The Game and its dynamic

Feminist theory has often uncomfortably touching on the issue of prostitution: whether it should be legal or not legal; whether the men and women who participate in it should have benefits, health care coverage, and the like.

Those who are pro-legalization within the feminist spectrum see it as an analogy to the abortion issue: if it is not legal, it is not safe for women to engage in. But prostitution becomes more controversial because it represents an active choice, usually based on circumstances of class, race, or gender.

Illegal prostitution in the United States works in a system of “pimps and hos.” After observing behavioral patterns in the film, “American Pimp,” the most probable question raised encompasses why women stand to serve a man to simply “take care of her” with the given risks of beatings, disease, pregnancy, exposure to drugs, and or death–why she would not simply keep all the money for herself and minimize risks. This is all due to a network and a familial-structured dynamic that empowers lower-class women.

Picture the 1950s suburban middle-class family. The man leaves for work all day, transferring his allowance and authority to his wife for household purchases and maintenance for him and his entitlements (his children). The wife cooks, cleans, and if the husband is laid off, she gets a small job to make due.

In the present day pimp/prostitute relationship, two lower-class and often interracial people come together–the woman working all day alleviating her allowance to her pimp to take care of her own entitlements–this being herself. Meanwhile, the Black male (the pimp) becomes empowered through the White male’s power points: 1) economic fulfillment, and 2) sexual fulfillment.

Both become empowered through segways into suburban society through distorted contradictions of it, and thus both become financially successful.

Almighty She

The United States undeniably perpetuates the ultimate images of Western civilization idolatry.

While Christianity advocates the worship of one individual God, capitalism advocates the worship of the individual. The nation was founded on Christianity, adheres to it in holiday free time (i.e. no one gets obligatory time off for Hanukkah or Kwanzaa), subliminally pushes its values (i.e. abstinence before marriage, and marriage in general), and continues to claim it in the face of any other religious practice in regard to its countrymen. Every moral issue on the ballot is decided by how much one is affected by Christian teachings.

But as John Stuart Mill said, to be born a Churchman in London is to be born a Buddhist in Peking.

Our country has sewn a a regional patriarchy with threads of religion.

The main women within the Holy Bible are as follows: Eve, Mary, and Mary Magdalene.

Eve: The first woman. She was created for a man, from a man. The only difference: she messed stuff up, and he didn’t. Eve came to represent the chewer of the forbidden fruit, now having to bear the fruit because of her gained intelligence.

Mary: The mother of Christ, and the most worshipped, treasured and prayed to woman of Christianity. Mary was a virgin when she gave birth. Therefore, our society puts the most pride in a woman who is a virgin and can procreate. Mary is the idyllic image of woman; she is PURE, YOUNG, INNOCENT–she is taken pity on by a big, warm God. She gives birth to a White man who saves the world.

Mary Magdalene: the bad Mary, the whore. She can only be saved by the touch of a White man and by his forgiveness, to which she will become pure, innocent, idyllic.

What does this say about the U.S. regional patriarchy? If the country is founded on the teachings of men, interpreted by the teachings of men, it shall be preyed upon by men. The “Mary”s simply do not exist. No virgin will ever give birth, and no whore will be saved by anyone, because she most likely is not a whore.

Eve is the only genuinely acclaimed representative of the current American woman: being banished from the White man’s paradise, being forbidden because of desire for intelligence, and giving birth to sons who would sooner kill one another than recognize that they themselves will teach, interpret, and prey (not pray) until her own demise.

Capitalism is the individual man; Christianity is the individual God.

A proposition to western civilization: include women in “individual”‘s definition.

“Man” overboard.

MAN

a)_____________ evolved from ape.

b)Whatever, _________.

Which sentence is most likely to be said by a man directed to a woman?
Go on; admit it.

The pleasures of language intoxicate male speakers, the high deriving from the gender power structure that laces the bonding word, “man.”

The mentioned sociological observation has taken form from the collective and individual actions of three surveyed men. Each time these men were introduced to a female, he politely or off-handedly said, “Hi, my name is _______.” Depending on how significant this female was to the situation, he either continued to chat in a conversational fashion that was often uncomfortable and unfamiliar, or if she seemed insignificant to the occurrence, ignored her.

Each time these men were introduced to a male, an immediate hand went out for a shake, and the word “man” was thrown down. Usually these men either stuck together to play the “male side” of a conversation with the women, or would compliment one another about explicitly apparent shared interests (once two “men” are established, they can force-feed the “man”-ego).

Before moving the argument further, it is noted that many women also use the term, “man,” interchangeably with other women and other men who are close with them. It is argued that a woman saying it in this sense usually depicts a woman who is less affected by society’s ideals of femininity– The extension of “man” implies an equality and recognition of similarity, of “fellow man.” Women such as these have tried to reclaim the term to establish equality in social situations.

However, when a man addresses another man with the word, “man,” and is introduced to a woman the next second and does not, he reduces the term from the inherent “fellow” of “fellow man,” to “man” as in “male.” The bond then knots itself into conversational tactic when groups of men and women openly interact. The term shows an instant recognition of sharing the role of the dominant biological-sex, and thus unifying to recreate this domination and subordination of women in “small life details,” also called, the short-run.

The long-run: this can be compared to other shared commonalities in the intersections of race, gender, class, sex, and ethnicity. Observably, racial slurs are terms of endearment in certain communities. The slurs are used in order to restore power in the term for that community and to reduce the community’s vulnerability to the term. This also applies to gender slurs: for example, words like “queer” for the gay community and “cunt” for the feminist community.

The male sex (race is not a factor here) uses this term to reinforce unity and to set a standard. Its use denotes that even though women can use the term, men still own it as “man” should. That is, even though women have proven they can be equal, “man” still owns.

You want to fight for equal rights today? Fight the “man.” Throw him overboard.

What abortion means: Redefining the woman.

Abortion was never followed by the word “debate” until history allowed in recent centuries—The debate itself, like abortion, has evolved to represent not just its literal action, but also what it symbolizes in a society that is often framed by black and white extremist controversy. The abortion debate is not necessarily about the referendum of the meaning of motherhood, as Luker (1984) argued, or about women’s sexual liberation. Although both of these are significant aspects, the underlying truth of the debate lies in its ability to revolutionize the definition of womanhood.

The concept of motherhood has been the nagging mechanism encircling the woman’s role in the political spectrum . It was up to the woman to give birth to sturdy republican sons and superior citizens in order to further advance society. Mothers’ jobs as “citizens” were private and described as “inclusive” and “intimate.” A childless woman was a “menace to social purity and national stability” (Pateman, 1992). As women moved further from the private sphere to the public, so did their societal awareness. Abortion challenged the archaic gender ideas that were so deeply ingrained into a flourishing world greedily drunk on newfound success. The challenge meant that “motherhood” and its conceptualizations were no longer a primary role, but a mere life option (McMillan, 2007). Women, then, could become individuals. As Luker (1984) says, “Abortion therefore strips the veil of sanctity from motherhood.” So why does the debate not center on this concept? –The focus is only half-hearted. Those women who share pro-life and “family moral” values have faith in their role as woman equals mother, but for a pro-choice woman, individuality and full life potential represent the centrifuge of her having the choice—not avoiding giving birth. To clarify, evaluating motherhood is only evaluating one path of a woman’s life, as would be evaluating fatherhood in a man’s, no matter the meaning.

On the opposite end of the dilemma lies the imitation of the male image to accomplish equality. This is not necessarily demonstrated via the second wave of feminism with the increased access to contraception and encouragement of sexual freedom, although equality was the goal sought within the movement. The liberators questioned the private and public boundaries of citizenship (Charles, 2000). Although little impact was made by the movement to motivate the liberalization of abortion laws, these liberators were often sited as the maintainers of the state of affairs. What they did accomplish was to push the national image of abortion from a medical issue, regulated by physicians, to a personal rights issue, regulated by the individual woman (Luker, 1984). A quote from Trebilcott’s Mothering: Essays in feminist theory (1984) indirectly demonstrates that sexual freedom is also not the center of the debate, however:
“Men don’t rear children because they don’t want to rear children. It is men’s advantage that women are assigned childrearing responsibility, and it is in men’s interest to keep things that way.”
If the center of the debate relied on solely on sexual freedom, the debate would exist between the oppression of the male image on woman’s sexuality and would have to ignore the population of women who favor conservative family values. These women could be grouped alongside the men-suppressors, but their argument remains more coincidental with the argument that motherhood is the primary role.

The evidence of the debate is in the definitions of abortion and womanhood. Abortion has endured a long history, but the history of its controversy is fairly new. The Roman Empire considered the child in a woman’s belly not a person. In colonial ages, abortion was forbidden only after the stage of quickening, when the child could be felt inside the stomach. It was not until the Christian church pushed for the rights of fathers and until physicians in the 19th century described abortions as “criminal” that controversy arose. Criminal abortions were labeled so because women were “committing a crime of ignorance,” due to their unconsciousness of the advancing field of science and medicinal discovery (Luker, 1984). The evolution of abortion has now progressed to not women of being ignorant to science but to values and morals. Men still represent freedom and women still represent subordination (Charles, 2000). Men still represent dominant citizenship and women still represent the producers of these citizens. At one point and still to some at this point, woman means mother—The following quote from the European Journal of Communication (2006) exhibits this argument:
“The crisis of masculinity created by shifts from industrial to post-industrial economy left many men without their traditional place in society. Working-class men were no longer able to fulfill their breadwinner roles. The newfound awareness was denigrated as the role of middle-class fathers and was often portrayed as ‘human incompetence’ and not as an equal partner in a relationship.”
The quote suggests that mean fear the equality of women because contradictorily they will become inferior. The abortion debate is often quoted on as a debate of values and morals, the same elements women who believe it is sanctity are portrayed not to cherish (Pateman, 1992). But is it a morals value, or an argument over the allocation of power? Humankind has evolved and continues to evolve at an outstanding speed, all the while suppressing women to be the second sex. Slowly women have begun to transcend from second to equal—They as a sex and as a gender are evolving. At one point the definition of a woman did mean mother. Abortion has attempted to redefine the woman as human. Therefore, motherhood and sexual freedom are merely just two opposite sides of the center of the argument, which discusses what a woman should be. Abortion symbolizes the portal to a complete evolution. Abortion symbolizes the portal to power.

Extending further into the debate that revolves around the meanings of femininity, the murky depth becomes exposed. The depth reveals a fuel for the argument—a fuel that seems to exist in a manner of simplicity: a power struggle. The role of men as societal superiors for all of time is marked by their duties of citizenship and the construction of male-dominated intellect. An interesting theory called womb envy reveals an underlying truth to the male psyche: the want and jealousy of being able to give birth in order to produce more of these high-quality “Republican citizens” (Trebilcott, 1984). Their power derives from their feeling of uselessness—They have a desire for immortality. Abortion has the strength to cut off this immortality. Men and some women (who still believe men to be the “breadwinners”) fear the descending from the superior role. Ultimately abortion can give women an insurmountable power: to be able to give life and to take it away all within one body and mind, elevating them to the highest evolution that is seen as godly. To have this power would supersede the powers that men possess.

To conclude: abortion is a debate about the definition of the woman, whether she is a mother or is a potential human being. The dispute is fueled by a gender power struggle that escalates with the evolution of the female. The meaning of motherhood and the element of women’s sexual freedom lie on opposite sides of the contest and characterize arguments that support what each side defines as a woman. The debate encompasses Freud’s “Biology is destiny;” The debate encompasses who women can be and what power they can have.

Why I won’t take his last name.

Taking someone’s last name in marriage does not make sense, especially in a relationship of equality.

Names represent identity. To say that a woman, who has for example lived a full potential fourth of her life should drop such an identity for the sake of marriage is an absurdity no one questions.

What if she likes her last name? What if she feels like her first and last name truly defines who she is, what she is, and everything she has come to be? And if the argument is that names do not matter, then why change them?

Historically, surnames did not exist until the 11th or 12th century. This is evident in such historical references as The Bible, i.e. Jesus of Nazareth, John the Baptist. Also from the Bible comes the adoption of the husband’s last name in marriage. That’s right, it’s biblical.

Through the scope of marriage, women have ranged from property to second-class citizens. Adopting the man’s last name was first suggested in The Bible to ensure wealth, protection, a new life, and one union under God. Women who lived their lives under one name were honored to take a new name; it was a sign of accomplishment for a women and it meant the fulfilling of her societal role: to begin a new life with a husband and to eventually produce good citizens.

The adopting of the last name also allowed women to more accurately identify with their husbands, who were the workers, landowners, decision-makers, and dominating party. Women then could rightfully claim a secondary ownership to these things based on a name.

Finally, women adopted the man’s last name to make a more complete union under God. How cute.

Why wouldn’t the man take the woman’s name? All societal signs scream, “Duh,” but for the really curious, I will say that since women began as property in marriage, it signifies the passing of property from the father (the man who gave her her original surname) to her new “owner,” her husband.

The question is, in a marriage that is equal, not under God, and when the woman is a real citizen able to make decisions under the protection of law and is able to form a real identity that society can accept under its stigmatizing conditions, why change the description of an identity we can finally cherish as equal?