I was really inspired by Sojourner Truth's "Ain't I a Woman" speech. The introduction and description of her speech made all the more powerful as I was able to consider how crazy it must have been to be a woman (especially a Black woman) during the 1800s. I truthfully hadn't previously considered how far back women have been fighting for equal rights. In my head (and I'm sure in many others'), feminism is more of a 20th century thing: the right to vote, equal rights in the working world, etc. It's so empowering to imagine the strength and motivation of some of the women's rights activists in the 1800s, but it's also important to remember that a lot of women's rights activists were also extremely racist. It was obviously a tough time for women and slaves, and those who came together to fight the oppression were extremely heroic.
I loved reading the speech in phonetics...I could more easily imagine Sojourner Truth speaking, which only enhanced the empowering effects of her speech. Also, in the introduction, a very vivid picture is painted by Frances Gage's description of the event, the people involved, and Sojourner's intimidating nature.
It's so powerful that Sojourner turned the tables on the men and their justifications for oppressing women and slaves during that time. More important is that she confronts the women who were fighting for women's rights, but still oppressing women slaves...they're women, too! "I have ploughed, and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And a'n't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man--when I could get it--and bear de lash as well! And a'n't I a woman?" Sojourner Truth is stronger, more powerful, and more experienced than a lot of men ever could be...she is most definitely a woman.
Sojourner calls out a priest in the audience for justifying women's oppression because God says so. She repeatedly asks him where his God came from, and finally and matter-of-factly bellows, "from God and a woman! Man had nothin’ to do wid Him." If I were there, I feel like I'd have to scream "So in-your-face!" after I ran up and gave Truth a hug or high-five.
I find it really interesting that Sojourner's physical appearance is anything but womanly, but to me she seems more of a woman than the womanliest of women. She shows her physical strength and talks about all of the hard labor she does and the things she's had to go through (having 13 kids sold to slavery), but demands nevertheless that she is a woman. It's an 1800s "screw you!" to gender constructs.
Go girl!
Sunday, October 31, 2010
HOlloween
Ok...I'm sure someone's probably already blogged about it and Celia touched on it a little bit on Thursday, but since when did Halloween turn into a night (or weekend, in Juniata's case) of girls vying for "sluttiest _______" award? We should officially change the name to "HO-lloween." It reminded me so much of the Mean Girls scene that describes the rules of Halloween (follow the link below!)
I took my little brother, Max, trick-or-treating up and down Mifflin Street on Wednesday. I honestly could not believe some of the teenage girls' costumes (I'm talking like, 10 to 13 years old). They were dressed as Disney princesses, but wore the tiny, low-cut versions of the princess' dresses that showed off their boobs and butt cheeks. We trick-or-treated behind a group of middle-school girls and boys...the girls were slutty witches, cats, fairies, or princesses, and the guys were bloody monsters (creative...) As I walked up and down Mifflin Street I really could not believe how young some of the HO-lloweeners were! It's like we've been talking about in class--girls are pressured by media at younger and younger ages to be "the virgin AND the slut" and don't really realize how crazy it is because that's what's popular and gets you noticed. I can't help but wonder what these middle-school girls will be dressing up as in college...I don't know how it could get much worse!
Friday and Saturday nights showcased Juniata girls' hidden abilities to transform even the most innocent of costumes into the most revealing and objectifying. On campus I saw a handful of slutty sailor girls, a few seductive dogs and cats, a number of female super heroes who never would've been able to fight crime or save the world in their too-tight leotards, and a ton of other "sluttified" costumes. Thankfully, there were a number of girls who neglected to jump on the HO-lloween bandwagon. They made me feel more comfortable.
Lack of motivation and time, along with some tough personal issues over the past week resulted in my not giving damn about dressing up this year...but I feel embarrassed to say that I have given into the "ok...I'll be ____, but I'm going to need leggings and a low-cut shirt to pull it off." I was one of the three blind mice with two of my other friends Freshman year and wore just that: black leggings and a black, lacy camisole (so...basically a black, skin-tight body suit), and black pumps; of course homemade fuzzy black ears on a headband, a tail, and some generic eye-liner whiskers and lip-stick nose completed the costume. I was so uncomfortable the entire night...I suffered from a stomach ache from constantly feeling as though I had to "suck in" to look good (my two mice counterparts are toothpicks). Sophomore year was more reserved: I was a gypsy, but I piled on makeup and (again) wore a tight, low-cut shirt with my big gypsy skirt, headscarf, and (obviously) black pumps. Halfway through the night I decided I was no longer comfortable and sick and tired to death of feeling exposed; I changed into brown corduroy pants and a white button-down shirt, threw on my brown chuck-taylors, and called myself milk-chocolate. People thought it was a little lame, but as soon as I felt a little more covered I was able to relax. This year, I wore the clothes I'd been wearing all day (jeans, scarf, shirt, cardigan, flats...the staples) and put on some non-prescription glasses that my friend bought from Urban Outfitters over the summer. When people asked what I was, I simply replied "I'm a vegetarian." A lot of people laughed and said "you look like a vegetarian!" to which I wanted to respond, "uh, thank you...? It may or may not be because I am..."
I guess we'll see what next year brings...
Mean Girls Halloween
I took my little brother, Max, trick-or-treating up and down Mifflin Street on Wednesday. I honestly could not believe some of the teenage girls' costumes (I'm talking like, 10 to 13 years old). They were dressed as Disney princesses, but wore the tiny, low-cut versions of the princess' dresses that showed off their boobs and butt cheeks. We trick-or-treated behind a group of middle-school girls and boys...the girls were slutty witches, cats, fairies, or princesses, and the guys were bloody monsters (creative...) As I walked up and down Mifflin Street I really could not believe how young some of the HO-lloweeners were! It's like we've been talking about in class--girls are pressured by media at younger and younger ages to be "the virgin AND the slut" and don't really realize how crazy it is because that's what's popular and gets you noticed. I can't help but wonder what these middle-school girls will be dressing up as in college...I don't know how it could get much worse!
Friday and Saturday nights showcased Juniata girls' hidden abilities to transform even the most innocent of costumes into the most revealing and objectifying. On campus I saw a handful of slutty sailor girls, a few seductive dogs and cats, a number of female super heroes who never would've been able to fight crime or save the world in their too-tight leotards, and a ton of other "sluttified" costumes. Thankfully, there were a number of girls who neglected to jump on the HO-lloween bandwagon. They made me feel more comfortable.
Lack of motivation and time, along with some tough personal issues over the past week resulted in my not giving damn about dressing up this year...but I feel embarrassed to say that I have given into the "ok...I'll be ____, but I'm going to need leggings and a low-cut shirt to pull it off." I was one of the three blind mice with two of my other friends Freshman year and wore just that: black leggings and a black, lacy camisole (so...basically a black, skin-tight body suit), and black pumps; of course homemade fuzzy black ears on a headband, a tail, and some generic eye-liner whiskers and lip-stick nose completed the costume. I was so uncomfortable the entire night...I suffered from a stomach ache from constantly feeling as though I had to "suck in" to look good (my two mice counterparts are toothpicks). Sophomore year was more reserved: I was a gypsy, but I piled on makeup and (again) wore a tight, low-cut shirt with my big gypsy skirt, headscarf, and (obviously) black pumps. Halfway through the night I decided I was no longer comfortable and sick and tired to death of feeling exposed; I changed into brown corduroy pants and a white button-down shirt, threw on my brown chuck-taylors, and called myself milk-chocolate. People thought it was a little lame, but as soon as I felt a little more covered I was able to relax. This year, I wore the clothes I'd been wearing all day (jeans, scarf, shirt, cardigan, flats...the staples) and put on some non-prescription glasses that my friend bought from Urban Outfitters over the summer. When people asked what I was, I simply replied "I'm a vegetarian." A lot of people laughed and said "you look like a vegetarian!" to which I wanted to respond, "uh, thank you...? It may or may not be because I am..."
I guess we'll see what next year brings...
Mean Girls Halloween
Saturday, October 30, 2010
The Agressive Feminine
Our discussion on Thursday centered around the way in which female aggression is defined and portrayed. It was especially interesting to me to revisit a favorite childhood movie--Snow White--and view it in an alternative light. Like the majority of kids who grew up watching Disney movies without a second thought to deeper meaning, I was at first shocked when confronted with the "Disney is sexist" argument (probably sometime in early high school). It's now very interesting for me to consider the argument in context with our current quest to get to the bottom of how femininity (and masculinity) is constructed.
It was great to watch the clips from Snow White and compare the Evil Queen/Stepmother's physical appearance and portrayal of aggression/femininity with Snow White's. The Queen/Stepmother is physically dominant over all around her, even over the Huntsman, whom we might otherwise consider the manliest of men. She is covered from head to toe in dark or black colors and speaks with a very low but powerful voice. These seemingly manly characteristics serve to completely diminish her sexual identity and allow her (a woman) to be villainous. I can't help but think that if her hair, cleavage, shoulders, arms, and/or neck line were visible, her physical appearance would completely prevent her from seeming scary or threatening; she must necessarily be covered to be evil. Someone in class also made the comment that the Queen/Stepmother takes up much more physical space than do any of the other characters...this relates to our society's common perception that a man must be taller than his girlfriend or wife to be seriously masculine (see Amidia's blog!).
Snow White, in stark contrast to the Queen/Stepmother, takes up little space, has a dress that seriously embellishes her tiny waistline, shows much more skin, has a high, girlie voice, and reacts to things in a typically-female way (screams and collapses in desperation when she's scared, giggles and sings to make herself feel better, etc.). Her physical appearance is in no way scary or aggressive. We discussed toward the end of class how ridiculous it is that Snow White apologizes for being upset and losing her composure when she's scared for her life. When you're scared and upset, just sing. Uh...what?!
Unfortunately, I'm like Snow White in this aspect. I always feel I'm at fault for things that aren't really my fault. If, for example, someone charges me too much for something I buy and I don't catch it until a while later, I feel I do not have to right to go back in and negotiate the difference because it's completely my fault for not being attentive enough. If I'm at a restaurant and they bring out the wrong order, I cannot imagine confronting the waiter about it because I must have done something to confuse them. What is wrong with me?!
I also often feel that I can't be upset about things...like I don't have the right to be mad about something. In these situations, I seriously think to myself: I must have done something that created the situation in the first place, so really I should be mad at myself. There's no one to blame for my unhappiness other than me...sorry, sorry, sorry to everyone who's having to be around me when I'm upset and see me at my worst...etc. Crazy! What.the.hell?! I've talked to my mom about this and she says she has the same complex...so how did we get this way? Should we all be angry with Snow White? Why was she created that way? Where did this definition of femininity originate and why is it still so ingrained in everyone? I want to be more like the Queen/Stepmother...!
On a completely different note, I read a few chapters from Natalie Angier's "Woman" and in one part she talks about someone's theory that women subconsciously wear lipstick so that their facial lips will mimic their vaginal lips and consequently sexually attract men. Because humans (especially women) show little physical evidence of sexual arousal compared to other primate species, the lipstick theorist (his name escapes me) says that amplifying the shape and color of the facial lips with lipstick is an outward way of imitating the way the vaginal lips are amplified in shape and color during arousal. Snow White, the Queen/Stepmother, and so many other Disney princesses and female villains wear red lipstick...is everyone just really horny?
It was great to watch the clips from Snow White and compare the Evil Queen/Stepmother's physical appearance and portrayal of aggression/femininity with Snow White's. The Queen/Stepmother is physically dominant over all around her, even over the Huntsman, whom we might otherwise consider the manliest of men. She is covered from head to toe in dark or black colors and speaks with a very low but powerful voice. These seemingly manly characteristics serve to completely diminish her sexual identity and allow her (a woman) to be villainous. I can't help but think that if her hair, cleavage, shoulders, arms, and/or neck line were visible, her physical appearance would completely prevent her from seeming scary or threatening; she must necessarily be covered to be evil. Someone in class also made the comment that the Queen/Stepmother takes up much more physical space than do any of the other characters...this relates to our society's common perception that a man must be taller than his girlfriend or wife to be seriously masculine (see Amidia's blog!).
Snow White, in stark contrast to the Queen/Stepmother, takes up little space, has a dress that seriously embellishes her tiny waistline, shows much more skin, has a high, girlie voice, and reacts to things in a typically-female way (screams and collapses in desperation when she's scared, giggles and sings to make herself feel better, etc.). Her physical appearance is in no way scary or aggressive. We discussed toward the end of class how ridiculous it is that Snow White apologizes for being upset and losing her composure when she's scared for her life. When you're scared and upset, just sing. Uh...what?!
Unfortunately, I'm like Snow White in this aspect. I always feel I'm at fault for things that aren't really my fault. If, for example, someone charges me too much for something I buy and I don't catch it until a while later, I feel I do not have to right to go back in and negotiate the difference because it's completely my fault for not being attentive enough. If I'm at a restaurant and they bring out the wrong order, I cannot imagine confronting the waiter about it because I must have done something to confuse them. What is wrong with me?!
I also often feel that I can't be upset about things...like I don't have the right to be mad about something. In these situations, I seriously think to myself: I must have done something that created the situation in the first place, so really I should be mad at myself. There's no one to blame for my unhappiness other than me...sorry, sorry, sorry to everyone who's having to be around me when I'm upset and see me at my worst...etc. Crazy! What.the.hell?! I've talked to my mom about this and she says she has the same complex...so how did we get this way? Should we all be angry with Snow White? Why was she created that way? Where did this definition of femininity originate and why is it still so ingrained in everyone? I want to be more like the Queen/Stepmother...!
On a completely different note, I read a few chapters from Natalie Angier's "Woman" and in one part she talks about someone's theory that women subconsciously wear lipstick so that their facial lips will mimic their vaginal lips and consequently sexually attract men. Because humans (especially women) show little physical evidence of sexual arousal compared to other primate species, the lipstick theorist (his name escapes me) says that amplifying the shape and color of the facial lips with lipstick is an outward way of imitating the way the vaginal lips are amplified in shape and color during arousal. Snow White, the Queen/Stepmother, and so many other Disney princesses and female villains wear red lipstick...is everyone just really horny?
What a Girl Wants...
Tuesday's video, "What a Girl Wants," was just another reaffirmation that women of all ages are influenced and defined by the media (which is in turn governed by the same old patriarchal ideals we've been discussing). While the video was a bit dated (citing pre-psychotic, childless Britney Spears, tiny teenager Christina Aguliera, pre-Nick Lache/Newlyweds Jessica Simpson, etc.), it was still valuable for our discussions and readings about femininity.
Most of the girls interviewed in the 2001 documentary were between the ages of 10 and 14 (a few younger, a few older); since I was 11/12 in 2001, I found I could easily recall the music videos, movies, fashions, diet fads, commercials, etc. that influenced how girls my age felt, looked, and acted. Like the pre-teens interviewed, I thought nothing of the effects the media had on me and just went along with anything that the popular girls wore or did.
As I finished 6th grade and entered the junior/senior high school as a timid 7th grader in 2001, I quickly learned that being taken seriously as a junior-high girl meant trading in all of my comfortable Nike and Adidas t-shirts and sweatshirts and my generic, baggy jeans or wind-breaker pants (in 6th grade we called them "swishy pants") for bell-bottom jeans that glittered or had flowers in just the right places; my twin sister and I fought every week over whose turn it was to wear a pair of bell-bottoms that was suggestively laced from waist to ankle. As far as puberty and developing hips and boobs, I was a (very) late bloomer and everything happened (very) slowly. Junior high was grueling.
Thank God for twin sisters.
I remember my sister and I obsessing endlessly in front of the mirror over how "boxy" our hips were and how flat-chested we were. I really can't imagine getting through adolescence without her. While all of the popular girls in our class had magically developed in the summer between 6th and 7th grades (or else had taken to wearing padded bras), Sophie and I just...didn't. Our awkward bodies didn't stop us from begging our mom to buy us the latest American Eagle and Aeropostale clothes and sneaking off to buy them and other popular clothing if she refused (I think I bought my first thong in 7th grade because all of the popular girls in my gym class had made fun of my "granny panties" when we were changing). They wore thongs because of Sisqo's "Thong Song" music video and other advertisements that showed girls' thongs pulled up above their jeans...just like in the documentary. I didn't want to be wearing these outrageously uncomfortable underwear or shirts that advertised "hidden" sexual meanings, but I did it because it's what was popular and I saw that the girls who conformed to latest fads (prescribed by media) got the most attention.
Like some of the girls interviewed, I really don't remember being concerned with or thinking about sex at that age. I remember in 8th grade one of my friends told me that her older (9th grade) sister had given a blow job to her boyfriend. I had absolutely no idea what a blow job was, so she told me; all I remember thinking is why on earth would anyone ever put their mouth on that?! You have to swallow WHAT?! It seemed utterly disgusting and made-up to me. Of course my mom had talked to us about sex and I'd had tons of crushes and flings with boys my age who'd kissed me on the cheek, but sex seemed the least of my worries until about 9th grade when I became friends with a senior who spared no detail in telling me all about her sex life. I got a boyfriend in the middle of 9th grade and was overcome with the pressure put on couples that age and expectations that everyone had them.
Bottom-line, I was exactly like the girls in "What a Girl Wants." Even though I knew and felt how unfair it was that molding to media's looks and behaviors determined the amount of attention you got from boys (as well as your status among girls), I still conformed. It seemed impossible not to... programs and advertisements on Mtv and Vh1 forced girls my age to grow up faster... to buy and wear clothes that promoted objectification and act a certain way so that boys were intrigued and attracted and not scared or repulsed. To tell you the truth, I don't think I really stopped conforming until late in high school. Ugh! I wonder who I really was all those years.
Most of the girls interviewed in the 2001 documentary were between the ages of 10 and 14 (a few younger, a few older); since I was 11/12 in 2001, I found I could easily recall the music videos, movies, fashions, diet fads, commercials, etc. that influenced how girls my age felt, looked, and acted. Like the pre-teens interviewed, I thought nothing of the effects the media had on me and just went along with anything that the popular girls wore or did.
As I finished 6th grade and entered the junior/senior high school as a timid 7th grader in 2001, I quickly learned that being taken seriously as a junior-high girl meant trading in all of my comfortable Nike and Adidas t-shirts and sweatshirts and my generic, baggy jeans or wind-breaker pants (in 6th grade we called them "swishy pants") for bell-bottom jeans that glittered or had flowers in just the right places; my twin sister and I fought every week over whose turn it was to wear a pair of bell-bottoms that was suggestively laced from waist to ankle. As far as puberty and developing hips and boobs, I was a (very) late bloomer and everything happened (very) slowly. Junior high was grueling.
Thank God for twin sisters.
I remember my sister and I obsessing endlessly in front of the mirror over how "boxy" our hips were and how flat-chested we were. I really can't imagine getting through adolescence without her. While all of the popular girls in our class had magically developed in the summer between 6th and 7th grades (or else had taken to wearing padded bras), Sophie and I just...didn't. Our awkward bodies didn't stop us from begging our mom to buy us the latest American Eagle and Aeropostale clothes and sneaking off to buy them and other popular clothing if she refused (I think I bought my first thong in 7th grade because all of the popular girls in my gym class had made fun of my "granny panties" when we were changing). They wore thongs because of Sisqo's "Thong Song" music video and other advertisements that showed girls' thongs pulled up above their jeans...just like in the documentary. I didn't want to be wearing these outrageously uncomfortable underwear or shirts that advertised "hidden" sexual meanings, but I did it because it's what was popular and I saw that the girls who conformed to latest fads (prescribed by media) got the most attention.
Like some of the girls interviewed, I really don't remember being concerned with or thinking about sex at that age. I remember in 8th grade one of my friends told me that her older (9th grade) sister had given a blow job to her boyfriend. I had absolutely no idea what a blow job was, so she told me; all I remember thinking is why on earth would anyone ever put their mouth on that?! You have to swallow WHAT?! It seemed utterly disgusting and made-up to me. Of course my mom had talked to us about sex and I'd had tons of crushes and flings with boys my age who'd kissed me on the cheek, but sex seemed the least of my worries until about 9th grade when I became friends with a senior who spared no detail in telling me all about her sex life. I got a boyfriend in the middle of 9th grade and was overcome with the pressure put on couples that age and expectations that everyone had them.
Bottom-line, I was exactly like the girls in "What a Girl Wants." Even though I knew and felt how unfair it was that molding to media's looks and behaviors determined the amount of attention you got from boys (as well as your status among girls), I still conformed. It seemed impossible not to... programs and advertisements on Mtv and Vh1 forced girls my age to grow up faster... to buy and wear clothes that promoted objectification and act a certain way so that boys were intrigued and attracted and not scared or repulsed. To tell you the truth, I don't think I really stopped conforming until late in high school. Ugh! I wonder who I really was all those years.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Give Up on "Man-Up!"
The two recent articles (Newsweek and Washington Post) we were assigned to read went really well with our discussion of masculinity and the idea of dumping the traditional patriarchal definition of "masculine/manly/man" and redefining it in a more contemporary. While women definitely suffer from the patriarchy's definition and expectations of what it means to be a "man" (see previous blog), men do, too!
The patriarchy stuffs men in a box where they are robbed of activities, behaviors, and experiences because they're dubbed too "girly." When it comes to parenting and home life, men are robbed of quality time with (and the general up-bringing of) their children because they are expected to be professionally successful and primarily devoted to the working world instead of their home lives (wife & kids). Women, in turn, suffer from this as well: they're burdened with the conventional work of being good mothers and wives, but are now also burdened with the expectation that they work full-time professional jobs. When it comes down to it, the children of such families are robbed of real parents. It's a lose-lose-lose situation!
Some people are claiming that masculinity is "dead" because women (who are usually single and child-less)are currently and increasingly surpassing men in attending graduate school and securing high-paying jobs in professional fields that were once dominated by men (many women are now teachers, CEOs, soldiers, etc.). Sadly, men remain on top when it comes to "alcoholism, suicide, homelessness, violence, and criminality." That must be kind of discouraging for men; to get them "back on track" (i.e. back in the "box"), America has come up with TV shows (Dirty Jobs, Deadliest Catch, etc.), books (The Dangerous Book for Boys [my little brother has this book!]), and other forms of media that feature rough and tough men who epitomize the patriarchy's traditional definition of masculinity and, in essence, covertly re-teach men how to be..."men." The box seems inescapable!
To combat the problem of "the box," men (and women!) need to work together to redefine "masculinity" by absolutely abandoning past definitions and expanding/redefining the definition to include "household" activities along with the work-world activities. Men should actually be able to actively ENJOY being fathers, right?
With respect to paternity and spousal activities, Sweden knows what's up. Dads (and moms) are given paid paternity (and maternity) leave to promote their roles as parents who are actually present in their childrens' lives. Men in Sweden work less and father more...which has, in time, redefined "masculinity" so that men are competent at raising their children and have more active roles at home. WIN-WIN. The situation seems to be completely reversed: if Swedish men don't stay home on paid paternity leave, they're negatively judged by fellow MEN, as well as by women (employers, co-workers, friends, etc.). It seems like a dream!
Fortunately, some US states are slowly inching toward similar legislation; I think it will be a long, long time until the expectations and norms in the US are reversed like they are in Sweden. Even though men are taking on jobs that were traditionally feminine (nurse, teacher, etc.), they must cover it up by renaming it to sound and make them feel more masculine: ER nurse instead of pediatric nurse, gym teacher instead of English teacher, etc. Language is powerful!
Reading over the evolution of "the man" and looking at the timeline that was passed around in yesterday's class makes me interested to see what "the man" will be in ten years. Hopefully, he's more like his Swedish counterpart.
The patriarchy stuffs men in a box where they are robbed of activities, behaviors, and experiences because they're dubbed too "girly." When it comes to parenting and home life, men are robbed of quality time with (and the general up-bringing of) their children because they are expected to be professionally successful and primarily devoted to the working world instead of their home lives (wife & kids). Women, in turn, suffer from this as well: they're burdened with the conventional work of being good mothers and wives, but are now also burdened with the expectation that they work full-time professional jobs. When it comes down to it, the children of such families are robbed of real parents. It's a lose-lose-lose situation!
Some people are claiming that masculinity is "dead" because women (who are usually single and child-less)are currently and increasingly surpassing men in attending graduate school and securing high-paying jobs in professional fields that were once dominated by men (many women are now teachers, CEOs, soldiers, etc.). Sadly, men remain on top when it comes to "alcoholism, suicide, homelessness, violence, and criminality." That must be kind of discouraging for men; to get them "back on track" (i.e. back in the "box"), America has come up with TV shows (Dirty Jobs, Deadliest Catch, etc.), books (The Dangerous Book for Boys [my little brother has this book!]), and other forms of media that feature rough and tough men who epitomize the patriarchy's traditional definition of masculinity and, in essence, covertly re-teach men how to be..."men." The box seems inescapable!
To combat the problem of "the box," men (and women!) need to work together to redefine "masculinity" by absolutely abandoning past definitions and expanding/redefining the definition to include "household" activities along with the work-world activities. Men should actually be able to actively ENJOY being fathers, right?
With respect to paternity and spousal activities, Sweden knows what's up. Dads (and moms) are given paid paternity (and maternity) leave to promote their roles as parents who are actually present in their childrens' lives. Men in Sweden work less and father more...which has, in time, redefined "masculinity" so that men are competent at raising their children and have more active roles at home. WIN-WIN. The situation seems to be completely reversed: if Swedish men don't stay home on paid paternity leave, they're negatively judged by fellow MEN, as well as by women (employers, co-workers, friends, etc.). It seems like a dream!
Fortunately, some US states are slowly inching toward similar legislation; I think it will be a long, long time until the expectations and norms in the US are reversed like they are in Sweden. Even though men are taking on jobs that were traditionally feminine (nurse, teacher, etc.), they must cover it up by renaming it to sound and make them feel more masculine: ER nurse instead of pediatric nurse, gym teacher instead of English teacher, etc. Language is powerful!
Reading over the evolution of "the man" and looking at the timeline that was passed around in yesterday's class makes me interested to see what "the man" will be in ten years. Hopefully, he's more like his Swedish counterpart.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Boys DO Cry (or should!)
Naturally, I skimmed the assigned masculinity readings and couldn't resist reading Valenti's first...I already know that I've spoiled myself as far as reading and comprehending the rest of the assignments. But she's just SO easy to read...it's more like having a conversation than reading a chapter.
Anyway.
I basically learned from Boys Do Cry that the guys need help from us (women)! It's not news to me that our patriarchal society's gendered prescriptions hurt men, too. But I was thinking, and the definitions of "man" that damage both men and women isn't reversible. Ugh, that's confusing. What I mean is that what it means to be a "woman" doesn't damage both sexes (at least not physically). I suppose it promotes the popularly unfair stereotypes of men and women, which is harmful, but I think men rarely experience physical harm like women do from men. Does that make any sense? It seems obvious enough to me that not all (or not any) men are born to be tough, violent, emotionally-void creatures, but act like this (i.e. put on the "tough guise") because that's what society says they have to do to be seriously considered "manly." And that's where the harm comes from; women are raped, beaten, and exploited by men who're trapped in the "man" box because they (the men) grow up thinking it's the only way to act. Any way you slice it, defeating the patriarchal definitions of "man" and "woman," which is what most feminists desire and advocate, would reap benefits for both men and women...whoever said feminism was anti-male was seriously mistaken.
If a man finds his way out of this box, we all know what he's called: woman, girl, pussy, pansy, etc., because masculinity is defined by whatever isn't feminine. Valenti claims that the only way men can survive this crazy definition of masculinity is if they're 1.) open to feminism and help from women and 2.) if women, particularly radical/revolutionary feminists, have enough trust and faith to let men in on their battle against patriarchy. If change is to come about, younger boys and young adult men need older, wiser mentors who are able to see through the fog of patriarchy's "man" and have broken free from the box.
Another bottom-line: masculinity is a performance! Males properly embody "men" if and only if they act un-girly. It's like they're constantly actors in a play...isn't that tiring?? What really got me about this reading is the discussion about men acting like boys and the resurgence of boyhood as "cool." Since it's no longer cool to be a family man or take on any adult responsibilities, women are screwed. If men stay "boys," their girlfriends and wives become the "mother" figures whose job it is to nag their "boys" and suck the fun out of everything. It's annoying that this is the most recent trend...while women take on the double load of being wife/mother and professional careerist all at the same time, men/"boys" act like children in an adult world (they make money and have sex and personal freedom, but have little if any adult responsibilities). Annoying.
I think that Robert Jensen (whom Valenti quotes on page 196) says it best: "[the system] keeps us from the rich connections with others...that make life meaningful but require vulnerability."
Anyway.
I basically learned from Boys Do Cry that the guys need help from us (women)! It's not news to me that our patriarchal society's gendered prescriptions hurt men, too. But I was thinking, and the definitions of "man" that damage both men and women isn't reversible. Ugh, that's confusing. What I mean is that what it means to be a "woman" doesn't damage both sexes (at least not physically). I suppose it promotes the popularly unfair stereotypes of men and women, which is harmful, but I think men rarely experience physical harm like women do from men. Does that make any sense? It seems obvious enough to me that not all (or not any) men are born to be tough, violent, emotionally-void creatures, but act like this (i.e. put on the "tough guise") because that's what society says they have to do to be seriously considered "manly." And that's where the harm comes from; women are raped, beaten, and exploited by men who're trapped in the "man" box because they (the men) grow up thinking it's the only way to act. Any way you slice it, defeating the patriarchal definitions of "man" and "woman," which is what most feminists desire and advocate, would reap benefits for both men and women...whoever said feminism was anti-male was seriously mistaken.
If a man finds his way out of this box, we all know what he's called: woman, girl, pussy, pansy, etc., because masculinity is defined by whatever isn't feminine. Valenti claims that the only way men can survive this crazy definition of masculinity is if they're 1.) open to feminism and help from women and 2.) if women, particularly radical/revolutionary feminists, have enough trust and faith to let men in on their battle against patriarchy. If change is to come about, younger boys and young adult men need older, wiser mentors who are able to see through the fog of patriarchy's "man" and have broken free from the box.
Another bottom-line: masculinity is a performance! Males properly embody "men" if and only if they act un-girly. It's like they're constantly actors in a play...isn't that tiring?? What really got me about this reading is the discussion about men acting like boys and the resurgence of boyhood as "cool." Since it's no longer cool to be a family man or take on any adult responsibilities, women are screwed. If men stay "boys," their girlfriends and wives become the "mother" figures whose job it is to nag their "boys" and suck the fun out of everything. It's annoying that this is the most recent trend...while women take on the double load of being wife/mother and professional careerist all at the same time, men/"boys" act like children in an adult world (they make money and have sex and personal freedom, but have little if any adult responsibilities). Annoying.
I think that Robert Jensen (whom Valenti quotes on page 196) says it best: "[the system] keeps us from the rich connections with others...that make life meaningful but require vulnerability."
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Tough Guise
I walked out of class on Tuesday and was bothered for the rest of the day by the issues brought up in "Tough Guise." I found the film a little bit hard to sit through (not only because scene after scene was just a shot of Jackson, the narrator, talking, but also) because of then nature of the images shown and the issues being discussed. It's so unfair for men to feel like they have no other choice than to put on this "tough guise" to gain respect and be seen as a "man." It's valuable for everyone to recognize that as much as our patriarchal society controls images of women, it also controls images of men. Men are just as likely to crack under society's and media's pressure to be rough and tough as women are to crack under the same pressures that force us to be dainty and delicate.
I thought the part about "passive language" was very interesting. I'd never really considered the way rape is publicly reported: "She was raped" instead of "he raped her." Huge issue.
The part of the video about the school shootings chilled me. It should be the BIGGEST red flag in the world that 11 and 12 year old boys are committing such atrocities (even though I feel like middle/high school shootings have stopped for now, college shooting seem to be the more recent trend, as with Virginia Tech.). When the various shooters' childhood pictures and yearbook pictures were shown, I couldn't help but think of my little brother, Max, who is only 7 but is no doubt exposed to similar societal expectations of violent, tough-guy masculinity. How can we stop this craziness?!
Howard Stern's rape joke about the attractive female students running out of the Columbine shooting scene infuriated me. I can't even bring myself to blog about it! He is a disgrace to men. Period.
I thought the part about "passive language" was very interesting. I'd never really considered the way rape is publicly reported: "She was raped" instead of "he raped her." Huge issue.
The part of the video about the school shootings chilled me. It should be the BIGGEST red flag in the world that 11 and 12 year old boys are committing such atrocities (even though I feel like middle/high school shootings have stopped for now, college shooting seem to be the more recent trend, as with Virginia Tech.). When the various shooters' childhood pictures and yearbook pictures were shown, I couldn't help but think of my little brother, Max, who is only 7 but is no doubt exposed to similar societal expectations of violent, tough-guy masculinity. How can we stop this craziness?!
Howard Stern's rape joke about the attractive female students running out of the Columbine shooting scene infuriated me. I can't even bring myself to blog about it! He is a disgrace to men. Period.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Care Focused Feminism: Maternal Ethics (are complex!)
In preparing to discuss Tong's Chapter 5: Care Focused Feminism, I concentrated on the Maternal Ethics and the Ethics of Healthcare section. Most of it covered ideas proposed and critiqued by Sara Ruddick, who identified the cultural and biological aspects of mothering. Culturally, both men and women alike can learn how to be "mothers," but men are limited in the biological aspect in that only women can bear children (duh). It is the biological ability, however, that leads to the patriarchal-prescribed idea that all women are born as (and wish to be) mothers. As a result, child-rearing is most frequently perceived as "women's work," the majority of women develop what Ruddick calls "maternal practice" (which is notably different from the "institution of motherhood").
Ruddick stresses that maternal practice should not be trivialized. "Maternal thinking," which is the unity of the reflections, judgments, and emotions involved in maternal practice, is learned (not all women are natural-born mothers, and men can learn to mother in the same way that women can), it is hard work, and it requires special abilities, thoughts, and behaviors. The goal of any mother who practices maternal thinking is to preserve the life of their children, as well as to foster growth (physical/psychological/emotional) and social acceptance.
Ruddick compares the "institution of motherhood" with "maternal practice." The institution of motherhood, which is defined by patriarchal standards, portrays all mothers as female, heterosexual, self-sacrificial, and non-adventurous individuals. Mothers in the institution of motherhood must literally live for and through their children, as they can not (and should not desire to) leave the home. Conversely, maternal practice identifies mothers as those individuals, male or female, who realize the dimensions of theirselves within and beyond their children. Maternal practice mothers successfully preserve the lives, growth, and social acceptability of their children.
As a result of such conflicting ideals, many mothers frequently feel overwhelmed by their maternal duties, while others just have good days and bad. To maintain sanity as a mother preserves her child's life, an individuals needs to balance several virtues, including scrutiny, humility, and cheerfulness. Scrutiny includes adequately surveying the environment for possible dangers, but not so much as to invent dangers in every situation; humility refers to ability of the mother to recognize that s/he cannot protect their child from everything (a scraped knee does not equate immediate death); cheerfullness is virtue one must have to realize that there is always a way to cope with a bad situation.
To ensure the growth of one's child, it is important that a mother not set unrealistic expectations of his/her child. To hlep a child in socializing, it is important to stress social norms, but not in an overly-conforming light. It is important for all mothers in maternal practice to decide when and when not to let their own personal values guide their child-rearing practices, which often means making decisions with their children so that the social values are agreed upon instead of forced upon.
Basically, mothering is the most complex job in the world. Truthfully, reading about the importance of balancing all the virtues involved in preserving life and fostering growth/social acceptance stressed me out! I don't know if I agree with all of this black-and-white, clearly-defined mothering structure. Maybe it becomes more of a natural thing as you encounter each phase of a child's growth. I'm sure when/if I become a mother, I'll experience times where I'd just rather give up...hopefully I'll have Tong's book around to help me find balance ;)
Ruddick stresses that maternal practice should not be trivialized. "Maternal thinking," which is the unity of the reflections, judgments, and emotions involved in maternal practice, is learned (not all women are natural-born mothers, and men can learn to mother in the same way that women can), it is hard work, and it requires special abilities, thoughts, and behaviors. The goal of any mother who practices maternal thinking is to preserve the life of their children, as well as to foster growth (physical/psychological/emotional) and social acceptance.
Ruddick compares the "institution of motherhood" with "maternal practice." The institution of motherhood, which is defined by patriarchal standards, portrays all mothers as female, heterosexual, self-sacrificial, and non-adventurous individuals. Mothers in the institution of motherhood must literally live for and through their children, as they can not (and should not desire to) leave the home. Conversely, maternal practice identifies mothers as those individuals, male or female, who realize the dimensions of theirselves within and beyond their children. Maternal practice mothers successfully preserve the lives, growth, and social acceptability of their children.
As a result of such conflicting ideals, many mothers frequently feel overwhelmed by their maternal duties, while others just have good days and bad. To maintain sanity as a mother preserves her child's life, an individuals needs to balance several virtues, including scrutiny, humility, and cheerfulness. Scrutiny includes adequately surveying the environment for possible dangers, but not so much as to invent dangers in every situation; humility refers to ability of the mother to recognize that s/he cannot protect their child from everything (a scraped knee does not equate immediate death); cheerfullness is virtue one must have to realize that there is always a way to cope with a bad situation.
To ensure the growth of one's child, it is important that a mother not set unrealistic expectations of his/her child. To hlep a child in socializing, it is important to stress social norms, but not in an overly-conforming light. It is important for all mothers in maternal practice to decide when and when not to let their own personal values guide their child-rearing practices, which often means making decisions with their children so that the social values are agreed upon instead of forced upon.
Basically, mothering is the most complex job in the world. Truthfully, reading about the importance of balancing all the virtues involved in preserving life and fostering growth/social acceptance stressed me out! I don't know if I agree with all of this black-and-white, clearly-defined mothering structure. Maybe it becomes more of a natural thing as you encounter each phase of a child's growth. I'm sure when/if I become a mother, I'll experience times where I'd just rather give up...hopefully I'll have Tong's book around to help me find balance ;)
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Thoughts on Tong's Thoughts
So, somehow I managed to read chapter 2 along the way...even though Celia said it wasn't assigned. I think it's my fateful punishment for having half-assed one of the other reading assignments... :X
As a general note, I think Tong succeeds in dividing her chapters into logical sections; chapter 2 was basically divided along the lines of the two "camps" of radical feminism--the radical-libertarian feminists and the radical-cultural feminists--and explains how both schools of thought (although they share a common theory) have multiple conflicts in pursuing their goals.
Radical-libertarian feminists, for example, aim to abolish the concept of "femininity" (mother, wife, subservient counterpart, etc.) to achieve their ultimate goal: androgynous societies (and individuals) that combine the characteristics of both genders.
Radical-cultural feminists, however, encourage women to reject masculinity in favor of a super-duper-femininity (all female, all the time). Radical-cultural feminists want to know why masculinity is the desirable gender trait...why do we want to be equal to men? In a way, I wonder how this is at all liberating to women...if we each harness our own perception of super-duper femininity, I think that'd be great, but we don't. I feel like the majority of women would instead reject masculinity for the femininity that the male patriarchy prescribes. Ick.
Radical feminists claim that societies' prescribed sex/gender roles are the ultimate cause of women's oppression, exploitation, etc. I definitely agree with this...but I guess because feminism and "radical" acts have been done before (when they were revolutionary), I don't necessarily earn the title "radical feminist." I think it's pretty interesting that today's feminists who participate in movements to raise awareness about gender inequality issues would have been considered "radical" in the '60s and '70s, but are no longer seen as such because the movement's not really as much of a revolution anymore...this was discussed in one of our previous readings, I think.
Like Celia, I found the bit about pornography especially fascinating (and frustrating). While some radical-libertarian feminists see pornography as a way for females to control and/or take charge of their own sexualities ("just because a woman wants to explore whether power games are part of what makes sex 'sexy' for her does not mean she wants to serve as an object for male violence in real life" [p. 68]), other radical-cultural feminists see it as disgustingly demeaning; On page 68 Tong outlines radical-culturalists' claims that "there is no difference between gender discrimination against women in the boardroom and the sexual objectification of women in the bedroom." I'm definitely taking the side of the cultural feminists on this one! Pornography skews just about everyone's perception of sex, from how long sex should be to what should be said or what sounds should be made, to what types of clothing/props should be used during the act. Ultimately, I think pornography it demeans women (women demean themselves by acting the way pornography tells us to--silent, victimized, servant/slave, etc.) and also encourages men to act like what they see (rough, aggressive, harmful, etc.). It's disgusting! Sex, at least for our generation, needs to be relearned...
As a general note, I think Tong succeeds in dividing her chapters into logical sections; chapter 2 was basically divided along the lines of the two "camps" of radical feminism--the radical-libertarian feminists and the radical-cultural feminists--and explains how both schools of thought (although they share a common theory) have multiple conflicts in pursuing their goals.
Radical-libertarian feminists, for example, aim to abolish the concept of "femininity" (mother, wife, subservient counterpart, etc.) to achieve their ultimate goal: androgynous societies (and individuals) that combine the characteristics of both genders.
Radical-cultural feminists, however, encourage women to reject masculinity in favor of a super-duper-femininity (all female, all the time). Radical-cultural feminists want to know why masculinity is the desirable gender trait...why do we want to be equal to men? In a way, I wonder how this is at all liberating to women...if we each harness our own perception of super-duper femininity, I think that'd be great, but we don't. I feel like the majority of women would instead reject masculinity for the femininity that the male patriarchy prescribes. Ick.
Radical feminists claim that societies' prescribed sex/gender roles are the ultimate cause of women's oppression, exploitation, etc. I definitely agree with this...but I guess because feminism and "radical" acts have been done before (when they were revolutionary), I don't necessarily earn the title "radical feminist." I think it's pretty interesting that today's feminists who participate in movements to raise awareness about gender inequality issues would have been considered "radical" in the '60s and '70s, but are no longer seen as such because the movement's not really as much of a revolution anymore...this was discussed in one of our previous readings, I think.
Like Celia, I found the bit about pornography especially fascinating (and frustrating). While some radical-libertarian feminists see pornography as a way for females to control and/or take charge of their own sexualities ("just because a woman wants to explore whether power games are part of what makes sex 'sexy' for her does not mean she wants to serve as an object for male violence in real life" [p. 68]), other radical-cultural feminists see it as disgustingly demeaning; On page 68 Tong outlines radical-culturalists' claims that "there is no difference between gender discrimination against women in the boardroom and the sexual objectification of women in the bedroom." I'm definitely taking the side of the cultural feminists on this one! Pornography skews just about everyone's perception of sex, from how long sex should be to what should be said or what sounds should be made, to what types of clothing/props should be used during the act. Ultimately, I think pornography it demeans women (women demean themselves by acting the way pornography tells us to--silent, victimized, servant/slave, etc.) and also encourages men to act like what they see (rough, aggressive, harmful, etc.). It's disgusting! Sex, at least for our generation, needs to be relearned...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)