My other car is a buggy.

I have been reading The Wall Street Journal. It is not a newspaper I would usually read but it is required reading for the Online Journalism course I am observing. You cannot imagine how much I am learning by reading this newspaper. For example, did you know that there is a genre of literature called bonnet books? They are—no lie—Amish romance novels. It is such a large subcategory of the romance fiction genre that these books have found positions on The New York Times bestseller lists; one author has even sold over 12 million copies of her G-rated novels.

Set in the Amish and/or Mennonite community, these stories contain, as Time magazine calls it,

story lines for horse-and-buggy piety.

Plotlines usually involve an Amish woman falling in love with a man outside the community or the angsty love between the Amish and Mennonite—a no-no in either religion.

These novels are written mostly by female authors, none of which are Amish or Mennonite. And while the intended audience is the mainstream reader of America, a loyal Amish following is quickly subsuming the genre. The Journal tries to define “Old Order Amish”

[they] shun modern technologies such as electricity and TV, forbid members to own cars and computers, and speak Pennsylvania Dutch, a German dialect. They sew their own clothes and try to lead simple lives based on faith and community.

I am wondering where bonnet books fall into all of this. Given the religious setting of the stories, I am assuming that all the relationships in the books are heterosexual and consensual. I am wondering, however, where “faith and community” fit in. How much sneaking around can be done for any illicit activity—G-rated or otherwise—in a community so closely tied with family and church?

I am not a reader of romance novels so I don’t really know how these narratives are rhetorically structured. I have nothing against them; I read enough fan fiction (SVU my latest obsession) to equal the page count of the entire Harlequin series, so I can see how these books would be popular. But I think there is some strong critical analysis that can be done concerning their popularity as a reflection of the current religious and political climate.

But an even stronger analysis can be done concerning the position of women in these stories—not only how women are treated within these religious environments but also where women are placed within the conflation of religion and romance. How is religion constructed by someone outside the faith? How is romance constructed, in relation? How might a subject location be identified or owned? There are so many places to go with this.

If you would like to read more about bonnet books, here are links to a few current articles:

They’re No Bodice Rippers, But Amish Romances Are Hot
Amish Romance Novels: No Bonnet Rippers
Carrie Bradshaw—in a bonnet?
And a list of the books on Amazon: Amish Fiction Books

I think the fact that these books are so popular among the Amish community leaves us something to consider about the changing definitions of religion and women’s roles within the religion. I’ll leave you to discuss those implications.

I took this with my iPhone a few weeks ago at The Coffee House on Exchange Street. Just sayin’.

 

Class discussion: body image

promo for Thin by Lauren Greenfield

 

Class discussion: aggression in female athletes

To correspond with Heywood, “All American Girls: Jock Chic, Body Image and Sports”

The video we watched in class and the one Tim suggested we watch. Both, very similar. Thanks to the female athletes in class that edu-ma-cated me on the difference between “strategy” and “dirty play” in sports!

New Mexico Lobos soccer player Elizabeth Lambert plays rough with BYU Going Viral ESPN

Raw Video: Brawl at Girls’ Soccer Game

 

Class discussion: Global Feminism

To correspond with Daly, “African Genital Mutilation:  The Unspeakable Atrocities”

Female Genital Cutting

Acid Attack

Chinese footbinding

UPDATE: “Bound by History: The Last of China’s ‘Lotus-Feet’ Ladies”

 

Guest blogger: Grace

19 out of 20 young women ‘would change bodies’
Response

A new study preformed by GirlGuiding UK has found that girls as young as seven years have wishes to change their bodies. According to the study’s results, 19 out of 20 women would “change bodies”. As the ages of the girls increased, so did the percentage of girls that wanted to change something about their selves.

72% of girls aged 7-11 wanted to change their bodies, especially regarding their teeth. 95% of 16-21 year old girls wanted to change their bodies, with 33% of them wishing to be thinner, and about 25% said that they would consider getting plastic surgery.

These results are sickening. A seven year old should not be worried about her appearance. She should be immersed in a world of music, laughter, and happiness, not anxiety due to her appearance. These overwhelming statistics are unacceptable, and there should be something done to change the way that media advertises women. As these girls of all age turn on the television, open up a magazine, or even play with their Barbie dolls, they are reminded of what an ideal woman looks like. Never have I seen a Barbie doll with some meat on her bones or a larger nose. Everywhere girls look there are facades of a woman’s body. Airbrushing, plastic surgery, and digital enhancements are the norm in advertising companies. Runway models are no longer a size 0, they are a 00. This is RIDICULOUS. It is NOT healthy. Girls need to realize that in order to be healthy, you cannot be a size 00.

These advertising companies need to stand back and take a look at the harm they are causing. Being plump used to be considered sexy, look at Marilynn Monroe, a gorgeous woman who was a size 14.

In the present, a woman that size would be laughed at if she tried to dance in a music video or walk the runway. The advertising companies are tricking men into thinking that women can look like bombshells when really; the woman is average looking prior to the photo shoot. Young girls want to look like the women portrayed in their favorite TV shows and magazines, and are considering changing their own bodies to become more like society’s established ideal woman.

To conclude this blog, I would like to leave you all with a little piece of information that was found from this study: 5% of 11-16 year old girls admitted that they wanted to use Botox. PLEASE tell me that CHANGE is coming. Please stop editing women—NORMAL, HEALTHY women are BEAUTIFUL!

 

what the eff?

Grace, from my Writer’s Seminar posted this in the comments section on the other course blog. I thought it needed to be posted here. Even though it does match my Writer’s Seminar theme of new technologies. In a twisted sort of way.

 

“There is like, ass for days.”

Allow me to paraphrase Reggie from today’s class. His summarizing representation of “the butt” in African American communities was, needless to say, a bit humorous.

I am posting some of the visuals we referenced today in class after discussing hooks, “Selling Hot Pussy: Representations of Black Female Sexuality in the Cultural Marketplace” and Aubry, “The Butt: Its Politics, Its Profanity, Its Power.”

A picture of Saartjie Baartman (Sarah Bartman), The Hottentot Venus

I am not going to post links here—you can run on your own Google search and find plenty on Bartman. Great possible Final Project topic.

Representations of “video vixens”

And of course, Sir Mix-A-Lot:

All easy images and to find on your own but I wanted to start a blog post on this topic as I could see that many of you had more to say on the subject but we ran short of time. (As usual!) So here you go, folks. Have at it!

 

Guest blogger: Merrill Amos

Gail Collins on The Colbert Report
Review (click on Colbert Nation for clip)

What initially struck me when I saw this clip was the fact that this is one of the rare situations in which you find Stephen Colbert being careful about what he says—at least until he has felt around a little to see Gail Collins’ reactions to preliminary examination of her topic. I just wanted to make a chronological overview of what I thought throughout this video.

So I knew that Virginia Slims were cigarettes, but I actually searched for “Virginia Slim ads” to see exactly what Colbert was talking about and found a whole slough of ads with usually either the phrase, “You’ve Come A Long Way, Baby” or “It’s A Woman Thing”. These cigarettes’ marketing campaign centered completely around the advancement of the women’s movement?!? Where have I been??

Next, I found it a little off-putting when he was like “I assume you want the ‘Ms.’…writing about the women’s movement”. While yes, it is more respectful to call a woman “Ms.”, I found the situation to be a tad awkward, which…I know this is Stephen Colbert we’re talking about, but his guest’s response, “you can call me Gail” as if to say “I do actually have a name…”, was a good one to highlight the fact that there may have been a hint of the “big scary feminist” image placed on her before she took the stage. I think that Collins did end the interview well saying that men and women will win the battle together, which helped to dispel that image of a man-hating feminist.

Moving on though, I’m not sure if Colbert was playing dumb just to bring up the question, but I guess it’s the women’s studies background in me that literally laughed the inquiry about the continued need for a women’s movement. I think that Collins brought up a good point about the fact that part of the reason women’s roles have changed is because modern families often require two wage earners in the household, but women still seem to be held responsible for the care of the children in addition to whatever job she may hold. Colbert cited this reasoning to be a matter of biology – production of breast milk. While his anecdotes were funny, there are clear ways around this such as breast pumps, day care, etc.

I don’t want to sound like I’m bashing Stephen Colbert, because I love his show. However, I do think that he often lacks in how well he depicts the messages his guests wish to send.

 

That Disney Princess image…

that is making the blog rounds. If you haven’t seen it yet:

 

Guest blogger: Connie Mandeville

Gender in Different Cultures

It is difficult to understand gender construction and sexuality outside of the United States. To us, gender is binary and sexuality for most the part is too. But as what we have touched on in class, some cultures like Native Americans celebrate what we would consider a third gender.

Webs of Power: Women, Kin, and Community in a Sumatran Village by Evelyn Blackwood
The tombois were women but acted like men and took pride in acting like men. There was the separation of ceweks and cowoks. Ceweks were women said to like men better but still had relationships with cowoks, who were also women. Cowoks take pride in acting like men (they are also the tombois) and swear, smoke, drink and spend a lot of time out in the public sphere. The word tomboi comes from the English term tomboy. For a cowok, the ultimate scenario would be to pass as men. Cowoks also fought to keep their girlfriends because they thought they would leave them for an actual man. Tombois considered having children for them as unnatural. But that is the prominent role for women so the Cowoks live outside the norm.  But with introduction of western ideals, now new identities are conflicting with fundamental Islam and marriage roles for women with magazines and media.

Neither Man Nor Woman: The Hijras of India by Serena Nanda
They are in between genders but raised as women but do not have breasts or menstruate. They have women characteristics and count as women in the census but have both male and female defined jobs. They are also described as a caricature of women. Hindu accommodates such behavior with their gods like Shiva and Vishnu. Hijras used to have to mix male and female clothing but do not anymore. But bottom line is they are not real women because they cannot have children.

Travesti: Sex, Gender, and Culture among Brazilian Transgendered Prostitutes by Don Kulick
These hookers are feminine but not female and their boyfriends are what are examined in the text. The boyfriends were basically boy toys that were between the ages 16-30 and very muscular with tattoos. The Travestis are always giving their boyfriends gifts and are the sole provider of the relationship. They also do not like men that like to be penetrated—that is what they are paid to do as prostitutes; instead when it comes to their boyfriends they want to be penetrated. The boyfriends are never former clients because they do not want to be considered free sex. But the boyfriends give the travestis a gender identity and esteem- they are not penetrating them, they are getting penetrated.

The Bow and the Burden Strap:  A New Look at Institutionalized Homosexuality in Native North America by Harriet Whitehead
It was permissible for a man to become a woman socially in Native North America. It was mainly male to female and they were not hermaphrodites. The male berdache—the term they used—did women’s work and wore women’s clothes. Their gender was determined by their child behavior. Gender was determined by whether they chose to play with a bow or a burden strap. War captives were taken as berdaches into communities. The berdaches used a female voice, speech laughing and their walk. The most important aspect to gender was social position and dress. But the berdaches were viewed as a mix creature- more transgender than homosexual. They were matchmakers, love magicians or curer of venereal diseases- viewed as more than a woman. Different tribes had different versions of the berdache, but the idea was mainly the same.

The female berdache was less common. Menstruation held women to their role in society and it was hard to step out of that role. Some claimed to not menstruate though. The female berdache had the urge to fight in wars. Some were considered to have manly hearts, and most were post-menopausal.

The gender was not defined by sexuality, but the lack of category for homosexuality allowed for the berdache role to fit in society. The Native American berdaches fit into these transgendered roles to conform to heterosexuality.