Faggot = Loser

I found this reading particularly interesting, from a psychoanalytical viewpoint on the word and it's connotations relative to a given context.  Ken Corbett proposes that the word "Faggot" doesn't necessarily associate with homosexuality at all, but rather a symbolic removal of manliness and manhood.  According to Corbett, to be small and to lose is to embody "faggot", and it is this internal/external motivation to be "big and winning" that drives aggression and competition between boys and men.  Corbett's analysis of his patient Josh's use of the word during a session struck me as a very well thought out, well structured response to the unconscious initiation of competition from the young boy with the older man, as a result of his brother seeming bigger, stronger, and more in control.  I found it interesting as well that the boy was able to acknowledge that he wanted to be big and to win, that his brother was big and won often, and yet he refused to admit to wanting to be like his brother.  This breakdown in the thought process and connection formation is fascinating to me, as it seems from an objective, removed viewpoint to be the immediate next logical conclusion that Josh wants to be like his older brother.  Finally, Corbett states that male competition and dominance are highly unstable, as loss and failure are inevitable in every scenario pertaining to masculine competition.  Making "Faggots of us all", the guarantee of eventual loss remains ever present in the male mind.

Uncle

Winston James' "Uncle" is an interesting exploration of sexuality in a child, with race and class both as active factors.  James raises questions about how a child processes desire, and whether the child actually processes it at all, or is rather experiencing a cathartic attachment.  Does the boy, Jake, manifest his experiences with his older brother "shaving his face" in his emotional and physical reactions to his Uncle's presence?  Jake's exposure to male sexuality and power through the organs so early on in his mental development initiates a jumbled, frantic search for stability and answers in the young boy's head.  James does a uniquely good job of exploring the inner workings of the human mind when processing desire for the first time.

Response to Daily Trojan Article

I'm finding this article a little difficult to respond to, as the author jumped between topics so frequently and nonsensically that it's nearly impossible to extract an overall point to the piece.  I'm not sure if Salama intended to publish a piece championing the rights of the more intolerant among us, or to complain about over regulation and government presence in public matters, or even to raise issue with lack of attention to other social issues in need of legislation.  Near the beginning of the article, the author seems to take issue with creating "a law to expedite that transition" from one gender identity to another, but fails to discuss any further why the creation of the law is unnecessary.  Instead, Salama proceeds to list off generalized statements about political tendencies in metropolitan areas, and that people tend to be more accepting in these locations.  The article leaps back and forth between statements about supporting "people who aren’t as comfortable with working with people who identify as transgender", and comparisons of changing gender to changing one's name.  On the whole, the article leads me to believe Salama is a very confused individual who hasn't put much time into developing a clear line of thought and accidentally wrote an article that tells more about the author than about the intended subject(s).  

My Thanksgiving

In recent years, my experiences with thanksgiving have yielded an interesting recurring theme.  Issues of classic gender assignment during holidays that revolve around food (women cooking, men otherwise occupied) have become less important to me with time.  My family gathers in the very small, very homogenous town of Barstow, California.  Every major holiday of my conscious life has been set to a backdrop of death valley during the "extreme weather" months of the year.  Starting in about seventh grade, I decided to keep my hair longer than shoulder length because I had very little life experience at that point in time.  A rather feminine adolescent boy, I was often mistaken for a girl, and couldn't seem to figure out where all the confusion was coming from.  My extended family had known for some time that I was actually a boy, but had a difficult time reconciling common gender stereotypes with my behavior.  I wasn't great at sports like my other cousins, who were all either state champion wrestlers, star baseball and football players, and gifted athletes on the whole.  I was (still am) a gangly, awkwardly built, relatively uncoordinated person who found a home in music rather than on a sports team.  Most concerning of all, however, was that I didn't seem to be as socially confident and outgoing around family gatherings as the other kids in my generation.  After nineteen years of gathering for holidays, I'm just now beginning to find a voice among my relatives that doesn't immediately retreat from the louder conversations that take place.  I'm a fairly shy person by nature, so this allowed for quite a bit of miscommunication to fly way over my head.  I really started picking up on the subtle hints and questions at my sexual preference in the past two years, but I'm realizing that they go much farther back than that.  Questions about my girlfriend of four years that they've never met have become less interested in how we're doing and more interested in proving that she exists at all, since girls tend to come and go frequently in my male cousins' lives.  I've learned to view the confused inquiries as funny, and food for an interesting discussion.  Without a direct statement or affirmation of gender identity, my family needed to place me for themselves to know how to interact with me.  All this aside, I love my family and I realize that they were trying to go about this as cautiously and thoughtfully as they could, which allowed for more frequent incidents of hilariously apparent attempts at subtlety.

From the streets of New York City to the townships of South Africa, the LGBT rights movement and its opposition are engaged in an unprecedented international battle.

Obama administration pushes global LGBT rights into the limelight

A major US foreign aid initiative could tip the scales further toward equality.

The US took a groundbreaking step on global LGBT rights Tuesday, joining the UK in tying foreign aid to governments’ protection of sexual minorities, raising the stakes in the increasingly globalized battle over gay rights. 
It is important to analyze why this initiative is taking place and under which conditions and which might be the reasons. I just wanted to let you know about it as I believed it was interesting and it might help to have such an important event in our knowledge for the final.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/politics/aid/111206/obama-clinton-us-aid-global-lgbt-rights

identification unnecessary in political realm

This article is very offensive and ignorant. She says we all deserve our rights, yet she says we need to support people who are unaccepting of equality, which seems like her. She doesn't believe that gender identity and expression is a big of an issue to make laws about, as she says "surely there are larger problems to worry about." When she says this, it seems as if she is not thinking about those who she is talking about and as if she doesn't realize that most of the students at the school (school that is located in Los Angeles "where people tend to be more accepting of an individual's preferred sexual orientation or identity")read this article, including transgender people and the supporters.
Also, when she says "people who choose to identify themselves in a different way need to be aware of the effects of such decisions", what different is she referring to? Isn't she different from all people? Aren't we all different from each other?
She says lots of things that she does not or cannot support.
Especially at the last paragraph, she talks as if addressing issues regarding transgender is not worthy of time. She recommends to address issues about worse forms of injustice rather than transgender, which is a "personal issue". But she needs to realize that every individual has personal issues and there is no such thing as "worse" discrimination. Discrimination is discrimination. Any form of discrimination should be addressed just as equally as any other form of discrimination.

Thanksgiving....

While Thanksgiving may very well be the season of being thankful and giving, I would like to stay that some people just can't seem to break away from stereotypes and everything else that comes with it.

While I enjoyed a relaxing week with my family, I wanted to share an observation that made me upset last week.

So, my family and I spent Thanksgiving at my brother's house and everyone was excited to see each other. After the casual hugs and superficial hellos'....the women retreated to the kitchen while then men gathered outside around a table of poker. I am not a gambler but I LOVE to play poker so I sat next to my brother dealing for the crowd. Everyone was cheering and having a good time. Miller Lite decorated our tables while the women inside drank some egg nog and "ponche." In comes my uncle who mostly spends his time drinking his way into the morning and says to me, "What are you doing here, shouldn't you be in the kitchen cooking with the rest of them?"

I smiled at him while I shuffled the cards in between my fingers and said.... "Isn't it about time you started?"

Beatriz Preciado...

Beatriz Preciado is a philosophist and professor of Gender Thoery at the University of Paris VIII. Her book "Manifesto Contra-Sexual" is said to be one of the most influential and provocative books of the century. One of her beliefs that is interesting to me is that she theorizes that "macho" men adjudicate 4 roles to women: mother, virgin, slut (prostitute), or stupid. For some reason, I tend to agree with her theory. Although I don't accuse ALL men of doing so, but I do believe that there are those who believe this to be true.

In this interview I watched (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4k98oLXAmI&feature=related ), the interviewer claims that many of Preciado's ideas irritate other people and that many don't agree with her. She believes that sexuality and gender are plastic spaces where they are two separate realms. She considers herself transgender after being labeled by society as a lesbian.

I like that she mentions that we should all experiment with sexuality and beyond that, that we should experiment with our own body. She herself experiments with testosterone and claims that she utilizes it as a political drug - in terms of modifying your body and making a political statement.

Hey views and theories are interesting and while I would not try testosterone myself, I applaud her bold views and her efforts to challenge everyone else.

Lady Gaga and the speaking vaginas

Transgender Article

I believe that the article is very offensive because it seem to degrade the problems that transgender people face. The way the author address the issue of transgender is very ignorant. There is a lack of evidence to support the claims she is making. The acceptance of transgender people is as important as any other issue because it is about equality. They are the people being affected. Such an article like this one in the Daily Trojan is unacceptable. It is a biased article that goes against the standards of USC that refer to diversity and equality.

Identification Unnecessary

Simply judging by the beginning of the article, "The word 'anti-discrimination' is usually something to celebrate," with Salama's inclusion of "usually" in the sentence, I knew that the author would provide some instances in which anti-discrimation is deemed unworthy, a claim that necessitates much evidence and explanation. Without hesitation, she goes right into expressing pure opinion that even later is poorly supported, and makes a slight contradiction by saying that everyone deserves equal rights...but not really. By questioning if it is really worth creating a law to apparently expedite the transgender-ing process, or putting assumptions aside and interpreting from what the title of the bill mentions, prohibiting discrimination for gender identity, she implies that the law is above the cause; in other words, it is not worth the trouble to create legislation on as insignifant a topic.

Multiple sweeping generalizations appear throughout article, major ones being the idea that all university students support these laws and that the number of people not accepting of transgenderism is large enough that this anti-discrimination law should be stopped for their sake. After reading, I am led to think that the author falls into the category of those not entirely willing to accept the classification because of 1) the lack of data needed to support such a strong claim, like polls or surveys that indicate that the majority is opposed to such classifications, and 2) the strange logic that she uses for support, one of which is the statement about gender change being a choice, which proves insignificant, therefore making her claims stand as strict opinions. By stating that laws shouldn't be made about "personal" issues, I wonder what better subject there is to target than that of gender, one that affects everyone and anyone.

Identification Absolutely Necessary for Political Rights!

As with most of my other classmates, I found myself at awe of that the position of the writer of this article took. Engie Salama, the writer of the article, overviews that new anti-discrimination laws in California make it illegal for employers to discriminate against transgender individuals. Salama asks the question, "Is it really necessary to create a law to expedite that transition?", and as an answer to her question, I state yes, it is necessary! It seems that legislation is one of the only ways for individuals to fight for their inherent rights. While I think this is an advancement in equal opportunities for people of all genders, she stated that "we should instead be more accepting of the people who aren’t as comfortable with working with people who identify as transgender.  which I find to be alarming because that relates closely to a don't ask, don't tell mentality. By having a taboo of disclosing your identity because it might make other people uncomfortable, it reinforces the notion that to have things seem somewhat "normal", you have to please others by acting a certain way, even if that's not who you truly are.

While I understand that some people might be uncomfortable with working with someone that is transgender, it is probably because they don't know much about the LGBT community. Through interaction and education, one can learn that they are humans just like them. There is no need for alienation, and it is nobody's business to react negativity just because an individual identifies with a certain group.This article overall is just embarrassing and ignorant and I can't believe the Daily Trojan would publish this article because this reflects negatively on the university. USC is known for being such a diverse campus with students from all over the world and from different walks of life. Unfortunately, this article represents the opposite and I hope they issue a statement or completely retract this article.

defining labels in society

I find great fault in Salama's article, primarily I am frustrated by her ignorance. The way I read it, she is saying that people who elect to be transgender should have no rights regarding their freedom to announce what they identify as without discrimination. Basically, that they should take what comes with the territory and deal with it, or else simply not be transgender at all. People do not become transgender on a whim for fun. This is a decision that people make for themselves in order to have a happier and more complete life. This quote, “Perhaps it’s not the state’s place to tell employers, teachers and other people in society they must be blind to an individual’s personal decision” is basically saying that it should be up to an employer that they have every right to discriminate.

In the article, I find the author contradicting herself in an attempt to maintain a balance in what she’s saying, but the effect is actually making her appear more confused and uninformed on the issue she chose to take a stance on. She says that the two laws passed weren’t something to celebrate, but then backtracks by saying that everybody deserves equal rights. She flip-flops a couple more times, and this sends the audience a mixed message. She is trying to state her stance, which I see as being that she thinks rights for transgendered people aren’t as important as other social and political issues, but it shines through more as a transphobia. Her argument is very single-minded and does not take into account the possible other situations that could have the same argument against them, as is mentioned in a comment such as African Americans or Muslims. It is true that nobody is going to be liked 100% of the time, but this is why laws are passed in order to work towards equality.

-Bella Narvaez

Not to say that I am taking the side of this author; however, I do believe I understand where he/she is coming from. I too have thought numerous amounts of times about why it was, IN MY OPINION, that people, the media and government entities often focus a great part of their attention on what I believe should only entertain an infinitesimally small sum of it. Then again who am I to define what is important and what is not for the world? I am no one; which is why I unlike this author keep my soliloquies as just that, soliloquies. With all due respect to all the hatred that can (and probably did) arise from every syllable in that article, I truly believe that this author’s greatest mistake was to express their personal opinion as a statement. No one in their right mind is going to allow to be spoon-fed a bunch of bullshit (by their definition of course) by someone who’s own opinion creates a tangent to theirs.

I do not believe there is anything wrong with forming any opinion about any subject because if I would then I would in doubt be doing the exact same thing I pronounce he/she to be guilty of. The author is entitled to believe and say whatever they so please, maybe they shouldn’t have damaged the credibility of the Daily Trojan editors along the way, but that’s beside the point. I don’t believe I should feel hatred, happiness or any other emotion that corresponds to the allegations coming from this article. Wouldn’t that just be following the normative?

Identification unnecessary

I agree with Mandi on this one. While i'm not shocked the Daily Trojan ran the article (free speech), I am astounded with the blatant opinionated writing. The author states that transgender individuals should certainly have their rights and freedoms, yet sheis against laws that give transgenders exactly that, and she focuses on how the state needs to focus on other important issues like the budget. Let's be fair, whether male, female, black, hispanic, under the poverty line, or above it, protecting the freedom of United States citizens is a major issue and priority. The government recognizing this is necessary and welcomed for the liberty of the country. I see why the story has 1.1 out of 5 stars. Engie says, "The problem with legally allowing people to freely and easily declare themselves as transgender is that not everybody is willing to accept the classification. " OK, so what's the alternative? Clearly it's make "coming out" illegal, or at least make it very hard. I also believe that of course not everyone is willing to accept the classification. There are still some people who believe women are not fit for the workplace or that African Americans should still be in slavery. Truth is, There will always be bigotry and ignorance. The government is doing all they can to minimize it. Let them do that.

Identification NECESSARY

First of all I was pretty shocked that the Daily Trojan chose to run this article in their paper. The bold statements the author made were clearly biased without any researched data. I especially found this statement rather offensive, "We should instead be more accepting of the people who aren’t as comfortable with working with people who identify as transgenders." So by this reasoning if someone is uncomfortable working with a Mexican or African American person the uncomfortable person is the one we should sympathize with and "help." This reasoning is what contributes to widespread discrimination of race, gender, social economic standings etc. Weather or not a person is comfortable working with an individual from the LGBT community should not take away that persons rights in the work force. Just because they identify outside of normal gender constructions it does not mean that they are a different species and therefore should not have the same natural rights as every other human. This type of ignorance is astounding.
I also found it interesting how the author of this article mentioned the fine line between imposing and accepting. Just because the author may chose to be blind to what important issues are at hand this sense of ignoring the issue can not and should not be tolerated. People are not only discriminated against, but they are actually murdered because of their gender identification and murder is not right no matter what side of the issue you stand on. If you do not impose laws to protect these individuals than there will be no accepting.
- Mandi Brooksbank

Gunman kills transgender woman in Hollywood

This is exactly why we need laws protecting transgenders and transsexuals:

Nov 19, 2011

WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif. (KABC) -- Authorities are searching for a man suspected of shooting a transgender woman dead in Hollywood and firing a shot at another about half an hour later in West Hollywood.

Nathan Henry Vickers, 32, was shot and killed about 9:55 p.m. Thursday near Lexington Avenue and Gower Street, an area of Hollywood known for street prostitution. The gunman fled on foot.

At 10:25 p.m., another transgender woman was shot at during an attempted robbery a little more than a mile away at Plummer Park. The suspect fired at the victim once with a semiautomatic pistol.

Nobody was hurt in the second incident.

"It's very disturbing," said West Hollywood resident Kathy Blaivis. "I'd like to say it's the first time I've heard about a gun in the park, but it's not."

Investigators said they believe the same man was responsible for both shootings. He is described as a black man, 5-foot-9, about 150 pounds and in his mid 20s to mid 30s. He had a medium complexion with light facial hair. Police said he may be a transient and may have been riding a bicycle.

Anyone with information is urged to call the Los Angeles Police Department at (877) 527-3247.

Coincidentally, Plummer Park is the starting point for the 13th annual Transgender Day Of Remembrance March and Program on Sunday. The event begins at 1 p.m.

(Copyright ©2011 KABC-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)

"Identification Unnecessary...."

WOW... First of all, this article is worthless. As a writer and copy editor for the Daily Trojan, I can't believe that they chose to run it. A First Amendment publication like the Daily Trojan allows for freedom of speech and press. This means that any one is free to say whatever they want...even if it's offensive and repulsive. In this case, I feel like the author is delusional and I feel sorry for the poor freshman. She should be enrolled in the SWMS 215 class. The author says, "Does there have to be a specific prohibition against discriminating for “gender identity and expression”? Surely there are larger problems to worry about." Is she serious? What larger problems could she be referring too? As if discrimination was such a minimal issue. She claims to think that gays, lesbians, transgenders and transsexuals make a personal choice to be different and that therefore "anti-discrimination" laws should not protect such individuals. Her opinions are completely prejudicial and disgusting but it's her opinion. She then states that transgender people earn wages below poverty levels due to lack of education and socio-economic status... but really...how does she know that the people she is stating are not educated? You can't make the appropriate assumptions and statements without data, so maybe she would have benefited more if she spoke to an actual sociologist who has surveyed this cohort. This freshman is clearly bias and has no real data to prove her point. Respectfully speaking, this article is garbage.

Identification Unnecessary?

I actually heard about this article from people on my floor, who posted it on the Facebook page for our floor. The girl who posted it said she "found it pretty freaking ridiculous. am i the only one?" and the comments from others on our floor referred to her "ridiculous views," "close-mindedness," and "nerve." I agree with them in the opinion that the way she phrased some things was highly unfair, inconsiderate, and even outright backwards, and that the way she went about addressing the issue of gender identity was offensive when she could have used it in a much more sophisticated, educated manner. For example, her overall message seemed to undermine the gravity of the issue of gendered discrimination. By saying "there are worse forms of injustice than discrimination against whom people choose to be," she completely devalues the fact that huge numbers of people are harassed, attacked, and even killed on the basis of gender identity. She thus also deems one group's needs over another without any real evidence for her argument, while also deciding that people who "choose" to declare themselves as transgender should be prepared for the consequences.

However, despite these glaring transgressions, I do not think she was completely wrong in some parts of her argument. If she had chosen to, she could have written a much more educated, fair article by focusing on the issue of gender identity within the LGBTQ community rather than diminishing the issue of gender discrimination by using gender identity as an excuse. Just as we have constantly been learning in class and discussion, gender is an entirely fluid construct, and the labels we use as forms of identity can actually constrain us by automatically excluding a host of other identities. So, perhaps identification really is unnecessary in the political and private realm, but not for the reasons Salama gives. Rather, identification may be unnecessary because of the gender binary that it perpetuates and the boundaries it creates.

Transgenderism: A Chauvinistic Interpretation

I found Salama’s argument to be incredibly offensive and unwarranted. At one point she claims, “the law functions to ensure order in society.” This oversimplification undermines over 300 years of social progression, as it fails to acknowledge the United States government as a democracy. If the law did in fact function merely to ensure order, we could potentially be living under an oppressive totalitarian regime. Instead, the law serves to accommodate the needs of the people, thus it should allow individuals to “freely and easily declare themselves as transgender.” While it may indeed be a problem that not everyone is willing to accept these classifications, it is our duty as rightful citizens to raise awareness, fight for equality and change this “reality.”

I also was baffled by Salama’s assertion that “we should instead be more accepting of the people who aren’t as comfortable with working with people who identify as transgender.” Why should we express sympathy towards those who are intolerant? Why should we defend the oppressors? Why should we support racism, homophobia, xenophobia, and other outlets of discrimination? Salama’s claim embodies the ignorance of traditional chauvinists and lacks consideration for the minority struggle.

"Identification Unnecessary in Political Realm"

This article seems very generalized, unclear, and rude. I totally disagree with the suggestion that “we should be more accepting of the people who aren’t as comfortable with working with people who identify as transgender.” This makes absolutely no sense, because instead of working towards creating a more accepting community, we will be moving backwards by allowing people’s perceptions of others overshadow people’s perceptions of themselves. Also, Salama doesn’t even specify what she means when she says “an individuals preferred sexual orientation or identity.” If she’s assuming that sexual orientation is the only thing that constitutes one’s identity, then she is clearly transphobic.

Yes, there is a fine line between imposing and accepting. However, how can people ever accept difference unless the acceptance is imposed? There are so many transgender individuals who have to deal with refusal from doctors and employers for healthcare decisions and job opportunities. A good representation of this can be seen in the movie, Transamerica, where the main character, who is transgender, meets with her psychologist, who claims that “gender diaspora” is a disorder. Salama clearly acknowledges that “not everybody is willing to accept the classification.” Well, why not try to solve this problem and understand why that is, instead of claiming that “its just reality.” If everyone thought this way, then we would definitely not get anywhere near Salama’s so-called “ideal world.”

I think that Salama should really read Butler’s article, “Imitation and Gender Insubordination,” to realize that she’s speaking in the past and that the notion of “coming out” as a solution to gender discrimination does nothing but reaffirms hetero-normativity and the classifications society has created for people.

As I was reading some of the comments posted after the article, someone said that they hoped this article is a satire. I hope so too, because it seems way too illogical and ignorant, especially coming from a USC student.

Media, Politics & Opinion

It is well known that media is one way that society is shaped and that politics and the media can portray how a society is. In this case, we have a writer saying that there is more important issues politicians should address instead of be so concerned about how people relate to others who chose how to be identified. Personally, I believe that there is a lot of energy wasted in trying to identify everyone and through this strategy be able to regulate and facilitate human relationships. Intersectionality and Queer Theory could address this issue.

Identity is not a simple decision nor an issue without importance. People tend to pertain or be identified with different categories and there is a high interest in being able to communicate effectively. It is important to understand that trying to put labels to people is a way to identify people, and even if this system have so many flaws it is required to facilitate interaction. As it is important to communicate effectively, it is important to address issues of discrimination and tolerance as this is the basis for pacific and fructiferous agreements. Finally, it is important to address that this is only an opinion and not a comment based on research.

Female comedians are confidently breaking taste-taboos

We have heard that humor has been a tool in order to reinforce status-quo but it seems as a tool to threaten them succesfully. This is an article from the New York Times showing the relevance of gender issues and the continuing phenomenon of liberation from taboos.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/arts/television/female-comedians-are-confidently-breaking-taste-taboos.html?smid=fb-nytimes&WT.mc_id=AR-E-FB-SM-LIN-FCB-111611-NYT-NA&WT.mc_ev=click

Sexuality & Fashion in Almodovar's Film

I am posting this article about the latest film from Almodovar "The Skin I Live In" in which it is talked about how Jean Paul Gaultier designed part of the wardrobe of the film. This is not only about clothes but also about the skin costumes trying to show asexuality and all the other implications. What do you think about the article? How do you think clothes are such an important deal in gender issues?

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/fash-track/jean-paul-gaultier-pedro-almodovar-skin-live-in-261659

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

I thought this was a very clever and funny video! Watch if you have a few minutes to spare (:

"The Child" - First Kiss

This is an adorable video, but it also shows the idea of "the Child" and unhindered sexuality/desire (in an innocent setting). Also note the mom repeatedly telling them to stop.

Quinceanera...

This is an amazing film. I actually own it and I have seen it several times over the past few years. Quinceanera is about two cousins; Magdalena and Carlos who are sent to live with their grandfather because Magdalena becomes pregnant and Carlos is homosexual. This film ventures into showcasing the masculine/macho/latino homosexual side of Carlos, who might be mistaken as a gang member by his attire in the film. He wear Dickies for pants and sometimes shorts, with long white tube socks, plaid shirts...etc. Another impotant theme that plays out here is the desire to be sexually satisfied and also sexual experimentation. Magdalena actually becomes pregnant without having intercourse by her boyfriend. Her family disowns her and she finds refuge in her grandfather and Carlos. Carlos also finds refuge in building a bond with Magdalena and his grandfather, while also exploring his sexuality with two of his neighbors who happen to be white. The problem erupts when Carlos agrees to engage in sexual activity with only one of his neighbors, while the other is at work. Although the white couple invited Carlos into their circle to explore their own sexual desire, infidelity hindered their relationship. Still, it's interesting to see the dynamics between Magdalena's parents and Carlos' parents who are related, yet deal with these issues differently. This film not only demonstrates how culture, race and gender can affect the issues of homosexuality and sexual promiscuity but how it can also bring these two characters together. I love this film....

Quinceañera

I saw this film and I was grateful I am bilingual and simultaneously be Mexican-American and have grown up in Mexico. I am glad because as I grew up in Mexico I know how Mexican Culture is in comparison to Mexican-American culture and I was able to distinguish some differences and similarities. Also, I realized that by being in a country far from your native culture, makes people be more attached and even more rigid with some beliefs and attitudes. The importance of the debutante girl becoming a woman and social expectations conformed by religion and tradition, which can overlap.

It was important to realize that the main reason there was reconciliation between daughter and father was the fact that she was still a virgin even if she was pregnant. In this moment I believe Queer Theory could have a main role explaining how some terms are subjective and there is not a clearly defined idea about sex and even virginity. Also, it is a wonderful example of Intersectionality as she was not a pregnant adolescent, but she was also a woman, and a Mexican-American.

Chicano Men

This reading is really interesting and made me realize something that I never even thought about. According to the reading, Chicano men who are involved in homosexual activity but plays the "inserting" role rather than "passive" role of receiving, the men is not considered as "joto or puto".
But Does this mean that they are not considered homosexual? although they do involve in sexual intercourse with same sex? just because he is performing a same activity he would to a woman, does that exclude him from being labeled as a gay man?
Even with explanations of their cultural impact on the issue, I cannot find myself to agree with this perception they have.
He (who is involved in anal intercourse with men) is clearly attracted to his partner who is also a male, and how does this not make people think both of them as homosexuals or maybe bisexuals?

I found Diderot's "Indiscreet Jewels" increasingly offensive to me, as a woman as I read the story. I found it unfair that first off, these women were placed subject to this bored king's power. And I was annoyed at the initial premise that was made clear at the beginning of this story that women, even the ones generally regarded as chaste, like the nuns and girls from the convent, proved to contradict their outward demeanor. No woman was safe from the king's ring. It was also extremely sexist in that one scene where the husband pleaded with the king not to have his wife's 'jewel' speak because he knew people would down on him because of what the jewel would possibly say.And after her jewel started speaking, he almost murdered her alive. Such violence was shocking to me, and even though this was during a time when husbands were in control of their wives, how he reacted was in my opinion not acceptable for any man, and even the community agreed he over reacted even afterwards when he locked her up at the house for veiled women. I disagree with what Ankita said about Diderot referring to a woman's jewels as a great compliment. Quite frankly I think this was not meant to praise women in any way--in fact I feel it was used as the exact opposite. Women and a very sexual, private part of their body were objectified and used as a means to make a statement about the society at the time.

In Montaigne's essay, maybe it was because I didn't really fully understand it but I felt this one was a lot less sexual than Diderot's. I felt that this article explored more on the power of a person's imagination and although there was the guy who needed the ring to help him sexually. But I am not completely sure about that because he did not describe it into great detail. Montaigne did go into detail about the power of the imagination and mentioned examples of how people can physically change themselves through their thoughts. Personally I feel this is more under the category of the power of the human mind rather than imagination because imagination has the connotation that it is made up and limited to the thoughts. But the stories used in his essay were thoughts that were able to physically be expressed, such as the woman who thought she had swallowed a pin. And while Montaigne says this power lies between an unexplainable link between "the soul and body" I feel it is more of the power between the brain and the body.

Chicano Men

I believe that most of the analysis of homosexuality in Mexican American culture is true, but when it comes to using the terms maricon, joto, or puto generally it refers to someone being gay or showing homosexual characteristics. These terms serve the same purposes as the word faggot. It is offensive and a defense mechanism for those who try to put others down to raise their masculinity (make themselves feel in power).

It wasn't until I read this article that I found out what each word meant. I believe that although these word have their individual meaning in short they mean your gay. These words have meaning that are social constructed just like gender.

sexual identity crosses cultural boundaries

I'll go into some sections of "Chicano Men" in greater detail, but first, I'd like to say that the majority of the essay is about how cultural norms of the US and Latin America/Mexico are mixing and becoming intertwined. For example, as the essay said, just recently has there been a gay scene in Mexico whereas it's well established here. As Moraga shows, adapting the culture of the Americas yet not giving up her heritage is stretching the boundaries of nations and cultures. I believe we are slowly headed toward a world that is all one color. It's a scary thought but especially with the advancement of technology, traditions, cultures, and language are blending. Ok back to the specifics; i don't find it necessary to say the main premise but I will for emphasis, The Chicano man, and the way homosexuality is viewed is completely different than the typical American idea of it. The essay really hit the nail on the head with the statement that said American's label "gay" on any suspicious or remotely homosexual tendency, act, or thought. It's true. What surprised me was that it's different for Mexico/Latin America culture. They seem to have a strong value on masculinity and remain in the era of the superior male, which the US seems to have moved past (at least in thought, yet there are surely those who prize male superiority in their heads). I find it intriguing that although gayness is much less pronounced in the Latin America countries, it seems more open and free, meaning that it takes more to be defined "gay", and in fact that isn't even a term used there. The true dishonor comes from being an effeminate man, the passive taker during anal sex, which, by the way, I believe to be extremely obscure. I don't understand how gender identity can be determined by your actions, by which position you take in sex. What if the two males are in a sex position with a male on top of the other. the one on top is being penetrated (passive=feminine) but he is also taking the commanding role in the action, determining the pace, etc. (aggressive=masculine). Who is what role? Identity should be determined by your desire, which, like we've talked about, is fluid and never fixed. I was particularly interested in the passages about each type of Chicano man and his desires. It seemed to me that the Mexican/Latin American people place such a high value on family life, that homosexual Chicano men never "came out", they continued to have discrete sexual relations with men even after they were married! It's not wrong, but different. I wonder what each sexual identity "system" will be in 10 years for each region, what do any of you think?