As I was reading Jessica Valenti's "Boys Don't Cry," I became especially interested in one phenomenon that she was describing. The idea of eternal boyhood is one that has gone much farther and become much more real than the figure of Peter Pan. I was disappointed that she seemed to just glaze over it, and I think that it warrants a second look. As Valenti notes, "Back in the day, being a man meant taking care of your family and having a good job and all of that. Now, at least if you look at commercials and television shows and the like, it seems that the ultimate way to be a man is to stay a boy," an endless number of television shows and movies ran through my mind. From "Knocked Up," where a prudish and career-driven Katherine Heigl has to deal with the immature and goofy Seth Rogan, to "King of Queens," where the 'bitchy' and cold Leah Remini constantly rolls her eyes at the doofy and overweight UPS worker Kevin James, it seems that women have gained intelligence but not a sense of humor, while we are meant to personalize with male characters who only want to live like the rest of us, by embracing downtime over worktime. Society seems to have partially dealt with the fact that some women make more money than some men, but have chosen to demonize that women who respect their careers. Perhaps they are still hanging on to the notion that this type of behavior is 'unnatural.' After all, what woman wouldn't want to do it 'Dugger Style,' and push dozens of babies out one of their orifices while mastering the art of their Lean Mean Fat Grilling Machine?
For men, their identities have now become even more conflicted. Though their world is being led by men, popular culture tells them that if they want to live in their parent's basement well into their thirties and play Halo, there is still a chance that they'll snatch the hot girl. This type of phenomenon is perhaps a result of the age we live in. Judd Apatow, after all, was a teenager in the Regan eighties, a time when the economy seemed unsinkable and when baby boomers were attempting to shower their children with all of the material goods that they were not able to have. As critics endlessly call my generation listless, unmotivated, and bored, what better way to reflect this than the through characters (usually played by Seth Rogan) who are the epitome of the excessive?
Why, then, have women been left behind? As Valenti points out, feminism makes quite a large group uncomfortable. By stressing that a career and life goals only make a woman stuck up and cold, women once again feel left out of the group. The lack of female comics is yet another indicator of this. Some of the most popular ones, such as Chelsea Handler, are still forced to base their whole persona on sexuality. She pegs herself as an alcoholic whore, and therefore gets laughs. The only way women can be funny, it seems, is if she is a mockery of herself. Dane Cook, on the other hand, epitomizes this "man-child" persona. He mainly discusses picking up babes in the club, or talking about the Kool-aid guy for laughs, and he is most popular with the 14-year-old crowd. But I digress. It seems like I don't have a ton of answers for the quandries that I introduced, although it certainly makes me extremely angry.
5.12.10
Ladies and Gentlemen: The Gender of Nice
I walk into a party: Upon standing around, searching for my social circle for about 15 minutes, I am approached by one of my peers, and told that I am not welcome and am pushed. What "should" I do? This marginally depends on my gender. For men, they are in sort of a double bind. If they physically fight back, perhaps they are a true man. Since they stood up for themselves, they are being rightfully assertive. Although some might argue that a gentleman should simply recede, many would agree that they just physically defined their gender. Women, on the other hand, are socially expected to back down. These are the issues that are addressed in Spencer's "Characteristics of a Southern Lady." Although it is surely an outdated piece, I think that it still has some relevance today. Why do certain actions, like being patient and forgiving, have to be gendered? After all, Jesus possessed both of these qualities, yet Christian men are still forgiven more for acting out physically during occurrences that could have been settled without a physical reaction.
Although Spencer points out that women should be concerned with being "refined," it seems to be that ladies of the time should be most concerned with being doormats. Why couldn't a lady point out that another person was being completely unreasonable and rude? Why can't sticking up for yourself be considered a positive quality? I feel like there is a definitive line between being polite and a pushover, and I feel like girls today are still presented with these ideas. We could go through the classic examples of figures such as Hilary Clinton who were punished for pushing traditional stereotypes, but that still gets us nowhere. I wish that there was a thorough identity of positive and admirable person, regardless of gender. I would hope that the qualities of respect, compassion, and willpower could be mixed in with ideas of assertiveness and self-confidence. I think they we are slowly coming closer to this idea, but like I have said before, change takes a long time and sometimes it gets frustrating for classic ideas to be shattered.
Although Spencer points out that women should be concerned with being "refined," it seems to be that ladies of the time should be most concerned with being doormats. Why couldn't a lady point out that another person was being completely unreasonable and rude? Why can't sticking up for yourself be considered a positive quality? I feel like there is a definitive line between being polite and a pushover, and I feel like girls today are still presented with these ideas. We could go through the classic examples of figures such as Hilary Clinton who were punished for pushing traditional stereotypes, but that still gets us nowhere. I wish that there was a thorough identity of positive and admirable person, regardless of gender. I would hope that the qualities of respect, compassion, and willpower could be mixed in with ideas of assertiveness and self-confidence. I think they we are slowly coming closer to this idea, but like I have said before, change takes a long time and sometimes it gets frustrating for classic ideas to be shattered.
Why is Manhood Everything?
Judy Hilkey's "Manhood is Everything: The Masculinization and Democratization of Success" seems to be a summary of facts that we have already discussed in class. Being manly is associated with power, vigilance, willpower, and perfection. The reaction I am left with is: Obviously! Men have been in power for millennia. In order to retain this superiority in government and in the personal sphere over women, there naturally had to be stereotypes readily available that stressed that men were physically and intellectually superior over their female peers. Some females, being constantly subjected to these types of thoughts for as long as they have been able to comprehend them, believe them. The period the author discusses most is the 19th century, a time of westward expansion for America, industrialization for Europe, and monarchial rule for much of Asia. The move west required willpower and strength, and it was naturally stressed that men take the lead of these excursions as many left their families in search of wealth. Industrialization represented the apex of manhood; As men thought of new and more effective ways to produce and manufacture, women were left in the sidelines, many forced to take on menial roles as laborers. Monarchial rule, too, is reflected traditional gender roles. Women rulers were often pegged as ineffective, as China's empress Cixi is often cited as the reason for the downfall of monarchial rule itself.
There are surely exceptions to these statements. However, I believe that these stereotypes were, and often are, still in existence as a way to retain the status quo. As much of the world has yet to see a female ruler, it is clear that these preconceptions are hard to shake. Many women still assert that they want a "manly" partner; Harlequin romance novels still sell by the millions, selling the image of a man as a rugged cowboy, his muscles tearing from his wifebeater and he saves the powerless woman from her conundrum. For any one group to be in power, another has to be submissive. Women, though gaining power, still hold that position. The Washington Monument in Washington D.C. still stands as one of the most phallic structures in the world. As pointing out these facts is essential for anything to change, I think that the excerpts Hilkey included acted as a humorous, eye-roll inducing reminder of the culture that we still reside in that has disturbingly not changed very much from the documents that were published over 100 years ago.
There are surely exceptions to these statements. However, I believe that these stereotypes were, and often are, still in existence as a way to retain the status quo. As much of the world has yet to see a female ruler, it is clear that these preconceptions are hard to shake. Many women still assert that they want a "manly" partner; Harlequin romance novels still sell by the millions, selling the image of a man as a rugged cowboy, his muscles tearing from his wifebeater and he saves the powerless woman from her conundrum. For any one group to be in power, another has to be submissive. Women, though gaining power, still hold that position. The Washington Monument in Washington D.C. still stands as one of the most phallic structures in the world. As pointing out these facts is essential for anything to change, I think that the excerpts Hilkey included acted as a humorous, eye-roll inducing reminder of the culture that we still reside in that has disturbingly not changed very much from the documents that were published over 100 years ago.
Reverse Sexism? Girls and Boys in the Classroom
Christina Hoff Sommer's "The War Against Boys" brought up some fascinating subjects, and I am still unsure how I feel about some of them. Being born in 1988, I have been raised to believe that I can do anything that boys can do. My dad was my softball coach, always encouraging me and assuring me, and I have rarely felt as if I was disadvantaged because of my gender as I graduated high school. I did, however, see some of my classmates drop out, and the vast majority of them were males. My nerdy high school experience did allow me to experience at least one inequality; As a member of the debate team, traveling to state and national tournaments brought out the ugly truth that both myself and my female partner were consistently underestimated because of our gender. Apparently, females are not assertive or powerful, and are usually unable to participate in a cross examination in which we can properly and effectively defend our views while simultaneously bring down our opponents. I could not avoid seeing the excited and relieved eyes of our opponents as they realized that they were facing off against two 5"2 females.
I do believe that females have overcome a great many disadvantages; however, I do think that after girls graduate high school, they are still vulnerable to a great many inequalities. I agree with Sommers that ideas that females "fall off an abyss" by the time that they are twelve is absolutely ridiculous. I was a constant victim to videos in health class warning against teenage bulimia, depression, anorexia, and drug abuse, all as a result of low self esteem. The very few videos that we were shown elaborating on male issues were all a result of peer pressure, however. Women partook in questionable behavior because they didn't feel as if they were good enough. Men, on the other hand, took drugs or drove fast because their "bros" were doing it. This idea, as well as the article, is proof that longstanding stereotypes are difficult to change. As 70's feminists asserted that females were lagging behind in the classroom, many took action. These changes have permanently altered the schoolyard landscape. However, our country has had a difficult time trying to adjust. Boys suffer just as much as traditional generalizations, and as they try to cope with the idea that they are violent and aggressive creatures, they naturally get into more trouble with fighting and drugs. Trying to dig out Freudian interpretations of being separated from their mothers is only increasing these issues. It is about time that someone took a common sense approach to the issues that our country is dealing with. Instead of psychoanalyzing every scientific and non-scientific study that is released, we need to address them with legislation. Instead of making stereotypes and generalizations about males and females, maybe it is time to help individuals of lower socio-economic levels of both genders, and help all of those who are falling behind, regardless of whether they are male or female.
I do believe that females have overcome a great many disadvantages; however, I do think that after girls graduate high school, they are still vulnerable to a great many inequalities. I agree with Sommers that ideas that females "fall off an abyss" by the time that they are twelve is absolutely ridiculous. I was a constant victim to videos in health class warning against teenage bulimia, depression, anorexia, and drug abuse, all as a result of low self esteem. The very few videos that we were shown elaborating on male issues were all a result of peer pressure, however. Women partook in questionable behavior because they didn't feel as if they were good enough. Men, on the other hand, took drugs or drove fast because their "bros" were doing it. This idea, as well as the article, is proof that longstanding stereotypes are difficult to change. As 70's feminists asserted that females were lagging behind in the classroom, many took action. These changes have permanently altered the schoolyard landscape. However, our country has had a difficult time trying to adjust. Boys suffer just as much as traditional generalizations, and as they try to cope with the idea that they are violent and aggressive creatures, they naturally get into more trouble with fighting and drugs. Trying to dig out Freudian interpretations of being separated from their mothers is only increasing these issues. It is about time that someone took a common sense approach to the issues that our country is dealing with. Instead of psychoanalyzing every scientific and non-scientific study that is released, we need to address them with legislation. Instead of making stereotypes and generalizations about males and females, maybe it is time to help individuals of lower socio-economic levels of both genders, and help all of those who are falling behind, regardless of whether they are male or female.
Turpin's "Many Faces" and Women's Constant War
Jennifer Turpin's article "Many Faces: Women Confronting War" was a disturbing and harsh look at women's true role in war; As many assume that war is simply a man's game, it turns out that women once again receive the "short end of the stick" when it comes to violence. The first statistic that stuck out in my mind was the fact that more women die as a result of armed conflict than men. Though not many perish as a result of direct combat, an unfathomable number die as a result of pillaging and sexual abuse, while also suffering the consequences of being uprooted from their homes, caring for their impoverished families, being forced into prostitution, and losing their jobs. Ironies were rife throughout the article. For instance, it is interesting to note that "while governments are constantly decrying their lack of available funds to meet social needs, there seems to be an unending supply of capital for military spending, and many have observed a direct trade-off between the two."
It is also rather hypercritical that although many men seem to be disturbed by the idea that women should be allowed to participate in direct combat, women are the ones who already suffer the most from war, and who seem unable to fight back. This feeling of helplessness continues throughout the article, as Turpin summarizes the effects of sexual harassment in the army, the differing reactions that women have towards loss, and the contemporary issues surrounding women making wartime decisions in the government. It is always depressing to see how little these debates have changed up to the present day, and how many people still refuse to believe that women are capable of any acts of violence, and how this should be a reason to keep women out of wartime activities. Although war is a heinous affair, it also seems to be inevitable. Wartime activities reflect a still extremely divided nation, as contemporary media still reflects the idea that women should pine away at home waiting for their loved ones to return for war, though history and common sense seems to make it obvious that women are capable of performing in the same capacity as their male counterparts.
It is also rather hypercritical that although many men seem to be disturbed by the idea that women should be allowed to participate in direct combat, women are the ones who already suffer the most from war, and who seem unable to fight back. This feeling of helplessness continues throughout the article, as Turpin summarizes the effects of sexual harassment in the army, the differing reactions that women have towards loss, and the contemporary issues surrounding women making wartime decisions in the government. It is always depressing to see how little these debates have changed up to the present day, and how many people still refuse to believe that women are capable of any acts of violence, and how this should be a reason to keep women out of wartime activities. Although war is a heinous affair, it also seems to be inevitable. Wartime activities reflect a still extremely divided nation, as contemporary media still reflects the idea that women should pine away at home waiting for their loved ones to return for war, though history and common sense seems to make it obvious that women are capable of performing in the same capacity as their male counterparts.
18.11.10
The Catholic Crunch
Birth control's role in the new healthcare system
As a daily reader of Jezebel, one of the most popular feminist blogs out there, I find their articles dealing with birth control especially interesting, yet disheartening. This one talks about the Catholic Church's constant intervention in making birth control available to all young women, despite their reason for taking it. I always found it extremely ironic that the group who is most strongly against abortion is also vehemently opposed to birth control. John Haas, president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, even went as far as to say,
As a daily reader of Jezebel, one of the most popular feminist blogs out there, I find their articles dealing with birth control especially interesting, yet disheartening. This one talks about the Catholic Church's constant intervention in making birth control available to all young women, despite their reason for taking it. I always found it extremely ironic that the group who is most strongly against abortion is also vehemently opposed to birth control. John Haas, president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, even went as far as to say,
1.10.10
.jpg)
I thought it would be especially appropriate here to include a homage to one of televisions most sex-ified warriors, Xena: Warrior Princess. We can see here that she is clearly ready for battle with her long flowing dark hair, her companion with the all-too-common bleached hair. Her breasts are also nicely protected with huge round metal plates. I suppose the television producers thought that in this way, men would still be able to ogle a beautiful heroin while at the same time enjoy some violence, leather, and weapons (you know, guy stuff.)
I think that this topic also plays in nicely with Byrnes, "Towards a Gendered Understanding of Conflict." What garnered my attention most was his argument that in times of war, gender roles are more highly revered and encouraged. Even women who join the army are exposed to a horrifying amount of sexual harassment and rape. MSNBC released a study that claimed that while 6 percent of men complained of sexual harassment, over one third of women had faced this same problem. This is likely due to the endemic that Byrne discusses. He states, "The training of men in armies involves the drilling into men of a particular notion of aggressive masculinity which is intimately related to misogyny.
The language of armies often reflects this construction of masculinity as the most common insults are those that suggest that a soldier is homosexual or feminine." In this sense, how will women ever be able to take up non-clerical positions in the armed forces when a mindset that has been used with armies for centuries is still alive and well? The same goes for issues surrounding DADT. If homosexuality is considered non-masculine and therefore feminine, how will these barriers ever be overcome? With a decreasing number of citizens choosing to become part of the armed services in America, it seems illogical to exclude a majority of all citizens.
Byrnes also points out how men also suffer from this paradigm. Women encouraged the status-quo by dispensing white feathers to men who chose not to fight, representing their cowardly nature. It is interesting to see how, though the rape of women has been continuously been focused on, as raging marauders loot as rape as a form celebration, men suffer as well. Byrnes writes, "As with women, the rape of a man can signify the ultimate expression of power, and in many cultures a man who perpetrates a rape on a man is not considered homosexual. There is, however, very little documentation on this subject, which is likely to be the result of the even greater social taboo against men talking of being raped." In this way, gender stereotypes are being carried out. While a woman who is raped can be considered helpless and defenseless against her attacker, a man, according to standards, should be able to defend himself as the naturalized power he was born with is taken away. It would be interesting to see a study focused on this issue in the future.
Brocke-Utne and the Reality of Peace
While reading Brigit Brocke-Utne's piece, "Feminist Perspectives on Peace and Peace Education," I was a little confused as to her motives. While I can comprehend the ideas of positive and negative peace, I did not understand how she could bring in such a heavy subject such as wife-beating and condense it to such an extent. I understood that she believed that as long as men were either repressing or physically harming women, positive peace could not exist. I think the author has unrealistic standards, as she defines positive peace as the "absence of indirect violence reducing the quality of life, the absence of repressing in microstructures leading to less freedom of choice and fulfillment, and the absence of repression in a country of free speech the right to organize, etc." Although it seems like she has noble intentions here, I don't think that any society can ever have a complete absence of violence.
While I talked in my last post about making social changes in order to decrease the amount of violence that occurs, I don't understand how a culture could be so perfect as to fulfill all of the requirements. All of her statistics are very striking, but I feel like she clumps together different forms of violence against women into one group that need to be investigated singularly. FGM and wife beating, while both horrid forms of violence against women, happen for different reasons. While they both represent control and retaining the current hierarchy, there are different solutions for each of these problems.
Also, I felt like the article went in completely different directions that didn't seem to mesh well together. First, she discusses peace and the dichotomy between positive and negative, and then three-thirds of the way down I am reading about polls stating that women are more anti-military and how money spent on the military would be better served to feed the hungry. I felt that she glossed over some areas and used a large number of generalizations. The last line of the article reads, "We can say that patriarchy denies many women a voice, no matter under what economic system." I don't believe that it is purely the economic system that is created these inequalities. I suppose she is using a radical liberal voice and only speaking from one perspective, but it was a little frustrating for me for her to state that we can only have positive peace in any society when there is 0% direct or indirect violence. Her Thomas More view conflicts a bit with my slightly Hobbes-ian feel today. However, I have to give her props in her analysis of war time rape, and the fact that for the most part, only rape that is committed by the "other side" is ever reported. I never truly thought about this, but it makes sense given that as unemployment and hardship increase, so does violence against women. I just wish that she would be able to focus more specifically on a topic such as this, as I believe her views would be better supported.
While I talked in my last post about making social changes in order to decrease the amount of violence that occurs, I don't understand how a culture could be so perfect as to fulfill all of the requirements. All of her statistics are very striking, but I feel like she clumps together different forms of violence against women into one group that need to be investigated singularly. FGM and wife beating, while both horrid forms of violence against women, happen for different reasons. While they both represent control and retaining the current hierarchy, there are different solutions for each of these problems.
Also, I felt like the article went in completely different directions that didn't seem to mesh well together. First, she discusses peace and the dichotomy between positive and negative, and then three-thirds of the way down I am reading about polls stating that women are more anti-military and how money spent on the military would be better served to feed the hungry. I felt that she glossed over some areas and used a large number of generalizations. The last line of the article reads, "We can say that patriarchy denies many women a voice, no matter under what economic system." I don't believe that it is purely the economic system that is created these inequalities. I suppose she is using a radical liberal voice and only speaking from one perspective, but it was a little frustrating for me for her to state that we can only have positive peace in any society when there is 0% direct or indirect violence. Her Thomas More view conflicts a bit with my slightly Hobbes-ian feel today. However, I have to give her props in her analysis of war time rape, and the fact that for the most part, only rape that is committed by the "other side" is ever reported. I never truly thought about this, but it makes sense given that as unemployment and hardship increase, so does violence against women. I just wish that she would be able to focus more specifically on a topic such as this, as I believe her views would be better supported.
30.9.10
Fighting Social Blinders When Understanding Violence
While reading the Hatty article, I was disturbed by the apparent result of some of our social conditioning. Especially when reading about the murder of Leigh Leigh, readers could see the results of masculine competition mixed with the psychological occurrence of groupthink and the desire for power. It reminded me of a murder committed in my hometown, which centered around a group of mentally-deficient people (both male and female) who tortured, raped, and killed a woman with the mental capacity of a 12 year old. The details are absolutely horrendous and I don't feel much like describing them for anyone, but suffice to say that many issues, some related to gender, were all at play and, for me, speaks of the importance of avoiding preconceptions and taking into account that gender issues were not the sole reason of the murder. If we pigeonhole ourselves into creating the "sex monster" that Hatty describes, we will never be able to change our current practices in order to avoid future tragedies. The definition used in Hatty was extremely effective. It read, "The monster is the bodily incarnation of difference from the basic human norm; it is a deviant, and a-nomaly; it is abnormal." Viewed in this way, bystanders have little agency in preventing such a monster. While some citizens are certainly biologically predisposed to these kinds of heinous crimes, that by all means does not mean that everyone else is helpless. Culture is so focused on demonizing the male form and their endless supply of libido, or the idea of 'the outsider' with little interest in mainstream society, that they do not comprehend that these single narratives are in no way absolute.
Take, for instance, the case of Phoebe Price, who ended her own life after being harassed and bullied by her peers. The media instantly demonized the girls who were accused, choosing to adopt the stereotypical narrative of the physically attractive girls terrorizing someone lower than themselves on the social totem pole. However, it was later discovered that in her home country, there were several account that found that Phoebe was often the one perpetrating this violence on others. What everyone failed to realize is that the two are not mutually exclusive. Neither side is 'evil' and Phoebe Prince was not able to receive the help that she so desperately needed because school officials believed that intervention was not needed. As is often the case, Phoebe was accused of being a "whore" and a "slut," adding another gendered layer to such an unfortunate case. I have included two links below further elaborating on the issues I was discussing. I could type for days and still not be able to break the surface on how or why these events occurred. All I can hope for is that more people understand that there are socio-economic, political, and social changes that can be made to prevent such tragedies from happening again.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-6202062-504083.html
http://jezebel.com/5616690/phoebe-prices-past-adds-another-layer-to-the-story
Take, for instance, the case of Phoebe Price, who ended her own life after being harassed and bullied by her peers. The media instantly demonized the girls who were accused, choosing to adopt the stereotypical narrative of the physically attractive girls terrorizing someone lower than themselves on the social totem pole. However, it was later discovered that in her home country, there were several account that found that Phoebe was often the one perpetrating this violence on others. What everyone failed to realize is that the two are not mutually exclusive. Neither side is 'evil' and Phoebe Prince was not able to receive the help that she so desperately needed because school officials believed that intervention was not needed. As is often the case, Phoebe was accused of being a "whore" and a "slut," adding another gendered layer to such an unfortunate case. I have included two links below further elaborating on the issues I was discussing. I could type for days and still not be able to break the surface on how or why these events occurred. All I can hope for is that more people understand that there are socio-economic, political, and social changes that can be made to prevent such tragedies from happening again.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-6202062-504083.html
http://jezebel.com/5616690/phoebe-prices-past-adds-another-layer-to-the-story
The Beauty of the Gray and Rediscovering Pleasure
In Connell's "Making Gendered People," the social truth that one cannot exist without participating and interacting with a highly gendered society was especially striking. It is incredibly difficult to partake in nearly any activity in this country without adhering to these constructs, especially as one difference (namely reproductive) "is assumed to be reflected in a whole range of other natural differences: in strength, sexual interest, physical skills, recreational interests, character, and intellectual." These inequalities exist to such an extent that it begins to become impossible to discern how different my interests would be had these social restraints not existed. By rejecting our current dichotomy and accepting the fact that "modern Western societies distinguish five sexes (based on genitalia), three sexual orientations, five gender displays, six types of relations, and ten self-identities," our culture can begin to celebrate gender gray-areas, rather than admonish those who are not able to fill our own narrow boxes.
Sexuality is a major area that is slow to recover from a conservative culture. The fact that are less than half as likely as men to reach orgasm during sex is one example of how women are still feeling ashamed of being sexual entities. Women are expected no have no libido whatsoever, simply relenting to a man's demands out of a feeling of duty. Men receive pleasure while women offer it to men. Their joy lies solely in the ability to please a man. These facts are obviously flexible, as ubiquitous resources allow women to rediscover their bodies. It will be interesting to see the changes in this arena in the coming decades, as sex education, birth control, and abortion are surely not topics set to be resolved in the foreseeable future, if ever.
I apologize for the winding and convoluted nature of this blog entry. I blogged as I was re-reading the article and it's pretty easy to see where I would get frustrated. It is truly amazing to see how much of centuries-old dogma has been dredged through history and is still seemingly omnipresent in our culture.
Sexuality is a major area that is slow to recover from a conservative culture. The fact that are less than half as likely as men to reach orgasm during sex is one example of how women are still feeling ashamed of being sexual entities. Women are expected no have no libido whatsoever, simply relenting to a man's demands out of a feeling of duty. Men receive pleasure while women offer it to men. Their joy lies solely in the ability to please a man. These facts are obviously flexible, as ubiquitous resources allow women to rediscover their bodies. It will be interesting to see the changes in this arena in the coming decades, as sex education, birth control, and abortion are surely not topics set to be resolved in the foreseeable future, if ever.
I apologize for the winding and convoluted nature of this blog entry. I blogged as I was re-reading the article and it's pretty easy to see where I would get frustrated. It is truly amazing to see how much of centuries-old dogma has been dredged through history and is still seemingly omnipresent in our culture.
12.9.10
Fiercely Feminist: An Analysis
In Jessica's Valenti's piece, "You're A Hardcore Feminist, I Swear" her angry and explicit tone took a necessary step in dissecting and rejecting common ideas about what it is to be a feminist, while offering no apologies or passiveness for her views. By urging readers, "Don't hold back, now" in the opening paragraph, she makes her purpose obvious by addressing the veritable "elephant in the room," pointing to some of the worst insults hurled toward women and men alike, all with the intent on making the idea of femininity strictly negative. I admired her ability to seemingly spew these epithets out non-offensively, as if those intending to hurt her, both as an individual and part of a cause, are now simply shelling out empty slurs.
Valenti is also very effective in her ability to call out those who have attempted to remain neutral on the subject. While admitting that she was once part of this group, reminiscing on thoughts such as, "Oh, there's so many kinds of feminism, how can I say I know what they're about," and the classic argument of being a "humanist" rather than a "feminist," she begins picking off the reader's doubts, pointing out the clear inadequacies of the current hierarchical structure, making it difficult for any clear-headed individual to avoid labeling themselves as a feminist. As I was reading through the article, it was so refreshing to read the words of a woman who is so unapologetic in her views. She is lewd in her language, but this conversational tone is easily accessible to young women who are still trying to discover their own identities. While the feminine ideal of remaining dainty and passive further demonizes women who make such an aggressive stance, her rallying call to all women who have felt insecure or not good enough strikes the nerves of young women. As she states, "Really, imagine how nice it would be to realize that all the stuff you've been taught that makes you feel crappy just isn't true," her use of pathos is straight on.
Pointing out the stigma of being a feminist, saying that "The easiest way of keeping women -- especially young women -- away from feminism is to threaten them with the ugly stick," allows Valenti to delve deeper into the heart of feminism. Although no woman wants to be labeled as a "dyke" or an "ugly bitch," Valenti poses some disheartening questions that lure the reader further into her state of mind. One of the most striking questions that she poses is, "Seriously, are things really cool the way they are when so many of us are upchucking our meals and getting raped and beat up and being paid less money than men? And being denied birth control, and being told not to have sex but be sexy, and a hundred other things that make us feel shitty?" Here, she reaches the apex of her argument, taking all of the ridiculous opinions of opponents that she offers and challenging them with her own version of reality.
By offering young women some examples of female empowerment, minus the burning of bras or other common misconceptions, she creates a stronger, more beautiful image of womanhood than what is currently being offered. Through the entire article I was touched by her frankness, and her ability to sway readers while being forceful yet still persuasive. I believe that this should be a necessary piece of writing for young women being inundated by the media's expectations of who they should be.
Valenti is also very effective in her ability to call out those who have attempted to remain neutral on the subject. While admitting that she was once part of this group, reminiscing on thoughts such as, "Oh, there's so many kinds of feminism, how can I say I know what they're about," and the classic argument of being a "humanist" rather than a "feminist," she begins picking off the reader's doubts, pointing out the clear inadequacies of the current hierarchical structure, making it difficult for any clear-headed individual to avoid labeling themselves as a feminist. As I was reading through the article, it was so refreshing to read the words of a woman who is so unapologetic in her views. She is lewd in her language, but this conversational tone is easily accessible to young women who are still trying to discover their own identities. While the feminine ideal of remaining dainty and passive further demonizes women who make such an aggressive stance, her rallying call to all women who have felt insecure or not good enough strikes the nerves of young women. As she states, "Really, imagine how nice it would be to realize that all the stuff you've been taught that makes you feel crappy just isn't true," her use of pathos is straight on.
Pointing out the stigma of being a feminist, saying that "The easiest way of keeping women -- especially young women -- away from feminism is to threaten them with the ugly stick," allows Valenti to delve deeper into the heart of feminism. Although no woman wants to be labeled as a "dyke" or an "ugly bitch," Valenti poses some disheartening questions that lure the reader further into her state of mind. One of the most striking questions that she poses is, "Seriously, are things really cool the way they are when so many of us are upchucking our meals and getting raped and beat up and being paid less money than men? And being denied birth control, and being told not to have sex but be sexy, and a hundred other things that make us feel shitty?" Here, she reaches the apex of her argument, taking all of the ridiculous opinions of opponents that she offers and challenging them with her own version of reality.
By offering young women some examples of female empowerment, minus the burning of bras or other common misconceptions, she creates a stronger, more beautiful image of womanhood than what is currently being offered. Through the entire article I was touched by her frankness, and her ability to sway readers while being forceful yet still persuasive. I believe that this should be a necessary piece of writing for young women being inundated by the media's expectations of who they should be.
7.9.10
Week One: Examining Preconceptions
Though we have yet to delve into much of the reading, the initial comments that have been made are certainly a harbinger for the feuds to come. Being that each of our identities is so strongly linked to gender, it is difficult to avoid being insulted or to feel personally attacked by certain arguments made to stamp a certain stereotype or label on what is, essentially, linked to a biological circumstance. The exercise on Thursday reinforced the idea of societal expectations, and the fact that our society became successful with the notion that certain genders were linked to certain tasks, clearly polarizes its citizens and, in the examples we discussed, limited the accomplishments of certain members. At the same time, these ideas cemented down a status quo that allowed for a clear hierarchical structure. It is interesting to note that the formalization of these ideas has developed right along with an increased sense of a stable society. It is mainly believed that in the paleolithic era, women lived with more equality than we do even in the present day.
There are those, however, who have noticed the inequalities of this system, including many members of our own class. As our society has expanded and information has become more easily accessible, it has become clear that the facts are not so clean cut. Though society expects women to be maternal and right-brained, two X chromosomes do not guarantee these characteristics. Because "being different" is directly linked to ostracism and ridicule, women (and men) have been struggling to fit into these molds which have been being perfected for centuries. Women will put on a front that they are less intelligent, and men still view asking for help as a sign of their "feminization." Because media has become so encompassing, it has become impossible to decide whether our feelings, specifically those related to gender, are a result of our natural instincts, or are a reaction to repeated attempts by society to feed their machine by urging women that they will never be good at math, or parallel parking, or any other ridiculous notion that has been passed down through innumerable generations. These stereotypes are mentally and physically detrimental to women and men, and it will be interesting to study how these ideas (singularly) were formed through philosophical, biological, and sociological spheres.
There are those, however, who have noticed the inequalities of this system, including many members of our own class. As our society has expanded and information has become more easily accessible, it has become clear that the facts are not so clean cut. Though society expects women to be maternal and right-brained, two X chromosomes do not guarantee these characteristics. Because "being different" is directly linked to ostracism and ridicule, women (and men) have been struggling to fit into these molds which have been being perfected for centuries. Women will put on a front that they are less intelligent, and men still view asking for help as a sign of their "feminization." Because media has become so encompassing, it has become impossible to decide whether our feelings, specifically those related to gender, are a result of our natural instincts, or are a reaction to repeated attempts by society to feed their machine by urging women that they will never be good at math, or parallel parking, or any other ridiculous notion that has been passed down through innumerable generations. These stereotypes are mentally and physically detrimental to women and men, and it will be interesting to study how these ideas (singularly) were formed through philosophical, biological, and sociological spheres.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)