# data[].attributes.body
From the feminist collage, it explains the stereotypes presented by women who deem themselves as creative while being an artist.  Throughout the analysis, it expressed how women who are artists must remain in their lane of being the stereotypical feminine and by adding that to their artwork or else they would be looked down upon. Where this point of view comes from the superiority men have placed for years against women because to them they see themselves as the one who obtains the penetrating organ, so they are on top. From this, It had made me quite upset and also it brought me back to a reality that even now some men may still think that because they have something that can penetrate a woman they are the ones who can control the woman. Based on my knowledge now, it makes me feel that society was run for quite sometimes based on the concept of sex and having the ability to cultivate and ensure that a new generation would be produced. At that time, I could understand to a certain degree but that thought in the back of my mind would always occur about how the concept of sex is not everything about life, and how even though sex for a man can be a key factor towards him becoming masculine, it still does not define who he is. Genitals are not something you should rely on to figure out who you are entire, it made be a key factor in your relationships but to me, it's your mind and your worth that truly matters to yourself and others.

# data[].attributes.body
In a patriarchy society, there is no way for women to win the game.

If she is talented in her art, she definitely is simply being instinctual or her achievement is due to the instruction of certain men. If she is not talented, she just reveals her nature of the lack of creativity. If she, like Georgia O'keffee, focuses on depicting image deemed feminine, she is conforming to her female nature, her "womb centered nature"(Nesmer 159). If she focuses on the topic she is not expected to attain, she betrays her femininity and disobeys the true nature of art.

Everything comes down to the evolutionary science and sociobiology. Art critics, possibly upper-class white male, are the beneficiaries of the patriarchy society. When there are theories claiming that sex differences can valid their presumption of women's inferiority, they willingly took them all in. Under their paradigm, female artists are "classified as noncreative, imitative, captivating, passive, emotional, narcissistic, narrow-minded, selfish, intuitive, and elemental" (Nesmer 161). Here, what they claimed to be scientific evidence are just reflection of their confirmation bias. They have set of views about how the world is supposed to be, which constantly gets reinforced through their small cycle, so they actively search for the evidence that could confirm their beliefs. Since they are the one who are the loudest and have a say in the issue of art, their beliefs started becoming a bleak reality for female artists.

I used to be really skeptical about the tactics of the second wave feminism. I wondered why they are so angry? But if I took a step back and went back to the time that my identity was tied to the fact that I am a woman and being a woman was tied to the ownership of a uterus, I think I would be angry too.

# data[].attributes.body
I loved this article. I found it so interesting to read but also a bit comical at the same time. The wording and phrasing was different than I am used to reading. It seemed like it was defining the terms "curves" "hair" and "sex" in the context of a women to inform everyone who was uneducated about the topics. The "Curves" section was interesting because it addressed the areas in which a woman should be curvy based on society and what men want. Greer talked a lot about bosoms, the waist, and the buttock mainly. She definitely defined what the body parts and mentioned that they are areas that both men and women are highly focused on. It was funny to read how she went from a truly objective, definition standpoint, to then more of a casual tone. Greer clearly highlighted that no one is ever satisfied with what they have and it was kind of cool, but also sad, that these are still areas that women are so self-conscious with today. I think the quote that sums up the "Curves" section perfectly is: "the woman is tailoring herself to appeal to a buyers' market," (26). It is honestly so sad but so true and I don't see the end of that mindset anytime soon.
The "Hair" section was also interesting to read and I felt myself nodding and agreeing with almost everything that she mentioned, but the "Sex" section is what was the most interesting to read. I honestly didn't understand a lot of what she was talking about because of the wording that was used. One quote that I really liked was "Love-making has become another male skill, of which women are the judges," (32). I enjoyed the wording of that, but I also think it could be interpreted in many ways. It could be seen as bashing women for being "judgey," it could be highlighting that men are the skillful ones in a relationship, it could be making the statement that women aren't seen as part of the activity of sex, and the interpretations could go on and on. I personally would like to think it is the last one and that Greer mentions it to try to put a stop to that norm. I also thought that the end was interesting and she was basically saying that women can use sex and the idea of sex as some sort of power over men. Girl power!

# data[].attributes.body
Nesmer did a wonderful job revealed the ugly sexism under the hypocritical compliment by male art critiques toward female artists. She discussed some of the stereotypes surrounding western female artists throughout modern art history, and she described that males have been acting as a barrier for female artists to succeed by seeing female artists as the imitators of male artists. The stereotypical adjectives used to compliment female artists's works are generally consisting of feminine characteristics, for example, emotional, submissive, etc. Some of those adjectives listed by Nesmer are actually positive adjectives, but by having those adjectives, female artists are limited by how their art works should be in order to win recognition from males. For a long time, "she draws like a man" is considered as a compliment for female artists, and that term infers "draw like a woman" is degrading. By casting negative connotation on womanhood and femininity, male gains the privilege by naturally possessing the glorious masculinity over female, therefore it would make perfect sense for them to take credit for scientific and artistic achievements in human history. While as to males, female could success, but they have to abandon their womanhood and become a man in order to be accepted. Not only in career, female have always been dominated by male in other aspect, for example as Greer explained in her book, clothing, figure, body image, reproduction and even sexual freedom etc. Welter also discussed how females are confined by the doctrines of religion to become the auxiliary power controlled by dominant political group.

# data[].attributes.body
I found it surprising to read about how female artists are perceived in the world. As Nesmer noted, "since many critics have accepted the idea that women artists are noncreative, it is natural for them to believe that any work produced by a woman is the result of having imitated some man" (Nesmer, 157). I was shocked to hear about the response women's artwork got from critics. It is astonishing to me that women could come up with their own original work, and still be labeled as inferior to male artists or be accused of plagiarizing creative ideas because it is impossible that they could be able to come up with their own- simply because they are women. This reminds me of something I saw in the news today. Nikon has just released a new camera and asked 30+ photographers to promote it. None of whom were female. I think this demonstrates how sexism in art is still prevalent today as men are seen as the innovative leaders in the art field.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/14/technology/nikon-female-photographers.html

# data[].attributes.body
I found this weeks readings very interesting but also quite infuriating. I found myself reflecting on this country's history from the scientific revolution to the colonial years to modern day. In Greer's journal, on page 30, I could not help but think about the gendering of science and the usage of women as study materials to the betterment of men. The scientific revolution was created in the world of the white man; "Early gynecology was entirely in the hands of men... (Greer 30)". A black woman named Sarah Baartman is what crossed my mind. She was poked and objectified in a cage by white men as they took notes about her and her body. This is a strong example of white men using others as the base work for their "science".

In Nemser's piece , I was taken aback by the gendering of art. Historically, art history is a male- dominated field BUT I did not agree with the adjectives used (soft, rough, aggressive, powerful) when describing art created by either a man or a woman. How can you assign a gender to Art? As a art history double major I pondered about this for quite a while. It also compelled me to look back at some notes from my Politics of Nature class. It sparked a question in me about what exactly nature means in terms of its relationship with women and the gendering of all things in society.

Below is a drawing of Sarah Baartman being objectified by white men. This may seem like a tangent to the readings, but I found Sarah to be quite relevant to some comments made in all three readings.

# data[].attributes.body
I found this session’s reading especially powerful given each authors’ ability to convey how the essence of womanhood has been historically perceived through different lenses within the framework of patriarchy. For example, Nemser points out how the work of female artists has been criticized on the basis of stereotypical feminine traits while Welter eludes to the fact that true womanhood could only be achieved by wielding them, and in the process, conforming to a strict set of societal expectations. Perhaps the most interesting point that I stumbled upon, in Greer’s piece, was the idea that the woman is accustomed to “tailoring herself to appeal to a buyers’ market.” While Greer was speaking in the context of physical beauty, I believe this is an accurate portrayal of women in all realms of life. Whether social, economic, physical and so on, all three authors elude to the point that women were, and continue to be forced to compromise their being in order to please the expectations that a patriarchal society have for her. Although this has been much improved upon in recent years, I cannot stress the salience of such expectations in our so-called ‘modern world’. Many women continue to abide by society expectations of religious affiliation or beauty because they are told that it is the correct thing to do. Perhaps the correct thing do is to let women decide how they would like to behave. For without agency, there is little room for individuality.

# data[].attributes.body
The Cult of True Womanhood, The Female Eunuch, Feminist Collage

I personally found all three articles very intriguing and eye-opening. I was not aware that even in the visual arts arena women were faced with strong criticism. For instance, women’s art has been classified by critics as being uncreative, superficial, too-feminine, and passive. The lack of appreciation for women’s art was something I have never thought of before.

Furthermore, religious dedication, purity, and obedience were also expectations attached to women. Religion played an immense role in the lives of women and they were taught to not let academics and books in the way of their godly beliefs. Other roles such as a nurse that offers delicacy and feminine touch to the sick, a mother who takes care of household and pleases her husband, and domesticated activities such as needlework were all values that were a part of nineteenth century societies.

Finally, women have also been objectified to have certain physical attributes and maintain them to make their male counterpart satisfied. Such unrealistic expectations leave women no choice but to keep up with the standards of society and not be true to themselves. The amount of pressure and attention given to women on how a their bodies should look/feel/smell like is extremely unjust and is something we still struggle in modernity with media portrayal.

# data[].attributes.body
"The attributes of True Womanhood, by which a woman judged her- self and was judged by her husband, her neighbors and society could be divided into four cardinal virtues-piety, purity, submissiveness and domesticity. Put them all together and they spelled mother, daughter, sister, wife-woman. Without them, no matter whether there was fame, achievement or wealth, all was ashes. With them she was promised happiness and power" (Welter, 152).

I really enjoyed reading Welter's text, "The Cult of True Womanhood" because I believed it to greatly emphasize the roots of the societal values that revolve around women as well as the impetus for the feminist movement that surged back then and has continued to uprise in order to bring a level of cognizance regarding women and their rights within society. To elaborate, the reason why I selected the quote above from the text, was of course, because I very much resonated with it. It still baffles me and makes me very sad the fact that women were painted in such a light and pushed into confined boxes that alienated them from society and robbed them away from a wide spectrum of opportunities. It was and still continues to be extremely difficult for a woman to live in society because of all of the ideals that were attached to women regarding their morality and what it truly meant to be a woman. As captured by the quote and the entire text, a woman had to be pious, submissive to her husband and society altogether, she had to be modest, and take care of the home; if a woman did not follow these guidelines, she, as a woman, was not honorable; she was seen as a disgrace, as someone who was unworthy of life. And, that was and is a very sad and demeaning social value. It was doctrines such as the Cult of Domesticity that shaped our current society's ideals and beliefs about womanhood and what it means as a woman, to be moral/modest. I am particularly passionate about this specific topic because I firmly believe in the fact that man or woman, no one should ever dictate for anyone, the way in which that person lives their life. We are all our own separate, individual self and it is discouraging and belittling to be judged for being one's authentic self and to be forced into boxes and stereotypes that one does not reflect one's self in.