Dealing with Ingrained Stereotypes Discussion
Order ID 53563633773 Type Essay Writer Level Masters Style APA Sources/References 4 Perfect Number of Pages to Order 5-10 Pages
These are responses from other students. Please read both and try to write something for myself. Should be about 300-400 words long.
From the lecture, professor Olsen mentions how Kimberlé Crenshaw, a UCLA Law profess found this week’s topic very intriguing. It really points out how difficult it can be to be progressive and considerate of all factors when attempting to tackle issues of ingrained stereotypes. Specifically, I wanted to look at the 2 Live Crew’s Obscenity Case. On one hand, we saw the continuation of culture through the obscene rap lyrics. On the other hand, this continuation of culture was at the sacrifice of respect for women, which really highlights the paradox of our modern-day society between freedom and equality once again. Often, we advocate for the freedom to express one’s self and live how you choose, but we also want everyone to have equal opportunities and rights, not being stereotyped. In this case, these two ideals conflict, and we are forced to examine tradition versus progressivism, freedom versus equality. It seems as we continue through the day and when looking at this case however that equality and progressivism are becoming more highlighted over tradition and freedom (in the sense sacrificing certain freedoms to create a cohesive society (which we already do to an extent with laws)). The danger with this however is determining which freedoms are sacrificed for the unity of the nation, and it seems that often, we emphasize progressivism, often seen in Eurocentric cultures versus more traditional cultures. This can create a hierarchy of culture and is really a difficult issue to navigate in general, since we may think we are doing something for one group/section of people, but then it has an effect that impacts another negatively. I am curious to hear if any of you think we will truly be able to get to a point of equality without this tricky balance we are still trying to figure out how to navigate.
This week’s topic of intersectionality is one that is quite striking and incredibly important to today’s ongoing narrative. As stated within the lecture, Kimberle Crenshaw brings up the case of race and gender in terms of violence against women. Within the reading itself, I found a particular quote of hers that was extremely moving and truthful. She states, “The problem with identity politics is not that it fails to transcend difference, as some critics charge, but rather the opposite-that it frequently conflates or ignores intragroup differences.” In other words, while the feminist movement worked to combat domestic violence and other violences against women, the movement itself actively, and subconsciously, ignored the issue of race. As Professor Olson explains within his lecture, women of color have issues of subordination that transcend that of white women. So, when the feminist movement attempts to advocate for the protection of women, the movement itself intrinsically paints a narrative tailored to the white woman. In turn, non-white women experience double subordination. Evaluating this concept, Crenshaw criticizes how the movement is progressive in gender terms, but regressive on race. She calls this “false universalism”. I found it interesting that, once again, this idea of universalism v.s. particularism arises. As discussed in previous discussions, universalism is not necessarily always the best solution, and this discussion on intersectionality displays just that. The deracialization of violence against women adds to racism, to some extent, and the ignorance aimed towards intersectionality causes a failure to address the problem.