Get ready (it's long).
I made the mistake of reading Full Frontal Feminism first. I say mistake because the Valenti reading was probably one of the easiest things I've ever read, which made reading the Connell article only a little more pleasant than reading the dictionary. Jessica Valenti's crass, laid-back, informal writing style made reading this piece more like listening to a conversation (it was a nice break!).
I hadn't previously considered "female/girl" as the ultimate insult, but after reading the first paragraph of Valenti it completely makes sense. And, yeah, that's a little ridiculous. I like to think of myself as a feminist, but (like Valenti says) I don't think of myself as ugly, hairy, or anti-male. I really think "feminism" is defined by the particular feminist contemplating herself and her ideals. In some cases, extreme "feminists" take it to far (in my opinion) and do become unimaginably negative toward men, sex, etc. (isn't that the other side of sexism? Is being anti-male as bad as being anti-female? Uh...yeah. It's just not as common, and some of us tend to view it as a just punishment for men being so damn sexist toward women. That kind of bothers me!)
In any case, I think I'm in the process of figuring out that there's not as much wrong with me as I tend to think (like Valenti says on page 7, "There is nothing wrong with you."), but I'm definitely not quite there yet (I still act/don't act certain ways around certain people because I'm afraid of what they'll think; I still have body image problems because I don't have the "ideal body").
While Valenti curses and uses comedy as a way of holding the readers' attention, I think it's a little overdone. I'm not saying I hated reading it, but by the end I was kind of like, "okay, I get it..." (don't get me wrong, I'd rather read Valenti-type stuff over 15-page PDF or Connell-kind of stuff!)
I do agree that women are afraid of being feminists as a result of their being perceived as ugly or old fashioned or anything else "negative," and that's a shame. The stereotypes that exist about feminists/feminism are unfortunate, like Rush Limbaugh's claim that feminism is only around so that ugly women can gain access to the mainstream of society, and the "rich-whitey" stereotype as a consequence of feminism in the '60's and '70s. The "atrocities" feminism is supposedly accountable for made me laugh. It's ridiculous that feminism is to blame for promoting promiscuity, man-hating, and feminization of men, unfairness to Micheal Jackson, and an increase in the number of women criminals...what?!
Valenti hit the nail on the head on page 13 where she talks about the people (media) who win when we feel like shit about ourselves. I have and imagine I always will struggle with feeling comfortable in my own skin, and so the more products I buy to help cover that up, the more I'm just adding to my own defeat...ugh. We covered this aspect of gender as a social structre (industry/media influence, as well as how products and ideals are represented) in class on Tuesday.
Eek, I had a ton to say about Valenti...but won't have as much to say about Connell. Sure, it was a valuable read...but so dry compared to Valenti. I did find the assumption of the gender/sex dichotomy interesting, "two types of bodies...sharply distinct from each other--indeed apposed to each other." It's so funny to take a minute and think about how weird it is that we as humans (generally) group ourselves into only two, opposite sexes and genders when there are literally millions of differend kinds of bodies/personalities/genders out there. It was also strange to consider how Western culture grossly amplifies the relatively minor physical differences between the human sexes (relative to all other mammals/animals/plants)...we're not as poorly matched as I'd previously thought.
We talked a bit in class on Thursday about body reflective practice, which is discussed in Connell's reading. I'd never (so directly) considered the way our bodies are physically and socially constructed. The dieting, plastsic surgery, and gendered decoration didn't really surprise me, but reading about the reasons behind women's increased life expectancy really shocked me. Men's bodies (in general) are physically tried past their thresholds because men are expected to "suck it up" when it comes to hard work and pain; they're also less likely to visit the doctor for any ailments. Otherwise, they'd be sissies (girls! Valenti would be so pissed at me!).
The section about Identities went in one ear and out the other. I'd heard a lot of the theories (Freud/Erikson) in psychology, but not as focused on gender identities. I'm not sure if I agree with Stoller's veiws on identity--there's no way that I had the basis of my personality when I was two or three. I think my personality developed in adolescence and is constantly changing back and forth from situation to situation and day to day (will it ever stop?!) I do, however, like how Stoller views gender identity as only one aspect of a person--not as a whole like Erikson did--and how it's important to understand other various identities (racial, generational, class, etc.) before one attempts to understand gender identity.
I was floored/confused by the Lorber (1994) calculations that there are "five sexes (based on genitalia), three sexual orientations, five gender displays, six types of relationships, and ten self-identifications."
The Sexualities section was interesting to me, especially when Western ideals of homosexuality were compared to medieval and early modern European society and the Javanese waria.
Since a lot of this article confused me (perhaps merely bored me after reading Full Frontal Feminism), I'm looking forward to discussing it's concepts and terms in more depth in upcoming classes. In any case, I think I get the jist :)
No comments:
Post a Comment