--Simi Alalade
Scientist in Israel have invented a device that paraplegics and quadriplegics can use to maneuver a wheelchair and communicate simply by sniffing. Using a tube, one side is connected to the nose and the other is connected to a pressure sensor.
It works like this:
• 2 sniffs in tell the wheelchair to move forward
• 2 sniffs out tell the wheelchair to reverse
• 1 sniff out turns the wheelchair to the left
• 1 sniff in turns the wheelchair to the right
The tests show remarkable results. It took approximately 15 min for users to learn to efficiently use the device.
In a society where mobility is very important in order to fully function and be a part of social connections to others, people with disabilities can feel helpless and isolated. To be social, it becomes imperative to leave one’s home and interact with outside spaces that other people interact with as well. Mobility is necessary in public space. Its space encompasses consistent movement and change. Immobility can hinder that specific blending into open spaces. These social spaces consist of simple places like parks, grocery stores, movie theaters, libraries, and museums. It is very easy for people with disabilities to be excluded.
Barriers in architectural society are main reasons. Writer, Nancy Mairs, in her book, Waist High in the World, elaborates on her disability and the different obstacles she faces in everyday life, including entering in to public spaces. Architectural critic, David Gissen, writes about his mobility impairment and how it affects his life, job, and perceptions. His impairment affects him in a significant way, and complete mobility impairment can seem as a blockage of social and public connections. New inventions, however, can open up these obstacles.
In order to fully utilize open access for those with disabilities, inventions such as this one are needed. With a simple action as sniffing, people can use their own bodies to help assist other impaired body parts, giving them self-control.
The special part of the device is that it is so simplistic. It does not draw extreme attention, and can give assurance to the impaired that their differences do not require excess assistance. The device thus provides a sense of independence for people with disabilities.
In many instances, medical practices towards impairment only look at those with disabilities as people with deformed or unnatural bodies. Instead of thinking of people with disabilities as different bodies, medicine compares them to a standard of “normalcy." In addition, many people with impairments believe that supplemental machines, devices, and technology are trying to change and get rid of impairments and human diversity. Advocates of disability rights believe that architecture and society should include those with all types of bodies, allowing them to fully integrate into society with much less worry and trouble.
I believe this invention is a balance between both medical views and disability rights views of impairment. I think it does change the way we look at normal. It does not force people to conform but is more of a support. The medical device does not control the disabled; the disabled control the device. They use it and it does not use them. Using technology can help integrate people with impairments into society, but in many ways, the environments must advance and transform to sustain differently-abled bodies.
With inventions like this, it is important to continue to build and construct architectural environments that encompass all types of bodies and additional structures that assist bodies. Curb cuts, inclined pathways, and other adjustments in such a “concrete environment” are just a few of the many and many more needed changes in society in order to integrate those with different bodies. Overall, this invention is low-tech and simple. As for now, it is not on the market but will be affordable because its simplicity. I think it is a great step towards turning disability into ability.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Sexual freedom or object of sexual attention: How young is too young?
--Carly Cindrich
Yesterday, my friend sent me this link to the music video of Willow Smith, daughter of actors Will and Jada Pinkett Smith, singing her debut single “Whip My Hair.” I must have watched this video upwards of ten times already, staring completely dumbfounded at the screen each time. When I learned that yet another one of the young Smith brood has made their way into the limelight, I was unfazed. However the lyrics and video I have been listening to and watching over and over is the farthest thing I expected from a nine-year-old girl, no matter her legacy.
When you take this song for face value it is simply about having fun and letting go of inhibitions. Also, the frequent mentions of shaking off “haters” introduce the theme of not letting other people bring you down. However, while you can try all you’d like to acknowledge the cutesy message and nothing else, some of her lyrics make this almost impossible. One of the verses in the song is
If Willow Smith (or her songwriter) is going to plainly include adult themes in the song such as cars, her audience cannot be expected to ignore the very adult messages expressed, for example, by the repetition of the words “real heard” four consecutive times. Her insistence on this phrase combined with her knowing looks to the camera instantly change the meaning from “I fiercely whip my hair around at a high velocity when I’m dancing” to something very different. It is also interesting to look at the gender evoked by this particular verse. A very masculine ego shines through in lines like “none of them whip it like I do.” More notably, male sexuality is highly present in phrases such as “I gets it in” and the recurrence of the words “I whip it real hard.” Of course, the latter is supposed to refer to her hair, but once this line is paired with other possibly phallic allusions like getting it in, it makes it all the more difficult to block out the prevalence of sexual references in a song sung by a fourth grader. These are my main grounds for believing that Smith did not write this song herself, and furthermore, that her songwriter is probably male. There is no information yet on the internet to confirm or deny this.
With this song, Smith is clearly not trying to appeal to her own contemporaries. Granted, most hip-hop music nowadays is hardly PG, but while Nikki Minaj raps about sex and cars, she also is not aiming her music towards nine-year-olds. Although anyone old enough to maneuver a remote control could turn on VH1 or MTV and see women dancing in skimpy outfits, the music video by Willow Smith is particularly egregious because although her body is sufficiently covered, her makeup, hair, and nails combined with her questionable lyrics instantly changes the image of childhood. Children often take cues from their parents, older siblings, and even cultural icons on how to act, but mostly they learn by examples from their peers. Willow Smith is a minor, a young little girl. She can’t drive, drink, get into nightclubs or understand most innuendos, so it really doesn’t make sense for her to be singing about them.
The bigger picture here is that if it is okay to sexualize a nine-year-old, then what does that say about society’s treatment and expectations of females in general? Are all girls supposed to be objects of sexual attention as soon as they’re old enough to wear the same kinds of clothes as older girls or perhaps just old enough to make a music video? Furthermore, the urban themes in “Whip My Hair” add a racial aspect to the argument. If a nine-year-old African American girl can sing about almost the same things as Nikki Minaj, Rihanna, and Beyoncé, and wear the same makeup and hairstyles as them, then why should Willow Smith’s birth year alone change the way people interpret her lyrics and dance moves?
Many female music artists use their “fierceness” as a vehicle for empowerment. For them to show it through their physical appearance and in their lyrics is their prerogative as legal, independent adults. However, Willow Smith is setting a precedent with her song “Whip My Hair” for not only other girls her age to act like diva adult women but also for her fans of all ages to accept adult messages from a mere child and carelessly lost sight of a little girl’s age.
Yesterday, my friend sent me this link to the music video of Willow Smith, daughter of actors Will and Jada Pinkett Smith, singing her debut single “Whip My Hair.” I must have watched this video upwards of ten times already, staring completely dumbfounded at the screen each time. When I learned that yet another one of the young Smith brood has made their way into the limelight, I was unfazed. However the lyrics and video I have been listening to and watching over and over is the farthest thing I expected from a nine-year-old girl, no matter her legacy.
When you take this song for face value it is simply about having fun and letting go of inhibitions. Also, the frequent mentions of shaking off “haters” introduce the theme of not letting other people bring you down. However, while you can try all you’d like to acknowledge the cutesy message and nothing else, some of her lyrics make this almost impossible. One of the verses in the song is
I'ma get more shine than a little bit
Soon as I hit the stage applause I’m hearing it
Whether its black stars black cars I’m feeling it
But can't none of them whip it like I do
I, I gets it in mmm yea I go hard
When they see me pull up
I whip it real hard
I whip it real hard
Real hard
I whip it real hard
If Willow Smith (or her songwriter) is going to plainly include adult themes in the song such as cars, her audience cannot be expected to ignore the very adult messages expressed, for example, by the repetition of the words “real heard” four consecutive times. Her insistence on this phrase combined with her knowing looks to the camera instantly change the meaning from “I fiercely whip my hair around at a high velocity when I’m dancing” to something very different. It is also interesting to look at the gender evoked by this particular verse. A very masculine ego shines through in lines like “none of them whip it like I do.” More notably, male sexuality is highly present in phrases such as “I gets it in” and the recurrence of the words “I whip it real hard.” Of course, the latter is supposed to refer to her hair, but once this line is paired with other possibly phallic allusions like getting it in, it makes it all the more difficult to block out the prevalence of sexual references in a song sung by a fourth grader. These are my main grounds for believing that Smith did not write this song herself, and furthermore, that her songwriter is probably male. There is no information yet on the internet to confirm or deny this.
With this song, Smith is clearly not trying to appeal to her own contemporaries. Granted, most hip-hop music nowadays is hardly PG, but while Nikki Minaj raps about sex and cars, she also is not aiming her music towards nine-year-olds. Although anyone old enough to maneuver a remote control could turn on VH1 or MTV and see women dancing in skimpy outfits, the music video by Willow Smith is particularly egregious because although her body is sufficiently covered, her makeup, hair, and nails combined with her questionable lyrics instantly changes the image of childhood. Children often take cues from their parents, older siblings, and even cultural icons on how to act, but mostly they learn by examples from their peers. Willow Smith is a minor, a young little girl. She can’t drive, drink, get into nightclubs or understand most innuendos, so it really doesn’t make sense for her to be singing about them.
The bigger picture here is that if it is okay to sexualize a nine-year-old, then what does that say about society’s treatment and expectations of females in general? Are all girls supposed to be objects of sexual attention as soon as they’re old enough to wear the same kinds of clothes as older girls or perhaps just old enough to make a music video? Furthermore, the urban themes in “Whip My Hair” add a racial aspect to the argument. If a nine-year-old African American girl can sing about almost the same things as Nikki Minaj, Rihanna, and Beyoncé, and wear the same makeup and hairstyles as them, then why should Willow Smith’s birth year alone change the way people interpret her lyrics and dance moves?
Many female music artists use their “fierceness” as a vehicle for empowerment. For them to show it through their physical appearance and in their lyrics is their prerogative as legal, independent adults. However, Willow Smith is setting a precedent with her song “Whip My Hair” for not only other girls her age to act like diva adult women but also for her fans of all ages to accept adult messages from a mere child and carelessly lost sight of a little girl’s age.
Letting the masks fall
-Phoebe Guo
Hannah Wilke, a feminist artist from the 1970's, is known for her photographic work in connection to the body and performance art, in which she used her own body to address issues of sexuality. When she was young, she always had unique ideas about her surroundings and also was engaged in the feminist movement. She was a sculptor at the beginning, and then she did a series of works of art in photography and film using her own body. She said that she will never separate art from her body and art is a part of her.
"S.O.S ( Starification Object Series)" was the most famous work of her earlier years. She used chewed gum to sculpt different kinds of micro female genitalia and stuck them to her body. She posed in a variety of classic poses of sexy women and had a professional photographer take photos of her. Looking at the photo, her body was full of spots as if she had chickenpox. Actually, it revealed that the way that males looked at females with lust and dirty ideas, and ignored the damages they did to them. This series of photos also showed the environment in which women were disrespected at that time. Wilke believed that gum was the perfect analogy for the American woman, and how she was consumed; Chew her up, spit her out.
Although I loved this work and I was shocked by her new, direct and innovative idea and behavior, it also looked like a show, which used her sexy body, and beautiful face. The really amazing work was her "Intra-Venus Series".
What she showed was no longer a show or just art. It was a real picture of a woman suffering from her health problems. No one wants to show their ugliness or pain. Hannah took hundreds of photos of her sick mother in order to memorialize her. When she realized she had the same disease as her mother, she decided to use her body as art, showing the process of death to the world, making it become a work of art. At that time, she was more than halfway to 100 years old. She gained weight and her face started to wrinkle. Severe chemotherapy and medication made her lose her hair.
Surprisingly, she exhibited her naked body without fear in front of the camera, the TV, and the public. Her purpose was not to shock or horrify but to display a body which belonged to herself. That was a body with a real life, with disease and confusion. In her photos, although she was in a destroyed body, her eyes were still bright, serious and enthusiastic. This lonely body was crashing, irreversibly headed towards death. She, however, still expressed a certain dignity. Man used to look at woman as a sexual tool, but a diseased body will not let anyone produce sexual desire. She used an extreme example to illustrate a crucial truth that woman needed to face their difficulties in life without man. She utilized her private space which was her body as a public stage to disclose the sick fact that male regarded female as one of sexual tool and servant. It is called real life.
In our lives, in all the magazine covers, advertisement covers and TV shows, we see the beautiful, young, shining and hot girls everywhere. Unfortunately, that is not all of females. As Wilke reminds us, we need not focus on showing our sexiness or beauty, but must face aging, disease and death alone. Why should we need to be sexy just in order to please men? Why should we have to make them happy and comfortable? We are not only an accessory, an object; we are real. Our sexual desire, social damages, sex abuse, disease, and fear of death should also be understood and respected.
The age Wilke lived in was a time when male predominated the whole society. But she used the bodies of her mother and herself to show a destroyed beauty. She used her body, a new performative space, to expose the female myth made by our society. The body, which women were used to think of as a private space because they wanted to hide their imperfections to avoid other's judgements. Likewise, she also used it as a private space because the body, no matter healthy or not, belonged to herself for good. The differences were that she didn't care about critiques from the public. So she also made it as a public space to convey the idea that women's damage and disease should be valued as important as their glamour. Her intention was to promote woman not to rely on man too much, especially when woman were disrespected at that time.
Sylvia Plath, an America poet, said:" death is an art". She committed suicide alone. She made the process of death a private experience. By contrast, Hannah Wilke made it public, a performance art known worldwide. Though she was killed by her own body in the end, "the dance to death" she showed was more fabulous than her blooming beauties.
Hannah Wilke, a feminist artist from the 1970's, is known for her photographic work in connection to the body and performance art, in which she used her own body to address issues of sexuality. When she was young, she always had unique ideas about her surroundings and also was engaged in the feminist movement. She was a sculptor at the beginning, and then she did a series of works of art in photography and film using her own body. She said that she will never separate art from her body and art is a part of her.
"S.O.S ( Starification Object Series)" was the most famous work of her earlier years. She used chewed gum to sculpt different kinds of micro female genitalia and stuck them to her body. She posed in a variety of classic poses of sexy women and had a professional photographer take photos of her. Looking at the photo, her body was full of spots as if she had chickenpox. Actually, it revealed that the way that males looked at females with lust and dirty ideas, and ignored the damages they did to them. This series of photos also showed the environment in which women were disrespected at that time. Wilke believed that gum was the perfect analogy for the American woman, and how she was consumed; Chew her up, spit her out.
Although I loved this work and I was shocked by her new, direct and innovative idea and behavior, it also looked like a show, which used her sexy body, and beautiful face. The really amazing work was her "Intra-Venus Series".
What she showed was no longer a show or just art. It was a real picture of a woman suffering from her health problems. No one wants to show their ugliness or pain. Hannah took hundreds of photos of her sick mother in order to memorialize her. When she realized she had the same disease as her mother, she decided to use her body as art, showing the process of death to the world, making it become a work of art. At that time, she was more than halfway to 100 years old. She gained weight and her face started to wrinkle. Severe chemotherapy and medication made her lose her hair.
Surprisingly, she exhibited her naked body without fear in front of the camera, the TV, and the public. Her purpose was not to shock or horrify but to display a body which belonged to herself. That was a body with a real life, with disease and confusion. In her photos, although she was in a destroyed body, her eyes were still bright, serious and enthusiastic. This lonely body was crashing, irreversibly headed towards death. She, however, still expressed a certain dignity. Man used to look at woman as a sexual tool, but a diseased body will not let anyone produce sexual desire. She used an extreme example to illustrate a crucial truth that woman needed to face their difficulties in life without man. She utilized her private space which was her body as a public stage to disclose the sick fact that male regarded female as one of sexual tool and servant. It is called real life.
In our lives, in all the magazine covers, advertisement covers and TV shows, we see the beautiful, young, shining and hot girls everywhere. Unfortunately, that is not all of females. As Wilke reminds us, we need not focus on showing our sexiness or beauty, but must face aging, disease and death alone. Why should we need to be sexy just in order to please men? Why should we have to make them happy and comfortable? We are not only an accessory, an object; we are real. Our sexual desire, social damages, sex abuse, disease, and fear of death should also be understood and respected.
The age Wilke lived in was a time when male predominated the whole society. But she used the bodies of her mother and herself to show a destroyed beauty. She used her body, a new performative space, to expose the female myth made by our society. The body, which women were used to think of as a private space because they wanted to hide their imperfections to avoid other's judgements. Likewise, she also used it as a private space because the body, no matter healthy or not, belonged to herself for good. The differences were that she didn't care about critiques from the public. So she also made it as a public space to convey the idea that women's damage and disease should be valued as important as their glamour. Her intention was to promote woman not to rely on man too much, especially when woman were disrespected at that time.
Sylvia Plath, an America poet, said:" death is an art". She committed suicide alone. She made the process of death a private experience. By contrast, Hannah Wilke made it public, a performance art known worldwide. Though she was killed by her own body in the end, "the dance to death" she showed was more fabulous than her blooming beauties.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Fraternity violence: students weigh in
For background on this incident, see the earlier post, Queer Bashing in the Built Environment. The students of the class have anonymously weighed in with their reactions, which I will post here as they come in:
One fact shared by both the victim and Adam Smith’s testimonies was that the
altercation between them was largely instigated by the victim’s suggestion that
Smith was gay himself. It was this comment about Smith’s pink shirt that turned
his verbal instigating of the gay student into a full out physical assault. This fact
is extremely indicative of the heterosexual expectations put on both fraternity
brothers and their party guests. As a freshman girl walking into a frat party, it is
made pretty clear to you shouldn’t be there trying to make friends or find future
study buddies among the frat brothers. You are allowed to accept drinks and/or
dance with your girl friends to have a good time, but if you are talking or dancing
with a brother for more than fifteen minutes then it is pretty much considered
your fault for being a tease if you aren’t going to hook up with them. Younger male
guests are also let in for the purpose of promoting their fraternity. So, if the boys
at frat parties are there to get girls, and the girls are there to fulfill the role of the direct object in that sentence, then where does that leave homosexual males in a space and an event designed to facilitate the objectification of heterosexual females? The article in the Emory Wheel claims that there is a large openly gay population in Emory fraternities. If this is true, then they all must have been out of town for every single frat party I have been to. I am absolutely appalled at the violence, hate, intolerance and bigotry displayed this weekend at the university that I have thus been able to proudly call myself a part of. However, I am hardly surprised that a frat brother was not especially welcoming toward an openly gay male at one of his parties, and I am definitely not surprised that the extremely offensive slur “faggot” was thrown around in the spat. Even if gay intolerance doesn’t often result in physical violence, that doesn’t mean that gay intolerance doesn’t exist behind the scenes, especially in Greek life.
**********************************************
A recent incident took place at a Sigma Nu fraternity party at Emory University, in which an Emory alumnus dragged out a student by the neck after he revealed that he is gay. This brings into question the atmosphere surrounding Greek life at Emory and in general, and whether or not it is accepting of homosexuality.
Fraternities are often stereotyped as places men can go to “get girls” or “hook up” without having to worry about long-term commitment. Due to this stereotype, which focuses very heavily on the importance of women, it is not far-fetched to think that homosexuals feel excluded from fraternity culture. For instance, the media portrays fraternities as places where gay men feel uncomfortable disclosing their sexuality. In the television show, Greek, a character named Calvin is a homosexual male living in a fraternity, and he only discloses his sexuality to a few friends due to a fear that he might not be accepted. He continues to have homosexual relations with men on campus, but it takes him a long time to feel more comfortable showing his sexuality, and some do not approve.
An article written by the Emory Wheel about the incident at Sigma Nu was posted online, and one male under the name ‘Conrad’ commented, saying: “As a gay person, I DO feel that Greek life is inaccessible to me. It seems hostile, homophobic, and as if y'all don't want me at the parties!” This comment shows the invisible barrier that seems to prevent gay students from feeling comfortable in or around fraternity culture. It is necessary to combat this inequality, and to erase the stigma that heterosexuality in fraternities is the norm.
******************************************************
After reading Asher Smith’s title labeled “Gay Emory Student Dragged from Frat Party,” as well as the comments from other Emory students, I have come to a few conclusions that I believe can be deduced from the incident. Firstly, to discuss the article itself, many Emory students feel that it was poorly written because it was projected from a biased viewpoint and besides that, it shed bad media light on Emory as a community and how it treats its students who are LGBT. There are those who claim that this type of violent behavior should be something to expect from a fraternity/sorority
because these institutions have always made harsh judgments on students due to their “exclusivity,” and that it would be ignorant to assume that an incident like this could not occur at a college campus elsewhere. Because everyone knows that the media can do a rather successful job of blowing things out of proportion, it is pertinent to look at the facts before making assumptions about either student.
However, whether one reads the article posted on the Emory Wheel or the one posted on a different website, there are some aspects of the story that cannot be ignored. The point however, is not whether the article was poorly written or not, because I’m pretty sure that most should be able to decipher the facts from the fiction. The point is not that the gay student was wearing a “wizard hat, red pants, and lime-green jacket,” because I’m sure that there have been plenty of instances when a student has worn a ridiculous outfit—especially to a party on frat row. The point isn’t even that Adam tried to instigate a fight, because fights on frat row are nothing new. The point here IS that the gay student was tossed out of the party after Adam questioned him about his sexuality. Whether or not he was intoxicated, Adam should not have resorted to using violence or derogatory language, referring to the boy’s wizard hat as “F***ing gay.” The fact that he uses these homosexual slurs so nonchalantly, as if it was part of his everyday language, does not work in his favor as the person he is portraying himself as. As a graduate student, he should have known better than to use vulgar language, and that fact that he was drinking does not change his predicament. Is foolish behavior expected to displayed at a frat party? Sure. Is alcohol an excuse to blame your foolish behavior on? No. By dragging out the gay student, he
basically set an example for his friends and other onlookers that it’s completely okay to toss someone out of a party because of his or her sexual orientation. Though Adam has “apologized” for his ridiculous behavior, it does not change that fact that he has shamed Emory, his former fraternity, and most of all, himself.
One fact shared by both the victim and Adam Smith’s testimonies was that the
altercation between them was largely instigated by the victim’s suggestion that
Smith was gay himself. It was this comment about Smith’s pink shirt that turned
his verbal instigating of the gay student into a full out physical assault. This fact
is extremely indicative of the heterosexual expectations put on both fraternity
brothers and their party guests. As a freshman girl walking into a frat party, it is
made pretty clear to you shouldn’t be there trying to make friends or find future
study buddies among the frat brothers. You are allowed to accept drinks and/or
dance with your girl friends to have a good time, but if you are talking or dancing
with a brother for more than fifteen minutes then it is pretty much considered
your fault for being a tease if you aren’t going to hook up with them. Younger male
guests are also let in for the purpose of promoting their fraternity. So, if the boys
at frat parties are there to get girls, and the girls are there to fulfill the role of the direct object in that sentence, then where does that leave homosexual males in a space and an event designed to facilitate the objectification of heterosexual females? The article in the Emory Wheel claims that there is a large openly gay population in Emory fraternities. If this is true, then they all must have been out of town for every single frat party I have been to. I am absolutely appalled at the violence, hate, intolerance and bigotry displayed this weekend at the university that I have thus been able to proudly call myself a part of. However, I am hardly surprised that a frat brother was not especially welcoming toward an openly gay male at one of his parties, and I am definitely not surprised that the extremely offensive slur “faggot” was thrown around in the spat. Even if gay intolerance doesn’t often result in physical violence, that doesn’t mean that gay intolerance doesn’t exist behind the scenes, especially in Greek life.
**********************************************
A recent incident took place at a Sigma Nu fraternity party at Emory University, in which an Emory alumnus dragged out a student by the neck after he revealed that he is gay. This brings into question the atmosphere surrounding Greek life at Emory and in general, and whether or not it is accepting of homosexuality.
Fraternities are often stereotyped as places men can go to “get girls” or “hook up” without having to worry about long-term commitment. Due to this stereotype, which focuses very heavily on the importance of women, it is not far-fetched to think that homosexuals feel excluded from fraternity culture. For instance, the media portrays fraternities as places where gay men feel uncomfortable disclosing their sexuality. In the television show, Greek, a character named Calvin is a homosexual male living in a fraternity, and he only discloses his sexuality to a few friends due to a fear that he might not be accepted. He continues to have homosexual relations with men on campus, but it takes him a long time to feel more comfortable showing his sexuality, and some do not approve.
An article written by the Emory Wheel about the incident at Sigma Nu was posted online, and one male under the name ‘Conrad’ commented, saying: “As a gay person, I DO feel that Greek life is inaccessible to me. It seems hostile, homophobic, and as if y'all don't want me at the parties!” This comment shows the invisible barrier that seems to prevent gay students from feeling comfortable in or around fraternity culture. It is necessary to combat this inequality, and to erase the stigma that heterosexuality in fraternities is the norm.
******************************************************
After reading Asher Smith’s title labeled “Gay Emory Student Dragged from Frat Party,” as well as the comments from other Emory students, I have come to a few conclusions that I believe can be deduced from the incident. Firstly, to discuss the article itself, many Emory students feel that it was poorly written because it was projected from a biased viewpoint and besides that, it shed bad media light on Emory as a community and how it treats its students who are LGBT. There are those who claim that this type of violent behavior should be something to expect from a fraternity/sorority
because these institutions have always made harsh judgments on students due to their “exclusivity,” and that it would be ignorant to assume that an incident like this could not occur at a college campus elsewhere. Because everyone knows that the media can do a rather successful job of blowing things out of proportion, it is pertinent to look at the facts before making assumptions about either student.
However, whether one reads the article posted on the Emory Wheel or the one posted on a different website, there are some aspects of the story that cannot be ignored. The point however, is not whether the article was poorly written or not, because I’m pretty sure that most should be able to decipher the facts from the fiction. The point is not that the gay student was wearing a “wizard hat, red pants, and lime-green jacket,” because I’m sure that there have been plenty of instances when a student has worn a ridiculous outfit—especially to a party on frat row. The point isn’t even that Adam tried to instigate a fight, because fights on frat row are nothing new. The point here IS that the gay student was tossed out of the party after Adam questioned him about his sexuality. Whether or not he was intoxicated, Adam should not have resorted to using violence or derogatory language, referring to the boy’s wizard hat as “F***ing gay.” The fact that he uses these homosexual slurs so nonchalantly, as if it was part of his everyday language, does not work in his favor as the person he is portraying himself as. As a graduate student, he should have known better than to use vulgar language, and that fact that he was drinking does not change his predicament. Is foolish behavior expected to displayed at a frat party? Sure. Is alcohol an excuse to blame your foolish behavior on? No. By dragging out the gay student, he
basically set an example for his friends and other onlookers that it’s completely okay to toss someone out of a party because of his or her sexual orientation. Though Adam has “apologized” for his ridiculous behavior, it does not change that fact that he has shamed Emory, his former fraternity, and most of all, himself.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Queer bashing in the built environment: the role of inside and outside space in defining community and exclusion
Hate crimes happen in material spaces attached to particular forms of meaning: the street, the bedroom, the workplace, the yard, the fence, the back of a truck, and the fraternity home.
Recently, an Emory University student was dragged out of a frat house by his neck because an alum at a party thought he was gay. The incident has created a public outcry, having been taken up by Gawker, Perez Hilton, and several news agencies. And it isn't isolated--the homophobic actions of some have had real and high profile consequences for queer teens in the last few months. While these incidents do not surprise us, having lived through the death of Matthew Shepard and other hate crimes in recent decades against queer folk, we can still wonder about the relationship between access to space and the sanctity of life in this country, decades after desegregation.
The civil rights movements of the 1970's are often remembered for the court decisions and legislation they precipitated: the Civil Rights Act of 1964, sexual harassment law, and civil rights protections for persons with disabilities. What is not often remembered, outside of the racial desegregation context, is that the demand for access to space was a paramount concern for all of these movements. That is, ending the preclusion of marginalized communities from privileged or excluded spaces was both a symbolic and material gesture that dominant groups could no longer commit institutional or structural violence against them. Access to space, in this context, served and continues to serve both a real and figurative function as a measure of social justice. More contemporaneously, access for persons with disabilities has become a legal mandate, but many of the same demands were made by feminists in the 1970's who wanted improved living and childcare facilities, curb cuts, health care, and protections in the workplace as part of a comprehensive civil rights package.
Access to space for marginalized groups is far from perfect or complete. Indeed, exclusion serves as an important and powerful marker of just how undesirable certain types of human variation are to those who control the boundaries of space. And while it is illegal to exclude formally someone from a fraternity, an atmosphere of hatred in any context is enough to make someone feel unwelcome to the point of not partaking in activities that they otherwise may choose to. Sometimes, marginalized people establish parallel structures and spaces of inclusion, as with black fraternities and sororities. But when the space of the frat house serves as a meeting place for both members and non-members alike, it is not the ability to establish these outside spaces that is important, but how members of a community are treated within the bounds of a public space.
Without getting into personal blame, name calling, or the debates that have been occurring around the event at Emory this weekend, it is significant to note that many of the defenses of the alum who physically dragged another student out of the frat house claim that this was a "private" party, and that expelling the gay student was of no consequence. This is an interesting understanding of the word "private," particularly because fraternity houses occupy a particular historical and contemporary set of meanings about space. At Emory, the frat houses are owned by the university and run by the same division of Campus Life that runs the dorms for other students.
Unlike other dorms, however, where common rooms are not used for keggers and where entrance is limited to residents and their guests, frat houses are public spaces by virtue of how frequently they are entered by non-residents. Their architecture and layout not only lends them towards this kind of use of space, but supplants their function as party spaces with wide open areas in which hundreds of undergraduate bodies can smoosh together on weekends. Given that anyone can come in and out of these spaces, is there a reasonable expectation upon entering that a gay student in a Wizard hat will be allowed inside? There does not seem to be a reasonable justification for expecting any kind of danger or violence, unless one looks to the social context of fraternities, which are arguably spaces in which certain types of masculine behavior get privileged over behavior deemed feminine or abnormal.
It is in these spaces that the codes of masculinity and femininity get pronounced in certain ways on a college campus. Emory fraternities, in fact, have a history of being sites of violence. Even when queer students are anecdotally mentioned in relation to Greek life, one wonders why they do not exist in greater numbers if the culture is, in fact, so open to diversity. This isn't a call to include people in hostile spaces. But it is important to think about what spaces tell us about who is socially valued or de-valued. Dragging a student out of a house by his neck is not just a physically violent gesture--it is a metaphor for the violence of exclusion that happens in social contexts every day toward many people. Forcing someone to evacuate a space by crossing a threshold is not unlike a water fountain with a sign reading "WHITES ONLY." In fact, it is more like a segregated water fountain with a fence around it secured by a padlock.
Recently, an Emory University student was dragged out of a frat house by his neck because an alum at a party thought he was gay. The incident has created a public outcry, having been taken up by Gawker, Perez Hilton, and several news agencies. And it isn't isolated--the homophobic actions of some have had real and high profile consequences for queer teens in the last few months. While these incidents do not surprise us, having lived through the death of Matthew Shepard and other hate crimes in recent decades against queer folk, we can still wonder about the relationship between access to space and the sanctity of life in this country, decades after desegregation.
The civil rights movements of the 1970's are often remembered for the court decisions and legislation they precipitated: the Civil Rights Act of 1964, sexual harassment law, and civil rights protections for persons with disabilities. What is not often remembered, outside of the racial desegregation context, is that the demand for access to space was a paramount concern for all of these movements. That is, ending the preclusion of marginalized communities from privileged or excluded spaces was both a symbolic and material gesture that dominant groups could no longer commit institutional or structural violence against them. Access to space, in this context, served and continues to serve both a real and figurative function as a measure of social justice. More contemporaneously, access for persons with disabilities has become a legal mandate, but many of the same demands were made by feminists in the 1970's who wanted improved living and childcare facilities, curb cuts, health care, and protections in the workplace as part of a comprehensive civil rights package.
Access to space for marginalized groups is far from perfect or complete. Indeed, exclusion serves as an important and powerful marker of just how undesirable certain types of human variation are to those who control the boundaries of space. And while it is illegal to exclude formally someone from a fraternity, an atmosphere of hatred in any context is enough to make someone feel unwelcome to the point of not partaking in activities that they otherwise may choose to. Sometimes, marginalized people establish parallel structures and spaces of inclusion, as with black fraternities and sororities. But when the space of the frat house serves as a meeting place for both members and non-members alike, it is not the ability to establish these outside spaces that is important, but how members of a community are treated within the bounds of a public space.
Without getting into personal blame, name calling, or the debates that have been occurring around the event at Emory this weekend, it is significant to note that many of the defenses of the alum who physically dragged another student out of the frat house claim that this was a "private" party, and that expelling the gay student was of no consequence. This is an interesting understanding of the word "private," particularly because fraternity houses occupy a particular historical and contemporary set of meanings about space. At Emory, the frat houses are owned by the university and run by the same division of Campus Life that runs the dorms for other students.
Unlike other dorms, however, where common rooms are not used for keggers and where entrance is limited to residents and their guests, frat houses are public spaces by virtue of how frequently they are entered by non-residents. Their architecture and layout not only lends them towards this kind of use of space, but supplants their function as party spaces with wide open areas in which hundreds of undergraduate bodies can smoosh together on weekends. Given that anyone can come in and out of these spaces, is there a reasonable expectation upon entering that a gay student in a Wizard hat will be allowed inside? There does not seem to be a reasonable justification for expecting any kind of danger or violence, unless one looks to the social context of fraternities, which are arguably spaces in which certain types of masculine behavior get privileged over behavior deemed feminine or abnormal.
It is in these spaces that the codes of masculinity and femininity get pronounced in certain ways on a college campus. Emory fraternities, in fact, have a history of being sites of violence. Even when queer students are anecdotally mentioned in relation to Greek life, one wonders why they do not exist in greater numbers if the culture is, in fact, so open to diversity. This isn't a call to include people in hostile spaces. But it is important to think about what spaces tell us about who is socially valued or de-valued. Dragging a student out of a house by his neck is not just a physically violent gesture--it is a metaphor for the violence of exclusion that happens in social contexts every day toward many people. Forcing someone to evacuate a space by crossing a threshold is not unlike a water fountain with a sign reading "WHITES ONLY." In fact, it is more like a segregated water fountain with a fence around it secured by a padlock.
The sexualization of Halloween costumes: liberation and choice or instruments of normalcy and submission to the male gaze?
--Shivani Williams
It’s no surprise what Halloween entails every year for teens and college students. At this time of the year, there is excitement for what one—-specifically, females-- will wear to an outrageous costume-themed party on the last weekend of October. It’s also not astonishing that a female will decide against putting on that cute little jukebox 50’s girl outfit either. As famously quoted by Lindsay Lohan, in her role of Caty in the movie, Mean Girls: “In Girl World, Halloween is the one night a year when girls can dress like a total slut and no other girls can say anything about it.”
What creates these "total sluts" and who carves out a market for them to appear once a year on Halloween?
For this once-a-year occasion, Halloween marketers spend much of their time and money into advertising certain ways for specific age groups. The advertisements for these costumes always include women with long shiny hair, perfect makeup, large breasts, and of course, a thin physique. But even less surprising is that a woman will wear these costumes to feel sexy, have a fun time, or even to express herself in a way that makes her feel confident about how good she appears to look in such a revealing outfit.
The “bad girl” costumes, such as the pirates, cops, referees, nurses, and French maids have long been sexualized and are old news, and perhaps there is nothing wrong with promoting the image of sex with these outfits because, after all, everybody knows that sex sells. A woman walking into a Halloween store would probably make her judgment on which costume she is going to buy depending on how intriguing the picture on the front looks. Is the model on the cover pretty? Does she appear happy? Does she fulfill that sexy look that the consumer is going for? These are just a few of the things that may cross her mind.
These ideal images, however, are limited to a certain group of idealized bodies. Say the model on the cover has all of these qualities, but she is physically disabled. A consumer might think twice about buying the costume, not necessarily because the costume itself does not appear sexy enough, but because disability is often disassociated with sensuality. Accordingly, say that the woman on the front cover of an advertisement displaying a revealing costume is overweight. Unless the costume was advertising for plus size, some women might not choose this costume. The costumes for “plus size” women are attempting to advertise towards larger-sized women that they too can feel sexy. However, by putting a “plus size” label on the cover with a plus size model wearing a skimpy outfit on the front, the sex appeal is significantly diminished according to societal standards.
It is reasonable to suggest that Halloween advertisers believe there is a correlation between sex appeal and “normalcy,” which according to the pictures, includes having: 1.) No disability and 2.) Having a physically fit body. This doesn’t even include the extra aspects of the model that contribute to her femininity, such as her visible breasts or overly done make-up.
Let’s not forget the other age group that Halloween advertisers target: children costumes for young girls. Advertisements have even managed to get their message across in costumes for adolescents where there is some sort of implication of sex appeal, subtle as it may be. Popular costumes of the past for young girls have been outfits impersonating famous pop stars. One of the main outfits that stands out in my mind was the Britney Spears outfit.
Not only can little girls play the part of Brit in their shiny spandex outfits showing that showed their midriffs, but they could also look like her too by purchasing the blonde wig and microphone. Costumes for women of all ages are being sexualized by advertisements for the purpose of sex appeal--but is there such a thing as taking it too far?
In the above picture, a woman is wearing a costume that is taking the beloved character of Nemo from the hit Disney Pixar movie, Finding Nemo, and sexualizing it for the purpose of turning it into a Halloween costume for women. Not only is this costume being targeted at women, but it also is being targeted at young adolescent girls by taking the well-known cartoon clownfish and turning it into a sex symbol. The website where this costume is sold also sells costumes that take characters out of popular movies like Avatar, Harry Potter, and Alice in Wonderland and turns them into “Adult Hermione” and “Sexy Alice.”
These condescending costumes subject women to the institutionalized roles created by a sexist society. It doesn’t help that men can dress in anything they please—from Dracula to Captain Jack Sparrow to even a giant sumo wrestler. A man even has the option of covering his entire face with a creepy monster mask, thus enforcing the idea that he doesn’t have to elaborate on his face like the ways that a woman would with her make-up. Men are not expected to be oversexualized, yet women are almost expected to put on that sexy Nemo costume.
The idea of a dressing as a sex-kitten for Halloween further illustrates the fantasy world that is painted by sexism. When women wear these costumes in the public, they submit to a certain idealized image of femininity. As feminist, Jane Rendell, puts it,
Though one may argue that it is liberating for a woman to wear these costumes with confidence as a way to show sensuality, it is not important to think about where the costumes Because these costumes are not generally worn in the public on days outside of Halloween weekend, it is plausible to assume that a woman will be wearing this costume at a party where there will be alcohol. The image of an intoxicated woman in her sexy nurse outfit dancing with a man is not a rare one. Liberating as that may seem to some, it actually just seems like a submission of women the gaze of others who will “oogle” and do perhaps more. Halloween parties are places where women, by wearing revealing costumes, are turning their private spaces (their bodies) into public ones, whether they choose to or not.
It’s no surprise what Halloween entails every year for teens and college students. At this time of the year, there is excitement for what one—-specifically, females-- will wear to an outrageous costume-themed party on the last weekend of October. It’s also not astonishing that a female will decide against putting on that cute little jukebox 50’s girl outfit either. As famously quoted by Lindsay Lohan, in her role of Caty in the movie, Mean Girls: “In Girl World, Halloween is the one night a year when girls can dress like a total slut and no other girls can say anything about it.”
What creates these "total sluts" and who carves out a market for them to appear once a year on Halloween?
For this once-a-year occasion, Halloween marketers spend much of their time and money into advertising certain ways for specific age groups. The advertisements for these costumes always include women with long shiny hair, perfect makeup, large breasts, and of course, a thin physique. But even less surprising is that a woman will wear these costumes to feel sexy, have a fun time, or even to express herself in a way that makes her feel confident about how good she appears to look in such a revealing outfit.
The “bad girl” costumes, such as the pirates, cops, referees, nurses, and French maids have long been sexualized and are old news, and perhaps there is nothing wrong with promoting the image of sex with these outfits because, after all, everybody knows that sex sells. A woman walking into a Halloween store would probably make her judgment on which costume she is going to buy depending on how intriguing the picture on the front looks. Is the model on the cover pretty? Does she appear happy? Does she fulfill that sexy look that the consumer is going for? These are just a few of the things that may cross her mind.
These ideal images, however, are limited to a certain group of idealized bodies. Say the model on the cover has all of these qualities, but she is physically disabled. A consumer might think twice about buying the costume, not necessarily because the costume itself does not appear sexy enough, but because disability is often disassociated with sensuality. Accordingly, say that the woman on the front cover of an advertisement displaying a revealing costume is overweight. Unless the costume was advertising for plus size, some women might not choose this costume. The costumes for “plus size” women are attempting to advertise towards larger-sized women that they too can feel sexy. However, by putting a “plus size” label on the cover with a plus size model wearing a skimpy outfit on the front, the sex appeal is significantly diminished according to societal standards.
It is reasonable to suggest that Halloween advertisers believe there is a correlation between sex appeal and “normalcy,” which according to the pictures, includes having: 1.) No disability and 2.) Having a physically fit body. This doesn’t even include the extra aspects of the model that contribute to her femininity, such as her visible breasts or overly done make-up.
Let’s not forget the other age group that Halloween advertisers target: children costumes for young girls. Advertisements have even managed to get their message across in costumes for adolescents where there is some sort of implication of sex appeal, subtle as it may be. Popular costumes of the past for young girls have been outfits impersonating famous pop stars. One of the main outfits that stands out in my mind was the Britney Spears outfit.
Not only can little girls play the part of Brit in their shiny spandex outfits showing that showed their midriffs, but they could also look like her too by purchasing the blonde wig and microphone. Costumes for women of all ages are being sexualized by advertisements for the purpose of sex appeal--but is there such a thing as taking it too far?
In the above picture, a woman is wearing a costume that is taking the beloved character of Nemo from the hit Disney Pixar movie, Finding Nemo, and sexualizing it for the purpose of turning it into a Halloween costume for women. Not only is this costume being targeted at women, but it also is being targeted at young adolescent girls by taking the well-known cartoon clownfish and turning it into a sex symbol. The website where this costume is sold also sells costumes that take characters out of popular movies like Avatar, Harry Potter, and Alice in Wonderland and turns them into “Adult Hermione” and “Sexy Alice.”
These condescending costumes subject women to the institutionalized roles created by a sexist society. It doesn’t help that men can dress in anything they please—from Dracula to Captain Jack Sparrow to even a giant sumo wrestler. A man even has the option of covering his entire face with a creepy monster mask, thus enforcing the idea that he doesn’t have to elaborate on his face like the ways that a woman would with her make-up. Men are not expected to be oversexualized, yet women are almost expected to put on that sexy Nemo costume.
The idea of a dressing as a sex-kitten for Halloween further illustrates the fantasy world that is painted by sexism. When women wear these costumes in the public, they submit to a certain idealized image of femininity. As feminist, Jane Rendell, puts it,
The dominance of the male subject in visual regimes has ramifications for the gendering of urban space, producing representations of urban space where only men do the looking, and women are looked at as objects of visual consumption.
Though one may argue that it is liberating for a woman to wear these costumes with confidence as a way to show sensuality, it is not important to think about where the costumes Because these costumes are not generally worn in the public on days outside of Halloween weekend, it is plausible to assume that a woman will be wearing this costume at a party where there will be alcohol. The image of an intoxicated woman in her sexy nurse outfit dancing with a man is not a rare one. Liberating as that may seem to some, it actually just seems like a submission of women the gaze of others who will “oogle” and do perhaps more. Halloween parties are places where women, by wearing revealing costumes, are turning their private spaces (their bodies) into public ones, whether they choose to or not.
Monday, October 18, 2010
A Woman is Only a Body in Private
-Nicole Gage
In CollegeHumor’s video “Why Girls Don’t Fart,” a woman is portrayed as incapable of releasing natural bodily functions in public, which shows society’s belief that women should be pure and should perform personal rituals in a place that is as secluded as possible. When the woman in the video does perform certain functions, she goes into a restroom where the stall is mechanically transported underground, and she must lock herself in a capsule to do everything she had held in throughout the day. This shows how women feel pressure to hide bodily functions, and how they are shamed into isolating themselves completely in order to act naturally.
The video begins with an attractive female who walks into a classroom and is followed by the gaze of two male students. They follow her throughout the course of a day, but she manages to hold in every natural bodily function and leaves them bewildered. First, she begins to sneeze but holds it in. Then, she almost burps but never actually does. Finally, at a lunch table she appears as if she is going to flatulate, or fart, but does not do so. The fact that she is consciously suppressing such functions while men face no pressure to do so shows the double standard that women are held to.
The issue of privacy also arises when the woman must go into the most secluded space possible in order to relieve herself of all suppressed actions. She not only goes into a private restroom stall, but is then transported underground to an area that looks almost scientific. This functionally turns her into a specimen and she is dehumanized in this process. This part of the video is an exaggeration, which shows that a woman is expected to have utmost privacy when momentarily putting down her personal front.
After she presses many buttons and locks herself into a capsule, she is shown in her most “natural” form. This form consists of a naked, screaming woman who seems to be in pain as she thrashes around and releases all previously suppressed bodily functions. Not only is she portrayed more as an animal than a human being, but the video seems to advocate that her release of such functions could be potentially dangerous, as lighting fixtures break while she is still flailing about. Overall, the video sheds light upon the societal pressures for women to privatize all of their acts that are not consistent with appropriate social norms.
In CollegeHumor’s video “Why Girls Don’t Fart,” a woman is portrayed as incapable of releasing natural bodily functions in public, which shows society’s belief that women should be pure and should perform personal rituals in a place that is as secluded as possible. When the woman in the video does perform certain functions, she goes into a restroom where the stall is mechanically transported underground, and she must lock herself in a capsule to do everything she had held in throughout the day. This shows how women feel pressure to hide bodily functions, and how they are shamed into isolating themselves completely in order to act naturally.
The video begins with an attractive female who walks into a classroom and is followed by the gaze of two male students. They follow her throughout the course of a day, but she manages to hold in every natural bodily function and leaves them bewildered. First, she begins to sneeze but holds it in. Then, she almost burps but never actually does. Finally, at a lunch table she appears as if she is going to flatulate, or fart, but does not do so. The fact that she is consciously suppressing such functions while men face no pressure to do so shows the double standard that women are held to.
The issue of privacy also arises when the woman must go into the most secluded space possible in order to relieve herself of all suppressed actions. She not only goes into a private restroom stall, but is then transported underground to an area that looks almost scientific. This functionally turns her into a specimen and she is dehumanized in this process. This part of the video is an exaggeration, which shows that a woman is expected to have utmost privacy when momentarily putting down her personal front.
After she presses many buttons and locks herself into a capsule, she is shown in her most “natural” form. This form consists of a naked, screaming woman who seems to be in pain as she thrashes around and releases all previously suppressed bodily functions. Not only is she portrayed more as an animal than a human being, but the video seems to advocate that her release of such functions could be potentially dangerous, as lighting fixtures break while she is still flailing about. Overall, the video sheds light upon the societal pressures for women to privatize all of their acts that are not consistent with appropriate social norms.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
E.C. Gardener, The House that Jill Built
In 1892, the architect, E.C. Gardner, wrote The House that Jill Built: After Jack's Proved a Failure, a fictional work about a bride-to-be who demands a better home than the one her fiance promises to bring to the marriage. Throughout the book, she establishes herself as an expert on domestic architecture (an idea that later gets translated into 'home economics').
What is interesting about the book is the way that it, in 1892 (prior to probably any debates over feminist epistemology), proposes a uniquely female way of knowing. This knowledge is based on the woman as a consumer of the household, who then becomes an expert in the necessary structures and materials to keep the home in order. We can say all kinds of things about the assumptions underlying such a project, but it is really amazing how much technical and material knowledge is contained in the book (meant to be a kind of how-to guide for architects).
Framed, as it is, by the story of Jill, who has rejected Jack's proposed marital home, it at once recognizes a particular kind of power exercised by a bride-to-be in a position to negotiate the kind of home she wants to live in, while also privileging the control over that space because it is one that will serve as a container for her life.
If we compare Jill's design practice (which we could characterize as feminist in some ways though not in others) to more contemporary examples, including our own in-class design competition, what do we find? In Jill, space is deterministic. She refuses to allow certain types of furniture or room relationships lest her husband "laps[e] into barbarism." The home is a space defined by materials--leather, tile, shades, verandas, sunlight, windows. Relatedly, we find an extended meditation on landscape and place as locales for the ideal country home. At times, the narrative collapses into the tedium of details, with Jill rattling off demands and Jack acting bored or clueless. What did Gardner mean by this representation? Clearly the book has an agenda of promoting shifts in home design, but its tone toward gender is also curious, portraying Jill as dominant and Jack as helpless.
This is hardly the collaborative feminist design process inaugurated in the 1970's. It does, however, speak to a certain kind of enfranchisement related to gender and space that pre-cedes suffrage by almost 30 years. Unlike contemporary feminist designers, however, space, in Jill's case, is not associated with freedom but with temperance, morality, and the preservation of the home. This complicates ideas about female designers and architects producing different kinds of space. Not in a way that would downplay the need for more women in the profession, but it does ask us to re-evaluate the "so what?" question of gender and space. Or at least to wonder whether the narrative is not a little bit altered by the narration of a male intermediary architect.
What is interesting about the book is the way that it, in 1892 (prior to probably any debates over feminist epistemology), proposes a uniquely female way of knowing. This knowledge is based on the woman as a consumer of the household, who then becomes an expert in the necessary structures and materials to keep the home in order. We can say all kinds of things about the assumptions underlying such a project, but it is really amazing how much technical and material knowledge is contained in the book (meant to be a kind of how-to guide for architects).
Framed, as it is, by the story of Jill, who has rejected Jack's proposed marital home, it at once recognizes a particular kind of power exercised by a bride-to-be in a position to negotiate the kind of home she wants to live in, while also privileging the control over that space because it is one that will serve as a container for her life.
If we compare Jill's design practice (which we could characterize as feminist in some ways though not in others) to more contemporary examples, including our own in-class design competition, what do we find? In Jill, space is deterministic. She refuses to allow certain types of furniture or room relationships lest her husband "laps[e] into barbarism." The home is a space defined by materials--leather, tile, shades, verandas, sunlight, windows. Relatedly, we find an extended meditation on landscape and place as locales for the ideal country home. At times, the narrative collapses into the tedium of details, with Jill rattling off demands and Jack acting bored or clueless. What did Gardner mean by this representation? Clearly the book has an agenda of promoting shifts in home design, but its tone toward gender is also curious, portraying Jill as dominant and Jack as helpless.
This is hardly the collaborative feminist design process inaugurated in the 1970's. It does, however, speak to a certain kind of enfranchisement related to gender and space that pre-cedes suffrage by almost 30 years. Unlike contemporary feminist designers, however, space, in Jill's case, is not associated with freedom but with temperance, morality, and the preservation of the home. This complicates ideas about female designers and architects producing different kinds of space. Not in a way that would downplay the need for more women in the profession, but it does ask us to re-evaluate the "so what?" question of gender and space. Or at least to wonder whether the narrative is not a little bit altered by the narration of a male intermediary architect.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Bras and Purses: the spatiality of gender in internet memes
--Carly Cindrich
If you are a female with a Facebook account, there is a good chance that you received this message in your inbox at some point this week:
About a year ago, we played the game about what color bra you were wearing at the moment. The purpose was to increase awareness of October Breast Cancer Awareness month. It was a tremendous success and we had men wondering for days what was with the colors and it made it to the news. This year's game has to do with your handbag/purse, where we put our handbag the moment we get home. For example "I like it on the couch", "kitchen counter", "the dresser" well u get the idea. Just put your answer as your status with nothing more than that and cut n paste this message and forward to all your FB female friends to their inbox. It doesn't have to be suggestive. The bra game made it to the news. Let's see how powerful we women really are!!!
If you haven’t seen this message yourself, there is still very likely that several “I like it on…” statuses appeared on your news feed. The explanation behind this successfully viral Facebook message is that October is breast cancer awareness month. Last year to raise awareness, a group of activists sent a similar Facebook message to all of their females friends asking them to simply post the color of their bra they were wearing. The end of the message read, “Pass it on and be sure to do your breast self-exams!” While the game is amusing and made for a pretty successful internet meme , it seems that this year the actual purpose of the game got lost in the goal to a) exclude men from knowing something and b) to be as suggestive as possible. This year’s message did not even remind women to do their self-exams, nor did the secret behind the game have anything to do with breast cancer. However, in a world where women feel so disempowered by men, it is really no wonder why a little “don’t let the boys in on the joke” game could be appealing to women all over the world. Both years’ games shared this exclusivity aspect, but this year’s “I like it on…” statuses introduced a strong sexual note into the game. At first, it might just seem like a random silly thing to do or a way for some girls to flirt with the idea of themselves as sexually adventurous and experienced. However, if you look again at the big picture you can see that the sexual connotation of the statuses still links back to the issue of empowerment. In “The Sex Which Is Not One," Luce Irigaray writes about how women find pleasure in viewing themselves as the proxy for male pleasure. For women, viewing ourselves as having some hold over men gives us enough power that we regard the small shred of it we get from having something men want to make it synonymous with our own pleasure. Men are thought of as sexual beings and therefore their sexual fervor is socially acceptable, and traditionally women are not supposed to have their own sexual needs or desires. Possibly for some women, the allure of these Facebook statuses is that it allows them to express a preference about something sexual simply for shock value.
The fact that each woman is asked to identify the place she likes to put her purse brings into play the idea that space is never neutral and is most often gendered. By participating in the game, each woman consents to having the place of her purse be construed by the public as the place she likes to have sex. Therefore, the most obscure places to have sex, even if it made perfect sense for a woman to place her purse there, resulted in the most comments and amused feedback. One popular status this week came from my best friend who “likes it hanging on the wall.” By turning the spatial home of a gendered object into the site of sexual activity, the sex itself becomes gendered in the same way. Therefore the place aspect of these statuses was another way for women to assert their sexual dominance and desire.
Although this year’s Facebook game was successful strictly in terms of participation, the official purpose to raise breast cancer awareness was rather lost in all the excitement. To make sense of the popularity of these Facebook statuses is to understand that for today’s disempowered and misunderstood (or simply unheard) woman, the iota of power that marginalizing men for a day on a social networking site along with the allure of being sexually suggestive while remaining innocent is enough to make a simple Facebook message turn into a viral trend seen around the world.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Design competition roundup
Here are the relevant posts on the design competition:
Guidelines and expectations
Introduction
Initial reactions
Entries
Final Results
Guidelines and expectations
Introduction
Initial reactions
Entries
Final Results
Life or Wife? Representations of female vulnerability in a Super Bowl tire commercial
--Shivani Williams
In this Super Bowl commercial advertisement that was shown in 2010, Bridgestone Tires made a rather bold statement about the role of women in less than sixty seconds.
This commercial depicts a man driving a very fast car only to be stopped by a group of men who threaten him to give up either “his Bridgestone tires or his life.” The driver mistakes the word “life” for “wife” and quickly makes the decision that he would rather keep his tires by throwing his wife out of the car and driving away. By choosing to keep his tires, the woman is shown as less important than material items, such as the parts to a car. Not only is the message a sexist one, but the environment also aids in setting the tone for the exclusion of women. The illusion of the industrial setting as the workplace for men helps create the tone for this commercial. As British feminist and political theorist Carole Pateman put it, “men represent the series of liberal separations and oppositions: female or, --nature, personal, emotional, private, intuition morality, subjection; male—or culture, political, reason, justice, public, philosophy, power, achievement, universal, freedom...” The fast-moving vehicle and power tools imply that the world is a man-dominant one with man being the central character who is associated with power and achievement in this scenario. The scared, surprised look on the woman’s face is associated with vulnerability and emotion—terms commonly used to describe a woman’s innate characteristics.
The physical appearance of the wife can be interpreted as how women should be viewed according to not just men’s standards, but society’s standards in general. The woman in the commercial is unrealistically represented as “the modern wife,” or how the modern wife should look. She is a young, thin female wearing a leather outfit and heavy eye-makeup. Is this the model that society thinks all women should strive to be? Bridgestone sure seems to think so. Furthermore, the man driving is not even shown, demonstrating that a man’s appearance is not nearly as important as that of a woman’s. Again, this gives men some level of superiority over women.
The fact that the man who was threatening the driver didn’t even think twice about threatening the life of the driver’s wife gives women everywhere a representation that they are not worthy against the value of a set of tires. The man gives a look of defeat thus proving that the woman in front of him is useless.
Basically, Bridgestone sums it up for us with its motto at the end of the commercial, “It’s Bridgestone or nothing,” which seems to leave us thinking that they live by this a bit too literally.
In this Super Bowl commercial advertisement that was shown in 2010, Bridgestone Tires made a rather bold statement about the role of women in less than sixty seconds.
This commercial depicts a man driving a very fast car only to be stopped by a group of men who threaten him to give up either “his Bridgestone tires or his life.” The driver mistakes the word “life” for “wife” and quickly makes the decision that he would rather keep his tires by throwing his wife out of the car and driving away. By choosing to keep his tires, the woman is shown as less important than material items, such as the parts to a car. Not only is the message a sexist one, but the environment also aids in setting the tone for the exclusion of women. The illusion of the industrial setting as the workplace for men helps create the tone for this commercial. As British feminist and political theorist Carole Pateman put it, “men represent the series of liberal separations and oppositions: female or, --nature, personal, emotional, private, intuition morality, subjection; male—or culture, political, reason, justice, public, philosophy, power, achievement, universal, freedom...” The fast-moving vehicle and power tools imply that the world is a man-dominant one with man being the central character who is associated with power and achievement in this scenario. The scared, surprised look on the woman’s face is associated with vulnerability and emotion—terms commonly used to describe a woman’s innate characteristics.
The physical appearance of the wife can be interpreted as how women should be viewed according to not just men’s standards, but society’s standards in general. The woman in the commercial is unrealistically represented as “the modern wife,” or how the modern wife should look. She is a young, thin female wearing a leather outfit and heavy eye-makeup. Is this the model that society thinks all women should strive to be? Bridgestone sure seems to think so. Furthermore, the man driving is not even shown, demonstrating that a man’s appearance is not nearly as important as that of a woman’s. Again, this gives men some level of superiority over women.
The fact that the man who was threatening the driver didn’t even think twice about threatening the life of the driver’s wife gives women everywhere a representation that they are not worthy against the value of a set of tires. The man gives a look of defeat thus proving that the woman in front of him is useless.
Basically, Bridgestone sums it up for us with its motto at the end of the commercial, “It’s Bridgestone or nothing,” which seems to leave us thinking that they live by this a bit too literally.
Feminist design competition - final results!
The two submissions showed us a number of important things about the relationship between gender, space, and feminist design practices. The first, and most important, has to do with how we define what words like "feminist" and "gender" mean. When we say that feminism is about "equality" or "difference," who are we talking about being equal or different? Relatedly, when we talk about preserving respect for difference while promoting equality, how do we plan to go about doing this and what do we do when trade-offs inevitably occur? The answers to these questions are complicated. In fact, feminists have been, for some time, concerned with answering these questions in order to further political agendas.
Throughout the semester, the class has discussed ways that space can be oppressive, either by design or by default. We have also looked at many examples of ways that design can be a political practice of perpetuating or altering exclusionary spatial practices. This is a unique and empowering position for designers, we've found, because it rebuilds the built environment that forms the basis for our daily interactions. The current trend toward "green" architecture and Ecological Urbanism comes in part from a recognition that design is not merely aesthetic and has the capacity for social change.
The questions that remain are whether we have chosen the right kind of political agenda and whether our designs can achieve that agenda. SAGE and Friedan Hall, as the previous post explains, adopt very different approaches to feminism, not only as a way of thinking but as a method for design. SAGE is focused on equality that does not privilege any particular identity. Friedan Hall, while also at times concerned with maintaining neutrality, also builds in innovative ways of getting residents to interact, share space, and become aware of different lifestyles and opinions. There are pros and cons to each approach that are debated between the second and third wave feminists. I won't reiterate them here, but suffice it to say that I thought that both groups achieved their particular feminist approach very well through their designs. There were places that both could have improved, but given the constraints of the exercise, I was very impressed with what was produced.
To that end, and giving a nod toward the consensus between the groups that rejecting hierarchy is a desirable feminist practice, the outcome of this contest is a tie. Deciding in favor of either team would require choosing a superior form of feminist thought, rather than who had the better design, because both teams achieved their goals equally.
Both teams will receive extra credit for this assignment. Congrats to all involved!
Throughout the semester, the class has discussed ways that space can be oppressive, either by design or by default. We have also looked at many examples of ways that design can be a political practice of perpetuating or altering exclusionary spatial practices. This is a unique and empowering position for designers, we've found, because it rebuilds the built environment that forms the basis for our daily interactions. The current trend toward "green" architecture and Ecological Urbanism comes in part from a recognition that design is not merely aesthetic and has the capacity for social change.
The questions that remain are whether we have chosen the right kind of political agenda and whether our designs can achieve that agenda. SAGE and Friedan Hall, as the previous post explains, adopt very different approaches to feminism, not only as a way of thinking but as a method for design. SAGE is focused on equality that does not privilege any particular identity. Friedan Hall, while also at times concerned with maintaining neutrality, also builds in innovative ways of getting residents to interact, share space, and become aware of different lifestyles and opinions. There are pros and cons to each approach that are debated between the second and third wave feminists. I won't reiterate them here, but suffice it to say that I thought that both groups achieved their particular feminist approach very well through their designs. There were places that both could have improved, but given the constraints of the exercise, I was very impressed with what was produced.
To that end, and giving a nod toward the consensus between the groups that rejecting hierarchy is a desirable feminist practice, the outcome of this contest is a tie. Deciding in favor of either team would require choosing a superior form of feminist thought, rather than who had the better design, because both teams achieved their goals equally.
Both teams will receive extra credit for this assignment. Congrats to all involved!
Feminist design competition entries!
This competition was extremely close and both teams did an excellent job, given the level of familiarity they had with design. I could really tell that the students had been paying attention to our discussions of the relationship between the construction of space and different issues pertaining to gender, including the history of identity politics, key issues in feminist ideology, and emphasizing access through design.
The two submissions were in some ways very similar and in other ways quite divergent, highlighting the differences between different versions of feminist thought.
SAGE (Sex and Gender Equality) submitted designs for a residence hall focused on (you guessed it) equality and choice-based feminism. While some "feminist" buildings previously adopted a womb-like structure to counteract the prevalence of phallic architectural objects, SAGE adopted a 2-story circular structure symbolizing unity. The building has four entrances, none of which is more dominant than the others. The group expressed their belief in intersectionality. They explained this as an idea that emphasizes the shared need for access among all people (rather than the more commonly-held belief in the intersectional nature of identity as having the potential to compound oppression)
Outside the dorm, a communal garden creates extended semi-private space for the residents, where they can lounge or plant flowers and vegetables. Upon entering the building from any of the doors, residents are led straight into the central common areas, facilitating the flow and circulation of people through both public and private space.
On each floor, a central communal location invites students to share space while studying, cooking, or doing laundry. However, even in these public spaces, students have the choice of using more open, public study areas and more private, cubicle-like spaces. This also provides a space for late-night studiers who do not want to disturb their roommates. The halls are divided to allow for students who wish to live in single-sex or co-ed spaces, and there are both double and single rooms. Inside of each room, students may decide on the location of their furniture, because, after all, choice is paramount to SAGE's version of feminism.
SAGE 1st floor:
SAGE 2nd floor:
Friedan Hall, in contrast, emphasizes the view that feminism is about equality that is accompanied by diversity. Here, community and interaction are emphasized over choice through strategies that we may call architectural determinism. All rooms are doubles, encouraging intermingling among students from different backgrounds. Like SAGE, students have the option of living in single-sex or co-ed spaces, with the vast majority of the space consisting of two perpendicular halls that are each gender segregated. The group clarified, however, that the process of applying to live in the dorm would require students to write an essay that explained their commitment to justice not only related to gender, but also queer, international, and other identities. Trans people, for instance, are allowed to live anywhere in the building (with roommate consent), which is not something, the group argues, could happen if there are single rooms. There are both male and female bathrooms in all of the co-ed spaces, within which there are single-stall bathroom and shower spaces. The group clarified that while single-user restrooms were a potential solution, that the number of students in the dorm necessitated a greater number of toilets and showers. Likewise, because the group's approach to feminism is one that encourages interaction between different kinds of people, the more public restroom style was appropriate.
Friedan Hall consists of four towers connected by glass bridges. In the middle of the towers lies a two-floor structure with public spaces inside (a cafe downstairs and study space upstairs). In the spaces between the towers, there is a courtyard with trees and benches. This courtyard is private in the sense that you must enter the dorm to visit it, but serves as an additional communal space for residents.
The first-floor communal space is a cafe, which will be decorated with posters about feminist history. It will also feature a wall where students can write personal messages and make the space theirs. The second floor includes a central lounge space, as well as individual study spaces scattered throughout the quadrants. In each corner of the building lies an essential space, such as laundry, kitchen, or study facilities. This is one of the most interesting parts of Friedan Hall's design: students, by necessity, must enter the living quadrants of other students, facilitating interaction even when they elect not to enter the designated public spaces, such as the cafe.
Friedan Hall 1st floor:
Friedan Hall 2nd floor:
Both groups used very similar forms in their designs, which perhaps points us toward a new feminist design aesthetic. In both residential halls, each floor was divided into four parts, with each providing a different living environment. Also, both dorms provided the choice of living in coed or single-sex halls (though only Friedan Hall specifically mentioned provisions for trans students). Finally, both dorms opted for neutrally-coded spaces. SAGE rejected both the womb and the phallus as forms. Friedan Hall adopted color-coded hallways that did not use traditionally gendered colors, like blue and pink, as a way of indicating their inclusivity.
Where the groups differed primarily was in their endorsements of feminist thought. This translated directly into the designs. SAGE emphasizes equality and the idea that choice and equal opportunity should override differences. Friedan Hall, in contrast, emphasizes equality through respect for and the cultivation of diversity. In a very direct way, this changed the strategies each team used:
Rooms:
SAGE: gave the choice of either single or double rooms, emphasizing that the choice of private space is a necessary feminist goal.
Friedan Hall: argued that allowing people to live in single rooms does not promote understanding and diversity, and so all students must share doubles. For example, they cited the fact that given the choice of single rooms, trans students may opt to live alone instead of with a roommate who may or may not accept them. Friedan Hall plans to use a questionnaire process to ensure that all students living in the dorm are welcoming of many expressions of gender diversity. This is interesting to think about, because the lack of choice also poses risks to students who may end up living with a roommate who is less tolerant than they believe themselves to be.
Communal Spaces:
SAGE: Communal space is centralized, with the kitchen and laundry room, as well as study spaces, in the center of the building. This is based on their equality-focused approach.
Friedan Hall: Although there is centralized communal space, the distribution of necessary facilities in the wings of the building also forces student interaction, making private living spaces in part semi-private. This is based on their approach to promoting interaction and diversity.
Privacy:
SAGE: provided choice and options for privacy in both public and private spaces (including study spaces and bathrooms)
Friedan Hall: made everything open to facilitate interaction, including making bathrooms shared.
Location:
SAGE: Centrally located (taking the place of Dobbs Hall)
Friedan Hall: In a more traditional freshman dorm space (taking the place of McTrimble at the top of frat row).
Both groups could have improved by thinking about the materials of their buildings and the relationship between the inside and outside of the dorm as public and private space. For example, what is the facade made of and how does it reflect what is inside? Can outsiders see in? Is there a reason to place the public spaces at the center of the building, shielded from the outside?
Stay tuned for the final decision later today!
The two submissions were in some ways very similar and in other ways quite divergent, highlighting the differences between different versions of feminist thought.
SAGE (Sex and Gender Equality) submitted designs for a residence hall focused on (you guessed it) equality and choice-based feminism. While some "feminist" buildings previously adopted a womb-like structure to counteract the prevalence of phallic architectural objects, SAGE adopted a 2-story circular structure symbolizing unity. The building has four entrances, none of which is more dominant than the others. The group expressed their belief in intersectionality. They explained this as an idea that emphasizes the shared need for access among all people (rather than the more commonly-held belief in the intersectional nature of identity as having the potential to compound oppression)
Outside the dorm, a communal garden creates extended semi-private space for the residents, where they can lounge or plant flowers and vegetables. Upon entering the building from any of the doors, residents are led straight into the central common areas, facilitating the flow and circulation of people through both public and private space.
On each floor, a central communal location invites students to share space while studying, cooking, or doing laundry. However, even in these public spaces, students have the choice of using more open, public study areas and more private, cubicle-like spaces. This also provides a space for late-night studiers who do not want to disturb their roommates. The halls are divided to allow for students who wish to live in single-sex or co-ed spaces, and there are both double and single rooms. Inside of each room, students may decide on the location of their furniture, because, after all, choice is paramount to SAGE's version of feminism.
SAGE 1st floor:
SAGE 2nd floor:
Friedan Hall, in contrast, emphasizes the view that feminism is about equality that is accompanied by diversity. Here, community and interaction are emphasized over choice through strategies that we may call architectural determinism. All rooms are doubles, encouraging intermingling among students from different backgrounds. Like SAGE, students have the option of living in single-sex or co-ed spaces, with the vast majority of the space consisting of two perpendicular halls that are each gender segregated. The group clarified, however, that the process of applying to live in the dorm would require students to write an essay that explained their commitment to justice not only related to gender, but also queer, international, and other identities. Trans people, for instance, are allowed to live anywhere in the building (with roommate consent), which is not something, the group argues, could happen if there are single rooms. There are both male and female bathrooms in all of the co-ed spaces, within which there are single-stall bathroom and shower spaces. The group clarified that while single-user restrooms were a potential solution, that the number of students in the dorm necessitated a greater number of toilets and showers. Likewise, because the group's approach to feminism is one that encourages interaction between different kinds of people, the more public restroom style was appropriate.
Friedan Hall consists of four towers connected by glass bridges. In the middle of the towers lies a two-floor structure with public spaces inside (a cafe downstairs and study space upstairs). In the spaces between the towers, there is a courtyard with trees and benches. This courtyard is private in the sense that you must enter the dorm to visit it, but serves as an additional communal space for residents.
The first-floor communal space is a cafe, which will be decorated with posters about feminist history. It will also feature a wall where students can write personal messages and make the space theirs. The second floor includes a central lounge space, as well as individual study spaces scattered throughout the quadrants. In each corner of the building lies an essential space, such as laundry, kitchen, or study facilities. This is one of the most interesting parts of Friedan Hall's design: students, by necessity, must enter the living quadrants of other students, facilitating interaction even when they elect not to enter the designated public spaces, such as the cafe.
Friedan Hall 1st floor:
Friedan Hall 2nd floor:
Both groups used very similar forms in their designs, which perhaps points us toward a new feminist design aesthetic. In both residential halls, each floor was divided into four parts, with each providing a different living environment. Also, both dorms provided the choice of living in coed or single-sex halls (though only Friedan Hall specifically mentioned provisions for trans students). Finally, both dorms opted for neutrally-coded spaces. SAGE rejected both the womb and the phallus as forms. Friedan Hall adopted color-coded hallways that did not use traditionally gendered colors, like blue and pink, as a way of indicating their inclusivity.
Where the groups differed primarily was in their endorsements of feminist thought. This translated directly into the designs. SAGE emphasizes equality and the idea that choice and equal opportunity should override differences. Friedan Hall, in contrast, emphasizes equality through respect for and the cultivation of diversity. In a very direct way, this changed the strategies each team used:
Rooms:
SAGE: gave the choice of either single or double rooms, emphasizing that the choice of private space is a necessary feminist goal.
Friedan Hall: argued that allowing people to live in single rooms does not promote understanding and diversity, and so all students must share doubles. For example, they cited the fact that given the choice of single rooms, trans students may opt to live alone instead of with a roommate who may or may not accept them. Friedan Hall plans to use a questionnaire process to ensure that all students living in the dorm are welcoming of many expressions of gender diversity. This is interesting to think about, because the lack of choice also poses risks to students who may end up living with a roommate who is less tolerant than they believe themselves to be.
Communal Spaces:
SAGE: Communal space is centralized, with the kitchen and laundry room, as well as study spaces, in the center of the building. This is based on their equality-focused approach.
Friedan Hall: Although there is centralized communal space, the distribution of necessary facilities in the wings of the building also forces student interaction, making private living spaces in part semi-private. This is based on their approach to promoting interaction and diversity.
Privacy:
SAGE: provided choice and options for privacy in both public and private spaces (including study spaces and bathrooms)
Friedan Hall: made everything open to facilitate interaction, including making bathrooms shared.
Location:
SAGE: Centrally located (taking the place of Dobbs Hall)
Friedan Hall: In a more traditional freshman dorm space (taking the place of McTrimble at the top of frat row).
Both groups could have improved by thinking about the materials of their buildings and the relationship between the inside and outside of the dorm as public and private space. For example, what is the facade made of and how does it reflect what is inside? Can outsiders see in? Is there a reason to place the public spaces at the center of the building, shielded from the outside?
Stay tuned for the final decision later today!
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Public restrooms and disability access: why these designs and for which bodies?
-first year student, Shivani Williams, on the design of bathrooms in her residential suite
Pictures 1 and 2: Semi-suite bathroom (disability accessible)
As a resident of Longstreet-means, I have noticed some very interesting aspects of architecture regarding the way that the bathrooms were designed. The first two pictures above were taken in the bathroom in my suite. Because one of my suitemates was in crutches, we were all moved into a disability accessible room. That is why our bathroom is slightly larger than our neighbor’s bathrooms (pictures 1 and 2 are of our bathroom). Pictures 3 and 4 are photos of the hall bathroom on our floor. Unlike the girls, the boys do not have bathrooms in their rooms, but girls are allowed to use the hall bathrooms, too. I found it very interesting that even though our bathroom is supposed to be disability accessible, there is no tub—-just a shower. In the hall bathroom, however, there is a tub with a shower. This seems strange to me, because if a boy had a broken foot, then it wouldn’t be an inconvenience to him to have to use this bathroom, considering he has to use the hall bathroom anyway. However, if a girl had a broken foot, rather than using her own bathroom, she would need to go all the way down to the hall bathroom just to use the tub. Why weren’t the girls' disability- accessible bathrooms built with tubs?
Pictures 3 and 4: hall bathroom (also disability accessible)
The pictures above depict the relationship between bodies and space, and how certain types of spaces can determine who use them. At first glance, photos 1 and 2 appear to promote ease for a person with a disability because the bathroom is quite spacious and has handle bars near the toilet seat. However, when the shower lacks a tub, as seen in picture #2, students with disabilities cannot shower. Though it is feasible for some people on crutches to use this shower, the design does not take into account people in wheelchairs or even people on crutches who do not have the upper body strength to hold themselves up in the shower without some kind of support system. Thus, the lack of a tub where the shower is refutes the notion that all people can use it. As a result, those in wheelchairs and/or on crutches are forced to use the public, hall bathroom where there is a tub integrated into the shower.
Furthermore, not only does the so-called accessible bathroom exclude disabled people in wheelchairs and on crutches, but it specifically excludes female students with disabilities because the bathrooms for female students are integrated into the rooms. If a female student with an impairment is unable to use her own bathroom because of its lack of a tub, she would be forced to take a shower in the hall bathroom, which is unfair because this is a space that she must share with male residents. The female disabled student in this scenario has neither a private space where she can take a shower nor a public space where she can take a shower without the possibility of having to wait for male residents to finish using it. In conclusion, she is being forced into public space, not by her own choice, but because she is female and has a disability, and there is no such personal space for her-- even in her own bathroom.
Pictures 1 and 2: Semi-suite bathroom (disability accessible)
As a resident of Longstreet-means, I have noticed some very interesting aspects of architecture regarding the way that the bathrooms were designed. The first two pictures above were taken in the bathroom in my suite. Because one of my suitemates was in crutches, we were all moved into a disability accessible room. That is why our bathroom is slightly larger than our neighbor’s bathrooms (pictures 1 and 2 are of our bathroom). Pictures 3 and 4 are photos of the hall bathroom on our floor. Unlike the girls, the boys do not have bathrooms in their rooms, but girls are allowed to use the hall bathrooms, too. I found it very interesting that even though our bathroom is supposed to be disability accessible, there is no tub—-just a shower. In the hall bathroom, however, there is a tub with a shower. This seems strange to me, because if a boy had a broken foot, then it wouldn’t be an inconvenience to him to have to use this bathroom, considering he has to use the hall bathroom anyway. However, if a girl had a broken foot, rather than using her own bathroom, she would need to go all the way down to the hall bathroom just to use the tub. Why weren’t the girls' disability- accessible bathrooms built with tubs?
Pictures 3 and 4: hall bathroom (also disability accessible)
The pictures above depict the relationship between bodies and space, and how certain types of spaces can determine who use them. At first glance, photos 1 and 2 appear to promote ease for a person with a disability because the bathroom is quite spacious and has handle bars near the toilet seat. However, when the shower lacks a tub, as seen in picture #2, students with disabilities cannot shower. Though it is feasible for some people on crutches to use this shower, the design does not take into account people in wheelchairs or even people on crutches who do not have the upper body strength to hold themselves up in the shower without some kind of support system. Thus, the lack of a tub where the shower is refutes the notion that all people can use it. As a result, those in wheelchairs and/or on crutches are forced to use the public, hall bathroom where there is a tub integrated into the shower.
Furthermore, not only does the so-called accessible bathroom exclude disabled people in wheelchairs and on crutches, but it specifically excludes female students with disabilities because the bathrooms for female students are integrated into the rooms. If a female student with an impairment is unable to use her own bathroom because of its lack of a tub, she would be forced to take a shower in the hall bathroom, which is unfair because this is a space that she must share with male residents. The female disabled student in this scenario has neither a private space where she can take a shower nor a public space where she can take a shower without the possibility of having to wait for male residents to finish using it. In conclusion, she is being forced into public space, not by her own choice, but because she is female and has a disability, and there is no such personal space for her-- even in her own bathroom.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Feminist Design Competition results
...probably won't be ready until the weekend. Both groups did an excellent job and the contest is very close. I want to scan some of the visuals before I make a final decision so that I can announce it on the blog.
The projects raised a lot of interesting questions about feminism and space. The most obvious is what it means to intend to create a feminist space and how we can know the outcomes. Both groups, in various parts of the project, adopted the position that gender neutrality was a way of achieving equality. That is, if spaces are designed without producing barriers that preclude certain people from inhabiting them, this is an optical outcome. We'll learn more about this idea in a few weeks when we talk about the relationship between disability access and other kinds of access.
Another question that both groups grappled with was how to best incorporate choice without producing trade-offs or confrontations between the interests of different groups. The best example of this is strategies for making residential hall spaces safer and more friendly towards trans students. One group approached the issue by designating spaces in which gender does not determine whether students can share a bedroom or bathroom. The other group indicated that trans students would be mentioned on the dorm application, indicating to potential residents that their participation in a "feminist themed dorm" necessitates their willingness to share even intimate bathroom spaces with others (but that they would be asked consent before being assigned a roommate).
These approaches reveal something about ideology and how spaces work to protect it. Maximizing choice is a way of protecting the inclusion of trans students (and others, I'm just using this as an example here) who might otherwise be forced to live in a hostile environment. Students choosing not to live in the spaces designated as open to gender diversity need not apply. Feminists have long debated the issue of ideological gate-keeping, or the idea that we can designate a metaphorical space for ideology and protect it from intrusion. Gate-keeping can be problematic in some instances because it attempts to establish authenticity, but it can also be useful when it is necessary to delineate one way of thinking from another for the purpose of critiquing dominant structures.
The approaches the students took to their projects showed how complicated the issue of boundary-drawing is in relation to exclusion. In some way, drawing boundaries is inevitable; it then becomes a question of what the boundaries protect and what they exclude. Even more complicated is the idea that design processes can be political and, in this case, feminist.
Is it possible to create a space of openness to difference without closing it off from an outside world that potentially challenges or poses a threat to it? Perhaps this is an issue of scale--drawing boundaries in a localized context could create the conditions necessary to remove barriers on a societal level. Within both groups' building designs, hallways, stairs, and other circulation paths were set up to create flows between the private living areas and the shared semi-public spaces, such as laundry and study rooms. The intention of these layouts is to encourage people, within the confined space of the residential hall, to cross spatial and metaphorical boundaries and inhabit different spaces. Does this strategy scale up to the level of the campus, the city, the region, and the world? Will the development of feminist consciousness in a single space prepare students for taking on more serious change on these other scales?
These are difficult questions to answer, but the fact that the projects raised them reveals a lot about their complexity, as well as the level of detail that went into both of them.
Stay tuned for some visuals, more detailed project descriptions, and the final competition winner!
The projects raised a lot of interesting questions about feminism and space. The most obvious is what it means to intend to create a feminist space and how we can know the outcomes. Both groups, in various parts of the project, adopted the position that gender neutrality was a way of achieving equality. That is, if spaces are designed without producing barriers that preclude certain people from inhabiting them, this is an optical outcome. We'll learn more about this idea in a few weeks when we talk about the relationship between disability access and other kinds of access.
Another question that both groups grappled with was how to best incorporate choice without producing trade-offs or confrontations between the interests of different groups. The best example of this is strategies for making residential hall spaces safer and more friendly towards trans students. One group approached the issue by designating spaces in which gender does not determine whether students can share a bedroom or bathroom. The other group indicated that trans students would be mentioned on the dorm application, indicating to potential residents that their participation in a "feminist themed dorm" necessitates their willingness to share even intimate bathroom spaces with others (but that they would be asked consent before being assigned a roommate).
These approaches reveal something about ideology and how spaces work to protect it. Maximizing choice is a way of protecting the inclusion of trans students (and others, I'm just using this as an example here) who might otherwise be forced to live in a hostile environment. Students choosing not to live in the spaces designated as open to gender diversity need not apply. Feminists have long debated the issue of ideological gate-keeping, or the idea that we can designate a metaphorical space for ideology and protect it from intrusion. Gate-keeping can be problematic in some instances because it attempts to establish authenticity, but it can also be useful when it is necessary to delineate one way of thinking from another for the purpose of critiquing dominant structures.
The approaches the students took to their projects showed how complicated the issue of boundary-drawing is in relation to exclusion. In some way, drawing boundaries is inevitable; it then becomes a question of what the boundaries protect and what they exclude. Even more complicated is the idea that design processes can be political and, in this case, feminist.
Is it possible to create a space of openness to difference without closing it off from an outside world that potentially challenges or poses a threat to it? Perhaps this is an issue of scale--drawing boundaries in a localized context could create the conditions necessary to remove barriers on a societal level. Within both groups' building designs, hallways, stairs, and other circulation paths were set up to create flows between the private living areas and the shared semi-public spaces, such as laundry and study rooms. The intention of these layouts is to encourage people, within the confined space of the residential hall, to cross spatial and metaphorical boundaries and inhabit different spaces. Does this strategy scale up to the level of the campus, the city, the region, and the world? Will the development of feminist consciousness in a single space prepare students for taking on more serious change on these other scales?
These are difficult questions to answer, but the fact that the projects raised them reveals a lot about their complexity, as well as the level of detail that went into both of them.
Stay tuned for some visuals, more detailed project descriptions, and the final competition winner!
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Final projects
Students taking the course are given the opportunity to design final projects that put their academic and/or creative interests in the context of gender and space. This has precipitated a wide and exciting variety of objects of inquiry and formats of exploration.
The projects are in their initial planning stages, but here is a sneak peek of what readers can look forward to:
-A short, documentary film exploring one individual's relationship to the private spaces of others
-A short story that explores the relationship of a home to the identity practices of three generations of the family that live within it
-Spatial ethnographies that locate group identities and social practices within the structures of the formal spaces they inhabit
-Critiques of scientific research about space and gender
-A website featuring feminist analysis of ancient Chinese architecture
...and more!
Students will also soon be turning in their mid-term projects, which ask them to either do a spatial ethnography or to keep a consumption diary that maps the things they purchase onto a world map. Both projects ask students to reflect on the relationship between the environment and the exercise of power and identity.
Keep reading for updates on how these projects develop!
The projects are in their initial planning stages, but here is a sneak peek of what readers can look forward to:
-A short, documentary film exploring one individual's relationship to the private spaces of others
-A short story that explores the relationship of a home to the identity practices of three generations of the family that live within it
-Spatial ethnographies that locate group identities and social practices within the structures of the formal spaces they inhabit
-Critiques of scientific research about space and gender
-A website featuring feminist analysis of ancient Chinese architecture
...and more!
Students will also soon be turning in their mid-term projects, which ask them to either do a spatial ethnography or to keep a consumption diary that maps the things they purchase onto a world map. Both projects ask students to reflect on the relationship between the environment and the exercise of power and identity.
Keep reading for updates on how these projects develop!
Friday, October 1, 2010
And we're off!
Two feminist, student design firms, SAGE and More Than Margins, are preparing submissions to the competition. The design process is not yet over, but here's a sneak peak of what is awaiting revelation on Monday:
Whereas feminist design collectives like Matrix sought to counteract the plentiful phallic imagery in architecture with womb-like structures, SAGE (Sex and Gender Equality) is interested in forms that do not fall into either category. Their wide, circular building is centered on the idea of unity and symmetry, but not sameness. Central community spaces on each floor are surrounded by single and double dorm rooms divided into quadrants that access the building's many entrances. Outside, gardens contribute to the feminist sense of the space.
More Than Margins, giving a nominal shoutout to bell hooks' "Choosing the Margin as a Space of Radical Openness," takes a more equality-based approach to feminist space. Like SAGE, More Than Margins plans their space around central communal locations, where students from throughout the dorm's four areas can convene to eat, study, or socialize. Each of the four wings is coded with a gender-neutral color (they actually did color theory research about this), and features gender-neutral bathrooms that join separate hallways for male and female students. More Than Margins claims that this combination of public and private space provide room for community while maintaining diversity and difference.
Stay tuned for the final results on Monday!
Whereas feminist design collectives like Matrix sought to counteract the plentiful phallic imagery in architecture with womb-like structures, SAGE (Sex and Gender Equality) is interested in forms that do not fall into either category. Their wide, circular building is centered on the idea of unity and symmetry, but not sameness. Central community spaces on each floor are surrounded by single and double dorm rooms divided into quadrants that access the building's many entrances. Outside, gardens contribute to the feminist sense of the space.
More Than Margins, giving a nominal shoutout to bell hooks' "Choosing the Margin as a Space of Radical Openness," takes a more equality-based approach to feminist space. Like SAGE, More Than Margins plans their space around central communal locations, where students from throughout the dorm's four areas can convene to eat, study, or socialize. Each of the four wings is coded with a gender-neutral color (they actually did color theory research about this), and features gender-neutral bathrooms that join separate hallways for male and female students. More Than Margins claims that this combination of public and private space provide room for community while maintaining diversity and difference.
Stay tuned for the final results on Monday!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)