Gradual Progress Toward Gender Equality

I'd like to focus my post on the discussion we had in class on Thursday.  Although the material we talked about was not concrete perhaps there is more than meets the eye when it comes to facts and figures.  I had originally thought that because men could not menstruate, nor will we ever the article had little legitimacy.  In fact, I wrote it off in my mind as something completely ludicrous and why should we be debating such a thing that will never come to fruition.  That being said, upon further thought I realized that the idea behind the concept surrounded how men would treat menstruation. Glorification of something that is considered taboo in today's society emphasize how men are still dominant over women in today's society.  Whether it is politics or the work place the glass ceiling has prevented many women from reaching the occupations or positions they so desire.  I just find it awfully ironic and disturbing that the real drivers behind society are paid less or cannot achieve the heights they want to simply because of gender. Is it fair? no. Is it a true force? yes.  Thus, I don't believe that women will gain complete equality over night, but I feel like it is a work in progress, and a gradual movement to gender equality more than anything else.

Response to Lee C's blog post

I agree with you Lee, that the Mutter Museum is both educational and entertainment.
At it's height, the museum was seen as a source of educational wisdom and knowledge; and today, it is seen as more as entertainment/tourist-y attraction to "Regular Joe Smoes." I did find it cool that what we now know about medical science mainly came from the Mutter Museum and Hyrtl's skull collection.

I do agree further that the museum is open because of how the "times are a changing," as the saying goes. Our society does not really care about this museum really, as it did "back in the day." We see it as two-fold: 1) a museum with worthless junk in it (to some Americans); and 2) a place with scientific discoveries and knowledge at our fingertips, pun implied.

~Chad S.

Rights to Our Bodies

Going off the discussion we had on Tuesday about the Mutter Museum I wanted to bring up the issue of having rights to our own body after we die. I know today we have will's that inform people what we want to be done with our body after we die but is there not a unspoken right for the dead? I'm pretty sure now people have to actually have to sign off on having there body being used for medical reasons. Thinking of the people in the Mutter Museum, did the doctors just assume that because the people are dead that it did not matter if they had permission to dissect and show case the bodies? Perhaps in the name of saving others that the right of the dead is over looked but I know if I were family of the people in the museum I would want to take the remains and lay them to rest. Also if I personally had some "freak" thing about my body I would not want it to be put on display for everyone to see after I died. Perhaps if it helped people I would let them use me to test on but why put me out there as entertainment? They are just personifying the fact that I am a freak.

I also feel that Mutter Museum is somewhat dehumanizing the remains they have. Using only certain parts of peoples bodies makes it seem that that is the only important part about them. They are forgetting that all those remains were apart of someone; someone who had a life, no matter how short it might have been.

-Erica Nelson

Chad's Blog Post on Mutter Museum

I wanted to focus my weekly blog on the Mutter Museum and the documentary that we watched in class on Tuesday. I thought the article was very interesting because at first, I found it very odd and unusually that a person collected skulls back in the 1800s. I mean maybe it was a "fad" "back in the day" but, from today's terms, it seemed very peculiar to me. Also,  I liked how Hyrtl gave his collection to the now-Mutter Museum for their scientific and medical experiments/exhibitions.

It was cool to see from the documentary that the museum had a lot of exhibits that incorporated the skulls and Hrytl's collection too. I found that these collections/exhibits were very helpful for students of the College of Physicians of Pennsylvania; however, today the museum isn't for the same usage as it once was. The museum knew this would be the case and they adapt to the times.

Overall, I found the article and the documentary very interesting because the Mutter Museum was once seen as a precious tool for scientific knowledge  and now its just another tourist-y attraction. It is just sad (in my mind) that people just go to see skulls and not enjoy the true beauty of the museum it once claimed to be.

~Chad S.

A Truly Cultural Inequity

The conversation we had in class Thursday was perhaps the most engaging and interesting so far. The concept that women have been made biologically inferior reminded me very much of the notion that blacks were inequal through pseudoscientific methods. The concept that black skulls were too small to house large brains making them stupid is of the same school of thought as implying that women are unequal because of their ability to give birth or menstruation. These qualities are inherent but do not also carry with them the insinuation that women are weaker and more nurturing. Culturally, not biologically, we create that notion. Women are responsible for taking care of our young most primarily in our society, despite all advances thus far. It is hard still today to say that men have made strides to take up responsibilities in child care , and thus it is a cultural construct of "feminine characteristics" that so greatly damages our society and hinders women throughout the world.

Gendered Behavior

When reading Judith Lorber’s piece “Believing is Seeing,”   I thought it was interesting how she talked about everyday gendered behavior.  One example she gives is if a woman and a man are in a car, the man would be the one to drive the car, even if he isn’t the better driver of the two. I never thought about this before, but it is very true. Even looking at my parents, my dad is always the one to drive. Why do you think this is?  Is it because men are the ‘leaders’ or because it has been the social ‘norm’ for so many years?  One point Lorber makes is that this gives a sense of social power, which I think is true. I think that men like to feel in charge and this is one form of accomplishing that. The stereotype that women are not good drivers could also be a reason, but there are plenty of good women drivers and not all men are as competent. I just thought this was interesting and opened my eyes about another way in which men tend to be “in charge” in everyday activities.

-emothersell

In response to britt-toapha's post "Dealing with the gender issue through politics"

I feel like the progress that has been made for gender equality is extremely important, and that hopefully though every women's rights movement making progress there will be more changes to this inequality. However, since women's movements have been happening for decades now and we still can't say that we have gained equal opportunities to men, who knows how much longer it will be until these issues start to resolve. I feel that the points that were brought up in this post about government are extremely important when considering why changes haven't been made. I also believe that society will always be a contributor to the inferior status of women. If women are always going be viewed as a lesser version of men because of history, then we are never going to be taken seriously.

In Lorber's article, she discusses how cultural assumptions come from biological differences between genders. If biological differences are constantly going to be emphasized when considering social norms, then women are never going to be taken seriously in a society where the masculine characteristics are valued so much more. We can't change the biology of men and women, but we can change the way that masculinity has been associated with superiority and femininity being associated with inferiority. The double binds involved in this superiority-inferiority binary shouldn't and can't continue to favor men, when men and women are behaving in the same manner.