Category: Discussion 4

I really enjoyed reading about Identity Terms because it is always interesting to learn different perspectives. Some of these terms are well known as being rude terms. Some of these terms I never guessed would be considered rude. The first terms that I found interesting was “people with disabilities vs disabled people”. These two terms being compared was not a huge surprised but it was new to me that disabled people is considered rude. It is normal for someone to correct another person when they say someone is disabled. Sometimes a response would be “He/she is not disabled, they are normal”. This response is tell others not to separate “normal people” and “people with disabilities”. Now I understand that calling someone else disabled is seen more harsh than saying a person may have a disability. The second set of terms that really shocked me were “Third world vs Global South”. Ive always thought “third world country” was just a general name for poorer countries. Poorer countries is never anything to make fun of, but the truth is they do have limited resources. Ive never heard of the terms “Global South”. Now I understand that terms like “Third world country” can be seen as saying the world “ghetto” which is not excepted in all societies. False gender neutrality is interested to me because feminist strongly a fighting for woman who are overlooked. When I think about it, what is the reason for referring to a woman as “man” or she as “he” when its just a matter of a few missing letters that can added to the word. One example of false gender neutrality is the word “Policemen”. Even though there are both women and men in police departments, the common term is “PoliceMEN”.

I identify myself as Black and Cisgender. I would incorporate the term “people of color” but I think it’s vague. I also find that term to be dismissive to a certain group is facing social injustice in the U.S. I also fall under the category of “colored people” but I don’t identify with it due to its negative connotations with institutional racism. I fully identify with Black because it represents pride, strength, and acceptance. I love and admire how over the years we were able to transform this word made to degrade us into empowerment. To me, the term “Black” represents all African Diaspora, not only is it inclusive but it is specific to those of African descent. African American is even more specific in my opinion, it represents the descendants of Africans brought to the U.S. and remained. I also Identify with Cisgender because my gender identity corresponds with my assigned sex from birth.

One theory that stood out to me from the reading is “Male as norm”. This theory highlights how most jobs were/are male-dominated. The term “lady-doctor” stood out me because as mentioned, it says that in order for one not to assume that the role of a doctor is solely a male, we must then but lady in front of the noun to show its unisex.

After reading “Identity Terms” the term that most describes me is “Latino,” “Latin American,” “Latina,” “Latino/a,” “Latin@,” “Latinx,” “Chicano,” “Xicano,” “Chicana,” “Chicano/a,” “Chican@,” “Chicanx,” “Mexican American,” “Hispanic.” I arrived in the U.S  from the Dominican Republic when I was seven years old. I immediately saw how my identity completely change; Back in the Dominican Republic, our population is not as diverse as the U.S, and coming to the U.S completely change the way I perceive my identity and others. Here in the U.S, my identity went not only from being a Dominican but being Hispanic or Latino; That what people call me. These were terms that I was not exposed back in the Dominican Republic. Also, experience a lot of people confusing my country of origin, saying are you Mexican, Colombian, and sometimes even white. I remember people saying, “you don’t look Dominican because Dominican are of dark complexion; Are you Puerto Rican?”. That’s when I realize that Americans had an stereotypical way of identifying individuals base on how they look.

One of the theories in the “Feminist Philosophy of Language” was “ 2.5 Generics” it really caught my attention. For example “Generic statements are ones such as “cats are furry”, or “a cat has fur”, which are neither universal generalizations (there are furless cats) nor existential generalization (the claim being made is clearly stronger)”.  This demonstrate that we as individuals speculate or even categorize individuals or things creating an illusion that because humans have hair all human need to have hair. This exclude those that does not have hair is creating the illusion that everyone need to have hair and if you don’t there is something wrong with you.

 

As suggested in the reading women take a normative concept, an ideal standard. When I decided to come to the USA, I had many people questioning me and telling me, being a girl going away from your family will you be okay? I was kept in the ideal standard of what a girl should be doing, living with their parents and after a while getting married. Also, I had a lot going to identify myself in this my place due to differences in race, culture, religion, and different languages I speak. I went to school in Iowa, where you don’t see a lot of immigrants like here in New York. I was “typical immigrants”. A girl with brown skin, short height was not common where I stayed and went to school. And I would take a pause to understand the conversation or lecture taught in class as English was not my first language, and it was difficult to cope. So, I used to find myself not existing in the group of people in Iowa. Truly speaking, I would not have thought a single difference or what I went through during my childhood or when I got an adult about my identity until I joined this class. Because I used to think, like every single individual that I am female, I act like one, I come from Asia, so Asian- that’s what my identity was in the new city of Iowa, but more I am going through the lessons in this class, I am getting myself in the position to question myself, what was my identity then? Was I able to convivence people who am I? Or all the time, they had known me for my physical appearance only?

“sex making” and “Invisibility of women” were two interesting theories that I  relate mostly to my day to day life.  English, like most—but not all—languages, requires a great deal of what Marilyn Frye calls ‘sex marking’ (Frye 1983)- “Sex making theory”. I could relate this as in my country We usually don’t use it as a pronoun but end our sentences with certain words denoted for the specific gender like “cha” for male and “che” for females. But the modern language, like the one we talk back home, only includes “cha” for all gender which I guess shows maleness as a norm, but we can also see as a revolution of neutral gender. Because then we do not need to know the sex of an individual to refer to them.  Next is about “Invisibility of women” where feminist has argued that terms “he” and “man” has made the women invisibility. Ans coming from the male dominant society, I could not disagree with it. Coming from a family, where my mom has to always work her hard but were not appreciated, coming from a country where a son is taken as an important bloodline for a family, who had this strong belief that he could create a way to heaven. Girls do not exist besides working for males and making child. So, it’s obviously coming from the society where I was born a girl child, and looking for my own importance and self-identity,  I accept the concept of “Invisibility of women”.

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion 4

Kulah Love Massaquoi

Reading the Identity Terms passage, I could not really relate or find myself nor the
people around me in these terms except for maybe one. While others might identify me using
one of these terms when it comes to my race and county of origin, I have never personally done
it. Although black people here in the United States are often referred to as Colored, People of
color or even African American, I do not refer to myself as such nor do any members of my
community. I am originally from Liberia and take a lot of pride in my origins. I consider myself
African, Liberian to be specific nothing less and nothing more. It has always struck me that there
is even this need to separate people here into so many groups, that often instead of uplifting,
belittle them. Growing up in Liberia, I did not pay much attention to the color of my skin or what
it could mean somewhere else. I was just me but as soon as a person is here in the United, they
must fit in a box. Not a box that brings people together but rather marginalizes them. When we
categorize people back where I’m from, let’s say with tribes, it’s to highlight and celebrate the
difference in culture, never to bring one human lower than another. Before any separation, we
see ourselves as equal humans and African.
2. One of the theories of the “Critical work on language and the philosophy of language”
in the reading about the “ Feminist phylosophy of language “ that caught my attention is the
Metaphor. It is an aspect of language often without foundation that is constantly used to belittle
women and justify sexist behaviors. I have for the longest seen a post on social media, translated
in many languages, rewritten as a meme or simply a status, that has been widely accepted for the sexuality of women compared to men.  Although without any logical sense, this metaphor encourages distorted views regarding women and the majority doesn’t even question it A lot of people find this as a justification for men to be promiscuous or it’s used to shame
women sexuality. Human genitals have very little to do with a lock and a key, how can we base a
conclusion about us from two objects I asked myself. Gendered metaphors are used daily by men
and women alike from more sophisticated discussion to the most common ones; direct or
indirectly. The take away from them is that they hurt us. They encourage bigotry and sexism!

I arrived in the U.S when I was 7 years old and although many would consider themselves Mexican American or Chicanx (because of their young arrival to the U.S),  I would prefer to be identified as Mexican. Although I have not experienced being a civilian in Mexico for a long period of time, I do identify with Mexican culture and I was born there, so this makes me Mexican in my opinion. Many people tell me I am just as American as any other person regardless of my status, but what I do not think people understand is that my goal is not to be called American or any one particular nationality. People say America is not a white America, they say it is a melting pot built on diversity, and I agree that it is built on diversity, but it is not built on inclusion, acceptance, acknowledgement or validation (for the most part). To have this wonderful America that everyone talks about, we need to work for it. I would rather not call myself American in respect to Native American’s whose life, family, traditions, customs, and language was taken away. This country has institutionalized racism, and to have an inclusive America, changes need to be made in the government and we do this by voting. One reason why I do not call myself Chicanx, is because of its bad reputation and stereotypes, though I have learned over time that I have to reclaim my power as a undocumented Mexican living in the U.S and not let this bother me. To sum it up, I would rather you identify me by my character, name, what I like, and even age. But for formality purposes I am Latinx, and I am Mexican.

An interesting theory in “Critical work on language and philosophy of language” is that of sex marking. I thought English was gender neutral at least for the most part. But reading this has opened my eyes to things I was not aware of. My native language is Spanish, and I think that there is absolutely no gender neutrality in Spanish, there is always an O or an A at the end of objects and nouns to specify gender, which is very frustrating. Looking further into this theory I see how the history of how women are looked at, takes part in this conflict. For years women’s jobs have been looked down upon and their standards have been held low. For example, women authors had to publish under false (or maiden) names because they were either not allowed to publish or their work was perceived as having a lack of quality. The thought that women are not qualified enough is still present. Although not overtly, there are many studies that prove that there is still inequality in workplaces. This can vary from pay, who gets their voice heard, and who gets promoted. When talking about professions whose title is gender neutral, the problem is that some people unconsciously try to find out the sex of this person. I personally have a problem with this. Many times, sex marking is used to judge people’s character a head of time and judge the quality of someone’s work. This happens in professional environments like schools, business corporations, government positions and among others. This opens a path for sexism and promotes male dominance.

In keeping with the article the Identity Terms I would use to identify myself would be Latina/Hispanic, though those are the terms I use when filling out official paperwork. Usually when I am asked my response is Puerto Rican and Italian, because my father is Puerto Rican and my mother is Italian. I am also American because I was born here.

I am cisgender and use the pronouns she/her and if I had to “classify” my sexuality I would say you love who you love would just about sum it up for me. Though unless I’m looking to date you, this information isn’t something I find to be of importance to anyone.

The theory I chose in Critical work on language and the philosophy of language was “Sex Marking.” In short, I believe this section was explaining that there is too emphasis is placed on gender when there doesn’t need to be, and especially when it doesn’t make a difference to know to begin with. And doing so just reinforces the “male dominance” we are trying to get away from. I found the attached chart and demonstrates how we can refer to the same thing without having to “gender” it, therefore including everyone.

The second column is the same as the first column–removing “man” therefore encompasses all people and removes any assumptions that the person holding the position is a “man.”

After concluding my reading of “Identity terms” i gained a greater insight and understanding on why and when are these specific terms used. The terms that was mentioned were people of color, disabled people, transgender,Latino, indigenous, global south and transitional. The term that i identity with the most is , people of color/ colored people. The reason i identify with this term the most is because i am a black woman . However this term is used politically to refer back to the time of racism. Not only in the pass but it is clearly evident that racism is still around, targeted specifically towards black people. I believe when this term is used , it depends on the context of it being used. For example if a black person says ” We as people of color” it doesn’t come off as offensive because that person is within the group of being black. But if a person of a different race says it , it may come off as racist or an issue may arise on assumptions on why they are using that term.

In the “Critical work on language and philosophy of language” section of Feminist philosophy of language it discusses the different theories of language. One theory that stood out to me was “maleness of language” This theory talks about how men use their language to make women seem invisible and less superior . The language that men speaks , gives them more authority over others. In my opinion the world structure has unfortunately always been based of on mans power. For example on television, you will mostly see men portray a host of a TV game rather than a women. Usually the women are in position of the model of the prizes the contestants will win. Its as if society as stamped the label of women being underneath men than rather equal with each other.

Following the reading “Identity Terms” the term that most people would use to describe me is “A Person of Color”.  People don’t look at me and say that she is a young black woman or even black woman but, refer me to as one in a group of “colored people” and not as my own person. Just because I am 100% a woman of color does not mean that I would like to be referred to as a black woman or a young black woman. Some think this doesn’t make a difference and that they are ultimately the same but, that isn’t the case “people of color” and “colored people”, naturally was used and created some years ago referring to a group of black people during slavery and in racisms prime. This term was used at that time to degrade and reprimand us.

A theory that stood out in the “Feminist Philosophy of Language” was “Malesness as Norm”. We can all see that there are a number of jobs that are gender-specific. In society, there is an increase of hostility when it comes to women being able and very capable of doing what men can do. For example, it stated “Moreover they call attention to women’s presence in positions of authority-doctor and manager. Nonetheless, most feminists who think about language find these terms objectionable”, innumerable amounts of people think that big positions that one holds in a job are held by the male species, like for instance the position of being a manager in a hospital or a CEO of a company; these roles are usually pictured as a males job/role to play. Society has created the expectation that women and men are classified to do specific jobs because of their tasks. Society will always keep on reminding women of their sex and the cautions that come with it and will be kept in a considerable amount of incomprehension than men.

Identity terms help people define themselves and other people around them, but they must be used with understanding. Even a small change in seemingly similar words can be offensive and enforce prejudice because of how they were created. For example, “colored people” have a negative connotation in comparison to “people of color” because the first statement was used when racism was institutionalized. I use many terms to describe myself, but the main ones are heterosexual, ciswoman, and feminist. I am heterosexual because it defines my sexuality, which is useful to show that my sexual orientation is not “the default.” I am a ciswoman for this same reason and also because I think that my experience as a female is essential for my development as a person. Finally, I believe that defining myself as a feminist allows me to show which beliefs I support directly.

The theory about metaphors shows that they can hide gendered norms or images. Every person recognizes these metaphors but hardly ever thinks about them. Metaphors can add something poetic to our lives, and we often use them without much thinking. Thus, it is not surprising that ships are almost always called “she.” This links to a metaphor of sea as a character, and often a female one. It shows the idea that nature is often described in female terms. Many other vehicles are also personified as women and can be even called soft names or “capricious” because they have to be “conquered” or are “hard to deal with.” These examples show how metaphors divide the whole world into two groups and add romanticism to this difference. Such comparisons always make “female” objects passive, trickish, or emotional.