Philosophy and Gender: Bri Blake

  Collins writes: "Just as the traditional family ideals provide a rich site for understanding intersectional inequalities, reclaiming notions of family that reject hierarchical thinking may provide an intriguing and important cite of resistance." In light of the arguments that Collins makes about gender and race in the context of what she calls the "logic of the traditional family ideal", what could resistance of this sort look like? How effective do you think that sort of resistance would be, as compared to the efforts of other strategies political movements use in an attempt to bring about change?      Resistance to what is the "traditional family ideal" can look like so many things. First, I think it would be important to recognize what that traditional family ideal. To me, that is the family who benefits from our society the most and has the most privilege. To me, it would be a white family. White privilege is alive and real in our society. The tradit...

  Do you think that it was, in Rousseau’s time, genuinely in the interest of girls to be educated in the way he proposes? What about today?  As a person reading Rousseau's ideas in 2020 it can be difficult at times to appreciate what he is saying. To me, it felt so sexist and that he was forcing gender roles onto women and men. But after going back and reading it over, along with the pages following Rousseau's ideas in a modern perspective, I do see where he was coming from. He even said that he does not see women as inferior to men, that we are "different but equal" (153). I still don't know if I can totally agree that it was in the best interest of girls to be educated in the way he proposes. He felt women should be educated to know their place in society. To be taught the ways to attract and keep a husband, think about what you say because people will think of your remarks, and learn to grow accustomed to being interrupted (152). I do understand though, at the ...

  What do you think about women-only spaces? Are they appropriate? For music festivals? For protest marches? For rape shelters? Is there any reason to limit such spaces to cis-women? I understand the want for women-only spaces. It allows women to feel more safe and comfortable, not having to worry about certain issues that can come about when dealing with the opposite sex. It's one way that women can feel empowered, to have power in this patriarchal society. I think they can be appropriate, but it depends on what they are doing and who they allow.  The textbook discusses separatist feminists and their want for women-only spaces. In this case, I felt there were many issues. Separatist feminists do not believe that trans-women are real women. Separatist feminists "regard trans men as having abandoned their female identity in order to pursue male privilege. By contrast, they often regard trans women as still infected with the male privilege with which they grew up" (111). Th...

 Religion plays a major role in our society. Because I have lived here my entire life and it is something I am personally aware of and affected by, I am going to focus on Christianity and it's influence in the United States of America. Here, religion plays such a major role, even in places where it should not. The Bible is used to justify so many different things such as laws, ways of life, and of course gender roles. People will use the Bible to argue that abortion is murder, to be gay is a sin, and that God makes no mistakes therefore a transgender person is just mentally ill. In this society, the Bible plays such a major role. People are constantly referring to it and talking about how America is a Christian country, therefore it should follow the rules of this religious text. Many will try to use it as a way to enforce gender roles as well. They will say that woman was created from the rib of Adam, and because of that men are superior. Shannon Dea writes in Beyond the Binary ...

 In Robin Dembroff and Daniel Wodak's article, "He/She/They/Ze", the authors dive deep into the modern world and use of preferred pronouns. They make claims that we should respect others' pronouns, something that I of course whole-heartedly agree with. Each and every person, no matter if they are transgender or non-binary or anything else, has preferred pronouns. Plus, calling someone by the pronouns they prefer is such an easy and simple thing to do. For those who refuse to respect others' preferred pronouns, they are just going out of their way to be unkind and mean. In the article though, the authors make another claim. This is, as they call it, the radical claim. The radical claim is that "we have a negative duty to not to use any gender-specific pronouns to refer to anyone, regardless of their gender identity" (371). The authors make several points to uphold this claim. By not referring to anyone with a specific gender pronoun, then there would be n...