. Any violation of these norms is undertaken at great personal risk because Chicanos draw upon the family to resist racism and the ravages of class inequality .Chicano men and women are drawn together in the face of these onslaughts and are closely bound into a family structure that exaggerates unequal gender roles and suppresses sexual non-conformity . Therefore, any deviation from the sacred link binding husband, wife, and child not only threatens the very existence of la familia but also potentially undermines the mainstay of resistance to Anglo racism and class exploitation. "The family, then, becomes all the more ardently protected by oppressed people and the sanctity of this institution is infused like blood into the veins of the Chicano. At all costs, la familia must be preserved," writes Moraga. Thus, "we fight back... with our families-with our women pregnant, and our men as indispensable heads. We believe the more severely we protect the sex roles within the family, the stronger we will be as a unit in opposition to the anglo threat" (Loving 110).

These cultural prescriptions do not, however, curb the sexually non-conforming behavior of certain Chicanos. As in the case of Mexican homosexual men in Mexico, there exists a modicum of freedom for the Chicano homosexual who retains a masculine gender identity while secretly engaging in the active homosexual role. Moraga has perceptively noted that the Latin cultural norm inflects the sexual behavior of homosexual Chicanos: "Male homosexuality has always been a 'tolerated' aspect of Mexican/Chicano society, as long as it remains 'fringe' ...But lesbianism, in any form, and male homosexuality which openly avows both the sexual and the emotional elements of the bond, challenge the very foundation of la familia?. The openly effeminate Chicano gay man's rejection of heterosexuality is typically seen as a fundamental betrayal of Chicano patriarchal cultural norms. He is viewed as having turned his back on the male role that privileges Chicano men and entitles them to sexual access to women, minors, and even other men. Those who reject these male prerogatives are viewed as non-men, as the cultural equivalents of women. Moraga astutely assesses the situation as one in which "the 'faggot' is the object of Chicano/Mexicano's contempt because he is consciously choosing a role his culture tells him to despise. That of a woman.?

The constraints that Chicano family life imposed on Moraga herself are candidly discussed in her provocative autobiographical essays "La Guera" and "A Long Line of Vendidas" in Loving in the War Years. In recounting her childhood in Southern California, Moraga describes how she was routinely required to make her brother's bed, iron his shirts, lend him money, and even serve him cold drinks when his friends came to visit their home. The privileged position of men in the Chicano family places women in a secondary, subordinate status. She resentfully acknowledges that "to this day in my mother's home, my brother and father are waited on, including by me" (90). Chicano men have always thought of themselves as superior to Chicanas, she asserts in unambiguous terms: "I have never met any kind of Latino who...did not subscribe to the basic belief that men are better" (101). The insidiousness of the patriarchal ideology permeating Chicano family life even shapes the way a mother defines her relationships with her children: "The daughter must constantly earn the mother's love, prove her fidelity to her. The son-he gets her love for free" (102).

Moraga realized early in life that she would find it virtually impossible to attain any meaningful autonomy in that cultural context. It was only in the Anglo world that freedom from oppressive gender and sexual strictures was remotely possible. In order to secure this latitude, she made a necessary choice: to embrace the white world and reject crucial aspects of her Chicana upbringing. In painfully honest terms, she states:
I gradually became anglocized because I thought it was the only option available to me toward gaining autonomy as a person without being sexually stigmatized. ...I instinctively made choices which I thought would allow me greater freedom of movement in the future. This meant resisting sex roles as much as I could safely manage and that was far easier in an anglo context than in a Chicano one. (99)
Born to a Chicana mother and an Anglo father, Moraga discovered that being fair-complexioned facilitated her integration into the Anglo social world and contributed immensely to her academic achievement. "My mother's desire to protect her children from poverty and illiteracy" led to their being "anglocized," she writes; "the more effectively we could pass in the white world, the better guaranteed our future" (51). Consequently her life in Southern California during the 1950s and 1960s is described as one in which she "identified with and aspired toward white values" (58). In the process, she "rode the wave of that Southern California privilege as far as conscience would let me" (58).

The price initially exacted by anglicization was estrangement from family and a partial loss of the nurturing and love she found therein. In reflecting on this experience, Moraga acknowledges that "I have had to confront that much of what I value about being Chicana, about my family, has been subverted by anglo culture and my cooperation with it. ...I realized the major reason for my total alienation from and fear of my class- mates was rooted in class and culture" (54). She poignantly concedes that, in the process, "I had disavowed the language I knew best-ignored the words and rhythms that were closest to me. The sounds of my mother and aunts gossiping- half in English, half in Spanish-while drinking cerveza in the kitchen" (55). What she gained, on the other hand, was the greater autonomy that her middle-class white classmates had in defining their emergent sexuality and in circumventing burdensome gender prescriptions. Her movement into the white world, however, was viewed by Chicanos as a great betrayal. By gaining control of her life, Moraga became one of a "long line of vendidas," traitors or "sell-outs," as self-determined women are seen in the sexist cultural fantasy of patriarchal Chicano society. This is the accusation that "hangs above the heads and beats in the hearts of most Chicanas, seeking to develop our own autonomous sense of ourselves, particularly our sexuality" (103).

Patriarchal Chicano culture, with its deep roots in "the institution of heterosexuality , " requires Chicanas to commit themselves to Chicano men and subordinate to them their own sexual desires. "[The Chicano] too, like any other man," Moraga writes, "wants to be able to determine how, when, and with whom his women-mother , wife, and daughter-are sexual" (110-111). But "the Chicana's sexual commitment to the Chicano male [is taken as] proof of her fidelity to her people" (105). "It is no wonder," she adds, that most "Chicanas often divorce ourselves from conscious recognition of our own sexuality" (119). In order to claim the identity of a Chicana lesbian, Moraga had to take "a radical stand in direct contradiction to, and in violation of, the women [sic] I was raised to be" (117); and yet she also drew upon themes and images ofter Mexican Catholic background. Of its impact on her sexuality Mor-aga writes:
I always knew that I felt the greatest emotional ties with women, but suddenly I was beginning to consciously identify those feelings as sexual. The more potent my dreams and fantasies became and the more I sensed my own exploding sexual power, the more I retreated from my body's messages and into the region of religion. By giving definition and meaning to my desires, religion became the discipline to control my sexuality. Sexual fantasy and rebellion became "impure thoughts" and "sinful acts." (119)
These "contrary feelings," which initially surfaced around the age of twelve, unleashed feelings of guilt and moral transgression. She found it impossible to leave behind the Catholic Church's prohibitions regarding homosexuality, and religious themes found their way into how she initially came to define herself as a sexual subject-in a devil-like form. "I wrote poems describing my- self as a centaur: half-animal/half-human, hairy-rumped and cloven-hoofed, como el diablo. The images emerged from a deeply Mexican and Catholic place" (124).

As her earliest sexual feelings were laden with religious images, so too were they shaped by images of herself in a male-like form. This is understandable in light of the fact that only men in Chicano culture are granted sexual subjectivity . Consequently, Moraga instinctively gravitated toward a butch persona and assumed a male-like stance toward other women.
In the effort to avoid embodying la chingada, I became the ching?n. In the effort not to feel fucked, I became the fucker, even with women. ...The fact of the matter was that all those power struggles of "having" and "being had" were played out in my own bedroom. And in my psyche, they held a particular Mexican twist. (126)
In a candid and courageously outspoken conversation with lesbian activist Amber Hollibaugh, Moraga recounts that:
what turned me on sexually, at a very early age, had to do with the fantasy of capture, taking a woman, and my identification was with the man. ...The truth is, I do have some real gut-level misgivings about my sexual connection with capture. It might feel very sexy to imagine "taking" a woman, but it has sometimes occurred at the expense of my feeling, sexually, like I can surrender myself to a woman; that is, always needing to be the one in control, calling the shots. It's a very butch trip and I feel like this can keep me private and protected and can prevent me from fully being able to express myself. (Moraga and Hollibaugh 396)
Moraga's adult lesbian sexuality defined itself along the traditional butch/femme lines characteristic of lesbian relationships in the post-war period. It is likely that such an identity formation was also largely an expression of the highly gender-coded sexuality imparted through Chicano family life. In order to define herself as an autonomous sexual subject, she embraced a butch, or more masculine, gender persona, and crystallized a sexual desire for feminine, or femme, lovers.


From ?Chicano Men: A Cartography O Homosexual Identify and Behavior.? Men?s Lives. Kimmel and Messner. Allyn and Bacon. 2004
_______________________________________________________

article #2 Sexism and Misogyny: Who Takes the Rap?

By bell hooks
From: about.com
Original title: Sexism and Misogyny: Who Takes the Rap? Misogyny, gangsta rap, and The Piano________
For the past several months white mainstream media has been calling me to hear my views on gangsta rap. Whether major television networks, or small independent radio shows, they seek me out for the black and feminist "take" on the issue. After I have my say, I am never called back, never invited to do the television shows or the radio spots. I suspect they call, confident that when we talk they will hear the hardcore "feminist" trash of gangsta rap. When they encounter instead the hardcore feminist critique of white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, they lose interest. To white dominated mass media, the controversy over gangsta rap makes great spectacle. Besides the exploitation of these issues to attract audiences, a central motivation for highlighting gangsta rap continues to be the sensationalist drama of demonizing black youth culture in general and the contributions of young black men in particular. It is a contemporary remake of "Birth of a Nation" only this time we are encouraged to believe it is not just vulnerable white womanhood that risks destruction by black hands but everyone. When I counter this demonization of black males by insisting that gangsta rap does not appear in a cultural vacuum, but, rather, is expressive of the cultural crossing, mixings, and engagement of black youth culture with the values, attitudes, and concerns of the white majority, some folks stop listening.
The sexist, misogynist, patriarchal ways of thinking and behaving that are glorified in gangsta rap are a reflection of the prevailing values in our society, values created and sustained by white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. As the crudest and most brutal expression of sexism, misogynistic attitudes tend to be portrayed by the dominant culture as an expression of male deviance. In reality they are part of a sexist continuum, necessary for the maintenance of patriarchal social order. While patriarchy and sexism continue to be the political and cultural norm in our society, feminist movement has created a climate where crude expressions of male domination are called into question, especially if they are made by men in power. It is useful to think of misogyny as a field that must be labored in and maintained both to sustain patriarchy but also to serve as an ideological anti-feminist backlash. And what better group to labor on this "plantation" than young black men.
To see gangsta rap as a reflection of dominant values in our culture rather than as an aberrant "pathological" standpoint does not mean that a rigorous feminist critique of the sexist and misogyny expressed in this music is not needed. Without a doubt black males, young and old, must be held politically accountable for their sexism. Yet this critique must always be contextualized or we risk making it appear that the behaviors this thinking supports and condones,--rape, male violence against women, etc.-- is a black male thing. And this is what is happening. Young black males are forced to take the "heat" for encouraging, via their music, the hatred of and violence against women that is a central core of patriarchy.
Witness the recent piece by Brent Staples in the "New York Times" titled "The Politics of Gangster Rap: A Music Celebrating Murder and Misogyny." Defining the turf Staples writes: "For those who haven't caught up, gangster rap is that wildly successful music in which all women are `bitches' and `whores' and young men kill each other for sport." No mention of white supremacist capitalist patriarchy in this piece, not a word about the cultural context that would need to exist for young males to be socialized to think differently about gender. Staples assumes that black males are writing their lyrics off in the "jungle," away from the impact of mainstream socialization and desire. At no point in his piece does he ask why huge audiences, especially young white male consumers, are so turned on by this music, by the misogyny and sexism, by the brutality? Where is the anger and rage at females expressed in this music coming from, the glorification of all acts of violence? These are the difficult questions that Staples feels no need to answer.
One cannot answer them honestly without placing accountability on larger structures of domination and the individuals (often white, usually male but not always) who are hierarchically placed to maintain and perpetuate the values that uphold these exploitative and oppressive systems. That means taking a critical looking at the politics of hedonistic consumerism, the values of the men and women who produce gangsta rap. It would mean considering the seduction of young black males who find that they can make more money producing lyrics that promote violence, sexism, and misogyny than with any other content. How many disenfranchised black males would not surrender to expressing virulent forms of sexism, if they knew the rewards would be unprecedented material power and fame?
More than anything gangsta rap celebrates the world of the "material, " the dog-eat-dog world where you do what you gotta do to make it. In this world view killing is necessary for survival. Significantly, the logic here is a crude expression of the logic of white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. In his new book "Sexy Dressing, Etc." privileged white male law professor Duncan Kennedy gives what he calls "a set of general characterizations of U. S. culture" explaining that, "It is individual (cowboys), material (gangsters) and philistine." Using this general description of mainstream culture would lead us to place "gangsta rap" not on the margins of what this nation is about, but at the center. Rather than being viewed as a subversion or disruption of the norm we would need to see it as an embodiment of the norm.
That viewpoint was graphically highlighted in the film "Menace To Society" which dramatized not only young black males killing for sport, but also mass audiences voyeuristically watching and, in many cases, "enjoying" the kill. Significantly, at one point in the movie we see that the young black males have learned their "gangsta" values from watching television and movies--shows where white male gangsters are center stage. This scene undermines any notion of "essentialist" blackness that would have viewers believe the gangsterism these young black males embraced emerged from some unique black cultural experience.
When I interviewed rap artist Ice Cube for "Spin" magazine last year, he talked about the importance of respecting black women and communication across gender. He spoke against male violence against women, even as he lapsed into a justification for anti- woman rap lyrics by insisting on the madonna/whore split where some females "carry" themselves in a manner that determines how they will be treated. When this interview was published, it was cut to nothing. It was a mass media set-up. Folks (mostly white and male) had thought if the hardcore feminist talked with the hardened black man, sparks would fly; there would be a knock-down drag out spectacle. When Brother Cube and I talked to each other with respect about the political, spiritual, and emotional self- determination of black people, it did not make good copy. Clearly folks at the magazine did not get the darky show they were looking for.
After this conversation, and talking with rappers and folks who listen to rap, it became clear that while black male sexism is a serious problem in our communities and in black music, some of the more misogynist lyrics were there to stir up controversy and appeal to audiences. Nowhere is this more evident that in Snoop Doggy Dogg's record "Doggystyle". A black male music and cultural critic called me to ask if I had checked this image out; to share that for one of the first times in his music buying life he felt he was seeing an image so offensive in its sexism and misogyny that he did not want to take that image home. That image (complete with doghouse, beware the dog sign, with a naked black female head in a doghouse, naked butt sticking out) was reproduced, "uncritically," in the November 29, 1993 issue of "Time" magazine. The positive music review of this album, written by Christopher John Farley, is titled "Gangsta Rap, Doggystyle" makes no mention of sexism and misogyny, makes no reference to the cover. I wonder if a naked white female body had been inside the doghouse, presumably waiting to be fucked from behind, if "Time" would have reproduced an image of the cover along with their review. When I see the pornographic cartoon that graces the cover of "Doggystyle," I do not think simply about the sexism and misogyny of young black men, I think about the sexist and misogynist politics of the powerful white adult men and women (and folks of color) who helped produce and market this album.
In her book "Misogynies" Joan Smith shares her sense that while most folks are willing to acknowledge unfair treatment of women, discrimination on the basis of gender, they are usually reluctant to admit that hatred of women is encouraged because it helps maintain the structure of male dominance. Smith suggests: "Misogyny wears many guises, reveals itself in different forms which are dictated by class, wealth, education, race, religion and other factors, but its chief characteristic is its pervasiveness." *

Contrary to a racist white imagination which assumes that most young black males, especially those who are poor, live in a self- created cultural vacuum, uninfluenced by mainstream, cultural values, it is the application of those values, largely learned through passive uncritical consumption of mass media, that is revealed in "gangsta rap." Brent Staples is willing to challenge the notion that "urban primitivism is romantic" when it suggests that black males become "real men" by displaying the will to do violence, yet he remains resolutely silent about that world of privileged white culture that has historically romanticized primitivism, and eroticized male violence. Contemporary films like "Reservoir Dogs" and "The Bad Lieutenant" celebrate urban primitivism and many less well done films ("Trespass, Rising Sun") create and/or exploit the cultural demand for depictions of hardcore blacks who are willing to kill for sport.
To take "gangsta rap" to task for its sexism and misogyny while critically accepting and perpetuating those expressions of that ideology which reflect bourgeois standards (no rawness, no vulgarity) is not to call for a transformation of the culture of patriarchy. Ironically, many black male ministers, themselves sexist and misogynist, are leading the attacks against gangsta rap. Like the mainstream world that supports white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, they are most concerned with calling attention to the vulgar obscene portrayals of women to advance the cause of censorship. For them, rethinking and challenging sexism, both in the dominant culture and in black life, is not the issue.
Mainstream white culture is not concerned about black male sexism and misogyny, particularly when it is unleashed against black women and children. It is concerned when young white consumers utilize black popular culture to disrupt bourgeois values. Whether it be the young white boy who expresses his rage at his mother by aping black male vernacular speech (a true story) or the masses of young white males (and middle class men of color) seeking to throw off the constraints of bourgeois bondage who actively assert in their domestic households via acts of aggression their rejection of the call to be "civilized. " These are the audiences who feel such a desperate need for gangsta rap. It is much easier to attack gangsta rap than to confront the culture that produces that need.
Gangsta rap is part of the anti-feminist backlash that is the rage right now. When young black males labor in the plantations of misogyny and sexism to produce gangsta rap, their right to speak this violence and be materially rewarded is extended to them by white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. Far from being an expression of their "manhood," it is an expression of their own subjugation and humiliation by more powerful, less visible forces of patriarchal gangsterism. They give voice to the brutal raw anger and rage against women that it is taboo for "civilized" adult men to speak. No wonder then that they have the task of tutoring the young, teaching them to eroticize and enjoy the brutal expressions of that rage (teaching them language and acts) before they learn to cloak it in middle-class decorum or Robert Bly style reclaimings of lost manhood. The tragedy for young black males is that they are so easily dunned by a vision of manhood that can only lead to their destruction.
Feminist critiques of the sexism and misogyny in gangsta rap, and in all aspects of popular culture, must continue to be bold and fierce. Black females must not be duped into supporting shit that hurts us under the guise of standing beside our men. If black men are betraying us through acts of male violence, we save ourselves and the race by resisting. Yet, our feminist critiques of black male sexism fail as meaningful political intervention if they seek to demonize black males, and do not recognize that our revolutionary work is to transform white supremacist capitalist patriarchy in the multiple areas of our lives where it is made manifest, whether in gangsta rap, the black church, or the Clinton administration.
____________________________________________________________

Article# 3- DO WE HATE OUR WOMEN?

By Michael Eric Dyson

From: Holler if You Hear Me: Searching for Tupac Shakur. Basic Civitas Books. 2001.


In many ways it appears too easy, and just downright sexist, to blame women for the
hateful sentiments that pass for gender commentary in hip-hop. Most rappers inherit their beliefs about women long before they find fame and fortune in hip-hop. Still, it is undeniable that they encounter young women whose chief goal is to bring pleasure to rap stars and to procure, in Snoop Dogg's term, "superstar dick." Groupies are a staple not just of hip-hop but all forms of masculine endeavor, from the dugout to the pulpit, from the blues hall to the boardroom. It is one thing to cast aspersions on women deemed to be loose and destructive in their sexual demeanor. It is another to judge all women as bitches or whores or to defend oneself, as rappers often do, by claiming, "I'm not talking about all women, just the ones I meet who act like bitches and hos."

The problem is, they never seem to meet or describe any other women besides"bitches" or "hos." (But the hypocrisy of the double standard must not be missed. Groupie sexual culture attempts, however desperately and self-destructively, to right the imbalance in the circulation of sexual pleasures that allows men to be promiscuous as a condition of their maturing masculinity, whereas women bear the stigma of "ho" for their equally aggressive erotic experimentation.) Neither does such a judgment take into account the political economy of the "ho." If social empathy for young black males is largely absent in public opinion and public policies, the lack of understanding and compassion for the difficulties faced by poor young black females is even more deplorable.

There exists within quarters of black life a range of justifications for black male behavior. Even if they are not wholly accepted by other blacks or by the larger culture, such justifications have a history and possess social resonance. Young black males hustle because they are poor. They become pimps and playas because the only role models they had are pimps and playas. Black males rob because they are hungry. They have babies because they seek to prove their masculinity in desultory paternity. They rap about violence because they came to maturity in enclaves of civic horror where violence is the norm. Black males do poorly in school because they are deprived of opportunity and ambition.

Yet there are few comparable justifications for the black female's beleaguered status. The lack of accepted social justifications for black women's plight would lead one to assume that black women do not confront incest, father deprivation, economic misery, social dislocation, domestic abuse, maternal abandonment, and a host of other ills. If they do, these factors apparently have nothing to do with their crippling lack of self-esteem that leads to self-defeating actions. Neither do these factors have anything to do with the sexually compensatory behavior in which these young girls might participate. Obviously, these young women were not seduced into becoming seducers by the messages of a culture addicted to sexual stimulation.

And perhaps there's no excuse for poor young black women believing that their bodies are their tickets to pleasure - besides, that is all the cues they get from pimps, playas, teachers, preachers, daddies, hustlers, and mentors. Apparently, there are no cultural influences-no magazines or television shows-that lead them to believe that their sexuality might suspend their misery, if even for a few gilded moments at the end of the night in the backseat of a car on the edge of town-and perhaps their sanity. The factors that might contribute to a young woman's behaving ?promiscuously,? or recklessly or even daringly are rarely considered in hip-hop, since the political economy of the "ho" is severely undervalued. (Of course it must be conceded that the definition of "ho" for many men is infamously slippery. If women give sex easily, they're "hos." If they don't, they're "bitches.')

In its punishing hypocrisy, hip-hop at once deplores and craves the exuded, paraded sexuality of the "ho." As it is with most masculine cultures, many of the males in hip-hop seek promiscuous sex while resenting the women with whom they share it. This variety of femiphobia turns on the stylish dishonesty that is transmuted into masculine wisdom: Never love or partner with the women you sleep with. Such logic imbues the male psyche with a toleration of split affinities that keep it from being fatally (as opposed to usefully) divided - the male can enjoy the very thing he despises, as long as it assumes its "proper" place. In order for "it" - promiscuous sex - to assume its proper place in male lives, women must assume their proper places. They must occupy their assigned roles with an eye to fulfilling their function as determined by men. If they are "hos," they are to give unlimited, uncontested sex. If they are girlfriends or wives, they are to provide a stable domestic environment where sex is dutiful and proper. The entire arrangement is meant to maximize male sexual autonomy while limiting female sexuality, even if by dividing it into acceptable and un-acceptable categories. The thought that a girlfriend or wife might be an ex-ho is a painful thought in such circles. The hip-hop credo can be summed up in this way: I want to chase women, but I want my woman to be chaste.

Hip-hop culture has helped to reduce the female form to its bare essence. Black women appear in rap videos in increasing stages of undress as a way for black men to bond in masculine solidarity. Even the ostensible perks of the rap video - it features black women's bodies, which are usually degraded by the larger culture, especially the black derriere, and it provides a launching pad for a career in "the industry" - fail to make men into the advocates of female opportunity that some claim to be. Praising the rump, while certainly praiseworthy on some scores, is not a feminist or particularly liberating gesture in itself, though it might be if it figured in a larger scheme to tell the complete story of black female identity.

Instead, the degraded black female body is revictimized when it is eyed primarily to satisfy the male sexual appetite. Hip-hop reflects the intent of the entire culture: to reduce black female sexuality to its crudest, most stereotypical common denominator. As Sonia Sanchez says, the country tries to "asphyxiate our daughters in a state of undress, and convince them that they're hos. Even in college they [try to make them] hos. Any place [young women] walk, the country says, 'I'm going to take you back to hoedom."' I am not arguing that there are not interesting ways that explicit sexuality is engaged in hip-hop that appeal to signifying traditions in black culture. I am addressing some brutal sexual beliefs within hip-hop that reflect the sadistic sexism of the larger culture. If hip-hop has any virtue in this regard, it is that it uncovers what the larger culture attempts to mask.

The bitch-ho nexus in hip-hop is but the visible extension of mainstream society's complicated, and often troubling, gender beliefs

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Article#4 -THE MISEDUCATION OF BOYS Changing the Script *
MYRA SADKER AND DAVID SADKER
Boys confront frozen boundaries of the male role at every turn of school life. They grow up practicing lines and learning moves from a time worn script: Be cool, don't show emotion, repress feelings, be aggressive, compete and win. As the script is internalized, boys learn to look down on girls and to distance themselves from any activity considered feminine. Dutifully they follow the lines of the script, but now changes are being made in the plot. Today's schoolboys are learning lines for a play that is closing. Consider these statistics:
? From elementary school through high school, boys receive lower report card grades. By middle school they are far more likely to be grade repeaters and dropouts (1)
? Boys experience more difficulty adjusting to school. They are nine times more likely to suffer from hyperactivity and higher levels of academic stress. (2)
? The majority of students identified for special education programs are boys. They represent 58 percent of those in classes for the mentally retarded, 71 percent of the learning disabled, and 80 percent of those in programs for the emotionally disturbed. (3)
? In school, boys' misbehavior results in more frequent penalties, including corporal punishment. Boys comprise 71 percent of all school suspensions. (4)
Beyond academic problems, conforming to a stereotypic role takes a psychological toll:
? Boys are three times more likely to become alcohol dependent and 50 percent more likely to use illicit drugs. Men account for more than 90 percent of alcohol- and drug-related arrests. (5)
? Risk-taking behavior goes beyond drug and alcohol abuse. The leading cause of death among fifteen- to twenty-four-year-old white males is accidents. Teenage boys are more likely to die from gunshot wounds than from all natural causes combined. (6)

? Many boys are encouraged to pursue unrealistically high career goals. When these are not attained, males often feel like failures, and a life- long sense of frustration may follow. (7)
? Males commit suicide two to three times more frequently than females. (8)
The problems for minority males are more devastating:
? Approximately one in every three black male teenagers is unemployed, and those who are working take home paychecks with 30 percent less salary than white workers. (9)
? It is estimated that 25 percent of black youths' income results directly from crime and that one in every six African-American males is arrested by age nineteen. (10)
? The odds of a young white woman being a murder victim are one in 369; for a young white man, one in 131; for an African-American woman, one in 104; and for an African -American man, a shocking one in 21. Homicide is the leading cause of death for young black men. (11)
City by city, the statistics are even more alarming. In New York City, about three out of four black males never make it to graduation, and in Milwaukee, 94 percent of all expelled students are African-American boys. (12) Milwaukee, Detroit, and Chicago consider black males an " endangered academic species" and have resorted to some radical solutions.
Milwaukee was one of the first cities to create black male academies, public schools that serve only African-American boys. The idea spread to other metropolitan areas, along with the notion that the best teachers for black boys are black men. At Matthew Henson Elementary School in a poor, drug- infested section of Baltimore, Richard Boynton teaches a class of young black students. Most of them grew up without fathers, so Boynton's responsibilities go beyond the classroom. "There are three things I enforce," he said, " three things I want them to know in that room: responsibility, respect, and self- control. I feel that these three things will not only carry you through school, they'll carry you through life." (13) So Boynton checks to make sure that all the boys have library cards. On weekends he takes them to the Smithsonian or to play ball in the park. "It's almost as if I have twenty-seven sons," he said. Boynton tries to create a school that will turn each of his " sons" on to education. But not everyone is convinced that teaching black males separately is the best approach.
"I read these things, and I can't believe that we're actually regressing like this," said African-American psychologist Kenneth Clark. "Why are we talking about segregating and stigmatizing black males?" (14) Oark's stinging observations are particularly potent since his research paved the way for the 1954 Brown decision that desegregated America's schools. Other critics charge that black male academies are little more than a return to the cries of "woman peril," scapegoating female teachers, criticizing black mothers, and ignoring the needs of African-American girls. NOW, the ACLU, and several courts have found separate black male education to be an example of sex discrimination and a violation of the law.
Morningside Elementary School in Prince Georges County, Maryland, is not a black male academy, but its students take special pride in their school team, the Master Knights. Tuesdays and Thursdays are team days, and the members, wearing blue pants and white shirts, devote recess and afternoons to practice. But the Knights, the majority of whom are young black boys, differ from other school teams. Their practices take place in the school library, and the arena in which they compete is chess.
The idea for the team originated in the office of Beulah McManus, the guidance counselor. When children, most often African-American boys, were referred to her as behavior problems, she pulled out a worn chess set. Some- how the game got boys talking, and eventually they found out they enjoyed chess, with its emphasis on tactics and skill, and the chance to compete on a field where size and strength mattered less than brains. As Gregory Bridges, the twelve-year-old president of the Master Knights, said, "When you see someone who is big and bad on the streets, you hardly see anyone who plays chess. ...You have to have patience and a cool head, and that patience carries outside the chess club." (15) While Morningside emphasizes the importance of getting African-American boys excited about education, girls are not excluded, says principal Elsie Neely. In fact, the school is trying to recruit more female players for next year.
While Morningside stresses extracurricular activities in order to involve boys, some teachers are bringing lessons that challenge the male sex role stereotype directly into the classroom. Often they use the growing number of children's books that show boys expanding their roles. In a fourth-grade class we watched a teacher encouraging boys to push the borders of the male stereotype. As we observed her lesson, we were struck by how much effort it took to stretch outmoded attitudes. She began by writing a letter on the board.

Dear Adviser:
My seven-year-old son wants me to buy him a doll. I don't know what to do. Should I go ahead and get it for him? Is this normal, or is my son sick? Please help!
Waiting for your answer,
Concerned

"Suppose you were an advice columnist, like Ann Landers," the teacher said to the class, " and you received a letter like this. What would you tell this parent? Write a letter answering 'Concerned,? and then we'll talk about your recommendations."
For the next twenty minutes she walked around the room and gave suggestions about format and spelling. When she invited the students to read their letters, Andy volunteered.

Dear Concerned:
You are in big trouble. Your son is sick, sick, sick! Get him to a psychiatrist fast. And if he keeps asking for a doll, get him bats and balls and guns and other toys boys should play with.
Hope this helps,
Andy

Several other students also read their letters, and most, like Andy, recommended that the son be denied a doll. Then the teacher read Charlotte Zolotow's William's Doll, the story of a boy who is ridiculed by other children when he says he wants a doll. Not until his grandmother visits does he get his wish so that, as the wise woman says, he can learn to be a father one day.
As the teacher was reading, several students began to fidget, laugh, and whisper to one another. When she asked the fourth graders how they liked the book, one group of boys, the most popular clique in the class, acted as if the story was a personal insult. Their reaction was so hostile; the teacher had trouble keeping order. We heard their comments:
"He's a fag."
"He'd better learn how boys are supposed to behave, or he'll never get to be a man."
"If I saw him playing with that baby doll, I' d take it away. Maybe a good kick in the pants would teach him."
"Dolls are dumb. It's a girly thing to do."
Next the teacher played the song "William Wants a Doll" from the Free to Be You and Me album. Several boys began to sing along in a mocking tone, dragging out the word doll until it became two syllables: "William wants a do-oll, William wants a do-oll." As they chanted, they pointed to Bill, the star athlete of the class. Both boys and girls whispered and laughed as Bill, slumped in his chair, looked ready to explode.
Belatedly the teacher realized the problem of the name coincidence; she assured the class that there was nothing wrong with playing with dolls, that it teaches both girls and boys how to become parents when they grow up. When the students began to settle down, she gave them her next instructions: "I'd like you to reread your letters and make any last-minute corrections. If you want to change your advice, you may, but you don't have to."
Later we read the students' letters. Most of them said a seven-year-old boy should not get a doll. But after listening to William?s story, six modified their advice, having reached a similar conclusion: "Oh, all right. Give him a doll if you have to. But no baby dolls or girl dolls. Make sure it' s a Turtle or a G. I. Joe."
For some nontraditional programs, reading William's Doll is just a first step. At Germantown Friends School in Philadelphia, parenting classes begin in elementary school, where children learn to observe, study, and interact with infants. By the sixth grade both boys and girls are in charge of caring for babies at school. Programs that make child-rearing a central and required part of school life find that boys become more nurturant and caring in their relationships with others.
Schools in New York City and other communities are downplaying aggression and encouraging cooperation through programs in conflict resolution. In these courses students learn how to negotiate and compromise while they avoid attitudes and actions that lead to violence. Students learn techniques in how to control anger, to listen carefully to others, and to seek common ground.
These innovative courses are rare. Most schools are locked in a more traditional model, one that promotes competition over cooperation, aggression over nurturing, and sports victories rather than athletic participation. Some boys thrive on this traditional male menu, and most students derive some benefit. But the school program is far from balanced, and the education served to boys is not always healthy despite the extra portions they receive.
From their earliest days at school, boys learn a destructive form of division-- how to separate themselves from girls. Once the school world is divided, boys can strive to climb to the top of the male domain, thinking that even if they fall short, they still are ahead of the game because they are not girls. Boys learn in the classroom that they can demean girls at will. Schools that do not permit racist, ethnic, or religious slights still tolerate sexism as a harmless bigotry.
In American Manhood, Athony Rotundo writes that men need to regain ? access to stigmatized parts of themselves--tenderness, nurturance, the desire for connection, the skills of cooperation--that are helpful in personal situations and needed for the social good." (16) Studies support Rotundo's contention: Males who can call on a range of qualities, tenderness as well as toughness, are viewed by others as more intelligent, likable, and mentally healthy than rigidly stereotyped men. (17) But boys cannot develop these repressed parts of themselves without abandoning attitudes that degrade girls. Until gender equity becomes a value promoted in every aspect of school, boys, as victims of their own miseducation, will grow up to be troubled men; they will be saddened by unmet expectations, unable to communicate with women as equals, and unprepared for modem life.
____________________________________________________________