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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)