Posted by Allison | Posted in | Posted on 3:34 PM
So I am in this Sociology of Sex and Gender class that I thought was going to be a huge feminist class but the book we are reading is actually rather enlightening. There are a couple of things that have been brewing that I wanted to bring up in here so here goes :D (also the first one is hard to explain without reading the book so if I need to clarify, let me know)
First: The author brings up a really good point when it comes to gender associations. When we think of the word gender usually females come into mind, right? Does this mean that only women have a gender? Let me explain. "The very processes that confer privilege to one group and not another group are often invisible to those upon whom that privilege is conferred. What make us marginal or powerless are the processes we see. " I mean that when it comes to gender, race, class, and power, when we have the upper-hand that privilege is invisible to us. I'll try to clarify using an example from the book: the author overheard a debate between a black woman and a white woman. The black woman asked what the white one saw when she looked into a mirror, she responded that she saw a woman. The black lady said that's where the trouble is, that when she looks into the mirror she sees a black woman. The author (who is a middle-class white male) said when he looks into a mirror he sees a human being. *Is this making any more sense?* Being Caucasian has for a long been looked at as a superior feature, as has being male, so since white males have the "upper-hand," at least as far as society is concerned, they have no race or gender. Everyone else has to declare themselves if they are seen by society as inferior, like women for example. Look at email addresses, why is it that the US is the only country that doesn't have to put a country code at the end? We are considered a very powerful nation so why should we have to declare ourselves to anyone less powerful?
My point is not be sexist or racist but more to get your minds turning about our invisible privileges. Thoughts?
Secondly (and in reference to the title of the post): Here is the quote according to evangelical preacher Jim Rutz:
"He argues that homosexuality is caused by insufficient amounts of the appropriate sex hormone and that therefore gay men are more 'feminine' than straight men. And, he claims, soy products, like tofu, contain large amounts of estrogen, so 'when you feed a baby soy formula, you're giving him or her the equivalent of five birth control pills a day.' Eating tofu can turn you gay. 'Soy is feminizing,' he claims, 'and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality.' This idea was recently translated into a commercial for Hummers, the ultimate compensation for insecure gender identity."
I thought everyone would find that amusing at least since our ongoing debate over vegetarianism.
Nice post.
I think there's something to the superiority idea, but I'm not sure that it extends beyond appearances - some kind of ideal phenotype. After all, when I think of hair, I think of brown hair, but I don't think it's superior to blonde or red hair, it's just more common. So it will be interesting to see if there is a shift in perceived dominance when whites become a minority in the next few decades.
I don't think it extends to country of origin evaluations, especially related to the internet: the internet originated here, that's why we don't have to put a country code in our email address. It's not an apparent superiority, it's an actual one. Or maybe it's really the same thing. I'll go ahead and declare it...people with brown hair are 32% more awesome than other people.
Well of course vegetarianism makes you gay. Everyone knows that interactions between sex hormones and sexuality is as simple as 'less testosterone = gay,' and consuming phytoestrogens from soy is exactly the same as having less testosterone. Phytoestrogens eat testosterone, duh! Besides if some evangelist says, "Soy is feminizing and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality,' then I believe him. He's an evangelist, he wouldn't lie!
Anyway, Mary Ellen: I was looking at Fruitarianism, and apparently pure fruitarianism isn't sustainable... :( oh well
holy crap u can make a child gay by giving them soy milk... that blows haha, well i know what to give me child...
Pretty interesting. Also, I totally agree with Jami about brown hair. I checked it out online. Seems to hold ground.
I'm not sure if I totally agree with the author. I mean, I think that they are just general identifiers. But I can't really back that with any evidence. Curse my white skin!
Also, I heard that if you eat WAY too much so, your penis can actually invert essentially causeing a sex change.
:O