Leading Post: Fausto-Sterling & Douglas

Hormonal Hurricanes – Fausto-Sterling



Here, Fausto-Sterling interrogates the biological claims that justify patriarchy and the reason why women should be discriminated in higher education and the workplace. It’s shocking to see how many medical “experts” perpetuate stereotypes of women being emotional wrecks in order to sustain the ideology of patriarchy. In addition to that, feelings of discomfort during menstruation are taken lightly and even categorized as psychosomatic – all in the head.

Fausto-Sterling reveals the faultiness of all the prevailing studies by contrasting proper research techniques and the ones used to reinforce patriarchy and the perpetual diseased state of women. She comments on an insufficient sample size and homogenous sample population, a correlation and causation mistake, and a disregard of double-blind research techniques to control bias among other things. The bias caused researchers to either design their hypotheses and collect evidence that only supports that hypothesis or gather information and create a hypothesis as a conclusion or an interpretation of the evidence as opposed to objectivity and systematic research. This is a huge problem because if done right, statistics do not lie, statisticians do (a saying commonly repeated in my sociology class). It is the interpretation to these studies that are taken as a matter of fact when in reality, the research itself cannot stand alone to back these claims up.

Unfortunately, on the account of these poorly conducted research, society is convinced that women cannot be leaders, should not be paid equally, and should not attend schools as a preventative measure for triggering a “hormonal hurricane.”

The problem I see in these studies is how it reproduces and legitimizes the society we live in instead of coming up with new possibilities. Instead of looking at alternative explanations or information on menopause and menstruation, we are paralyzed by the erroneous studies from the past.

Lean & Mean – Douglas



The link above is a link to Tyra’s discussion of a new phenomenon – pregorexia, where preganant women over-exercise or go on extreme diets in order to not gain any weight during their pregnancy. I couldn’t find the entire episode, but that’s the quick description.

This relates to Douglas’ discussion on the “Lean & Mean” chapter and the beauty standard we have today – a combination of a size 0 everything except for the breasts. Douglas explores the history of beauty standards between second-wave feminists and third-wave feminists and compares the difference. Whereas the impossible beauty standard of her generation required many to submit to extreme dieting and lapsing into anorexia, our generation is more intrigued by going under the knife to balance out the anorexia looking body with a killer pair of breasts. Douglas points out the shows that perpetuate our young women to seek plastic surgeons such as The Swan.
After pointing this out, Douglas says something I found to be very profound and true. She observes how we have “reconfigured anti-feminism to feminism,” (Douglas, 222). Things that at rock bottom do not benefit women’s rights are framed as feminist. It seems as if that is society’s tactic – to dilute the concept and definition of feminism so much that it will soon encompass anything that has to do with the female sex. Everything.

In her focus of the mean nature of girls, Douglas talks about the popular caricature of a rich, snobby girl that denigrates other girls in order to gain popularity for herself. Douglas interprets this new character in films to be a re-channeling of frustrations on patriarchical structures in society to other women. Instead of attacking the system that is being oppressive, we attack each other.

What I found to be extremely interesting from this chapter is how beauty is becoming increasingly class-based. We have knock offs, we have thrift stores, we have generic brand beauty and skincare products, but what is the plastic surgery alternative that looks just as good? There is none. To be beautiful is to have the money to cut oneself into piece and reconfigure it into a mold that society has deemed appropriate. Beauty is a social construct that evolves very rapidly. Hopefully, this beauty standard will evolve into something more positive. Douglas seems doubtful.