So.
I just spent the last hour or two reading over Valenti's "Pop Culture Gone Wild" and blogging about it...and when I clicked "PUBLISH POST," it took me to a page that said "We're sorry, but we're unable to process your request at this time."
I could cry. Maybe I don't look sexy enough for my blog to be published tonight (I am, in fact, in the cozy computer lab in Good typing away wondering if anyone's on the other end of the creepy built-in camera above my screen...it's probably Mr. Media and he's probably punishing me for researching the ideal femme and refusing to conform (well...it's an impossible ideal, anyway!)) Now I sound crazy. It's just one of those days, I guess.
The blog that is supposed to be in place of this one was kick-ass and really long and involved and I poured my energy into speaking my mind about women's exploitation in advertising and the way in which media (/men) define our sexuality for us (to please themselves), but that we're the ones who in fact act it out and put on shows to get attention. I covered the GGW and Playboy Bunny stuff...how insane it is to put on these shows for 15 minutes of fame so that guys can drool and other girls can hate you. I gave a detailed account of my high school days that were full of girls (even me, sometimes) who "performed" for the guys they wanted to attract. Giggling really loudly at things that weren't funny, changing personalities when a cute guy was within a 20 foot radius, etc. It was a common occurrence for girls to test the limits of the school dress code or break it altogether ... come to think of it...it was more of a game, really (who can wear the shortest skirt/lowest shirt and get away with it?!)
Perform, perform, perform!
Uh, so...I'm really just too pissed off and tired to dredge up some energy and attempt a complete re-blog.
Basically, I didn't read Valenti until after class today and was shocked and somewhat embarrassed that I hadn't because it went so well with the argument I analyzed for my paper.
Bottom lines: sex sells, men define sexy for their own benefit, girls perform and act the way men prescribe in hopes of attracting their attention, it's really hard to win this battle.
Hmph.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
The Dolce&Gabbana Woman
Ok, sorry for having not yet blogged about any of last week's readings, but I've been kept fully frustrated analyzing my argument: Madonna's ad campaign for Dolce&Gabbana. While reading various articles about the designers, I found their description of "The Dolce&Gabbana Woman."
What I recently pulled from their website (it's excerpts from the entire description) and am incorporating in my paper follows:
”The Dolce & Gabbana woman is strong: she likes herself and knows she is liked...A woman who indifferently wears extremely sexy or bras that can be seen under sheer clothes...She always wears very high heels which, in any case, give her both an extremely feminine and sexy way of walking and unmistakable posture...She can indifferently be a manager, wife, mother or lover but she is always - and in whatever case - thoroughly a woman.”
Ugh.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Today's Whirlwind of a Class
Today's class left me feeling like I'd gulped way too much coffee in way too little time--and not in a good, oh-wow-I-have-so-much-energy way, but more like the clouded, headache, all-I'd-like-to-do-is-sleep kind of way. I remembered Celia saying on Tuesday that Dr. Widman would be coming in to talk about biopsychology and the like, but I completely forgot.
Admittedly, I was a little grumpy/frustrated (sleepy, mostly) at the beginning of class because I'd woken up early to finish today's assigned readings only to discover that my early-morning scramble was sort of unnecessary. Okay, I suppose the Clatterbaugh reading was pertinent, but I had learned a lot about sociobiology and its controversies in Xinli's Human Nature class last year. In any case, I don't think reading the articles/chapters was a total waste; at least I'll have something more to blog about later :)
What interested me most in class today was:
Reflections on the readings to follow...
Admittedly, I was a little grumpy/frustrated (sleepy, mostly) at the beginning of class because I'd woken up early to finish today's assigned readings only to discover that my early-morning scramble was sort of unnecessary. Okay, I suppose the Clatterbaugh reading was pertinent, but I had learned a lot about sociobiology and its controversies in Xinli's Human Nature class last year. In any case, I don't think reading the articles/chapters was a total waste; at least I'll have something more to blog about later :)
What interested me most in class today was:
- Dr. Widman seems super intelligent in his field. It seems like he loves what he does (both teaching and researching), and that made his lecture all the more enjoyable.
- I appreciated his confidence. Toria (I'm not calling you out, girl!) gave him a run for his money, and their arguments were entertaining, but he held his ground (and so did she, for that matter). Maybe if there hadn't been an issue raised after every sentence Dr. Widman said (semi-frustrating after the first few times), we could've covered more or perhaps covered it in a more organized manner, but that's okay. Like I said, the arguments were entertaining. I'm also grateful that some comedy was added by members of the class and by Celia and Dr. Widman throughout the lecture (i.e. Amidia's comment that skinny, blonde girls are mean because they're hungry) to make light of the moderate tension I (and anyone else?) felt while Toria was arguing with Dr. Widman. I really don't mean to insult Toria, but I just didn't understand why she was so defensive. I didn't feel like Dr. Widman was saying anything too controversial (he seemed very open-minded and all-inclusive [culture counts for something most of the time]) and she just kept arguing. Oh well...
- I liked how Dr. Widman stressed the importance of biology AND culture in shaping an individual's personality. I think professors in certain fields often tend to ignore the importance other fields have one theirs. Basically, everything's a mix!
- I had no idea about all of the differences in brain psychology/biology between males and females (and even homosexual males!) Okay, so rats aren't humans, but that's so interesting! I'd be open to learning more about this.
- I liked the discussion about "attractiveness" with respect to an evolutionary/biological standpoint. That males generally prefer different sizes of women--different hip-to-waist ratios for different purposes (one-night stand vs. marriage)--is crazy to consider. Even the places where women store fat can be attractive or unattractive! I had never really considered this so explicitly. And! Smarter children from fatter-hipped women? So interesting!
Reflections on the readings to follow...
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Peace Is SO Complicated!
I was completely overwhelmed by the Women and Peace reading! I had never before taken time to contemplate anything too serious about the meaning of peace...to me, peace means, well, peace. Ah! It sounds so dull, but before I read (/skimmed :X) The Meaning of Peace for Women, I suppose I equated peace with harmony, happiness, calmness, security, etc.; good feelings generated and felt as a result of nothing bad or violent happening (peace is not conflict/violence). My brain was writhing inside my head attempting to understand the complexity of peace! Positive, negative?! Direct and Indirect violence and the affects each can have on the individual and/or collective levels (micro/macrolevel)?! Unorganized and organized?! Damn, peace is so involved! It seems to me that defining peace would be a life-long process, especially considering the numerous cultural and societal variances that wold need to be taken into account.
I really liked the "Women's Rights are Human Rights" article...reading about everything these women have been fighting for makes me want to give them all huge hugs. I'm so grateful (and often take for granted the fact) that I have never really had to deal with violence against women in a very direct way. I admire the women who fought/fight for women's rights in countries all over the world and feel like I need to go do my part somehow! It's amazing to read about the transformation of women's rights over the past decade, and I couldn't agree more that women's right are human rights! I think that increased public awareness of women's rights and increased education about women's terrible, oppressed, exploited, etc. situations around the world has finally led to the beginnings of a revolution. While change will inevitably come over time, shifting the worldwide perceptions of international women's rights is a work in progress that will only improve as more governments begin following and respecting the demands of the UN and other organization devoted to ending violence against women.
I really liked the "Women's Rights are Human Rights" article...reading about everything these women have been fighting for makes me want to give them all huge hugs. I'm so grateful (and often take for granted the fact) that I have never really had to deal with violence against women in a very direct way. I admire the women who fought/fight for women's rights in countries all over the world and feel like I need to go do my part somehow! It's amazing to read about the transformation of women's rights over the past decade, and I couldn't agree more that women's right are human rights! I think that increased public awareness of women's rights and increased education about women's terrible, oppressed, exploited, etc. situations around the world has finally led to the beginnings of a revolution. While change will inevitably come over time, shifting the worldwide perceptions of international women's rights is a work in progress that will only improve as more governments begin following and respecting the demands of the UN and other organization devoted to ending violence against women.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Hatty & Hooks
I think the Hooks reading has been my favorite so far--as far as explaining and describing feminism, she's found the perfect balance between Valenti's moderately crass, in-your-face style of expression and the hum-drum, professionally written (almost banal) delivery. Her definition of feminism is genderless, which I think is very important. So many women (and men) think that the feminist movement serves to blame all men for oppressing women, and is even "anti-male." But Hooks makes explicit the fact that women can be as sexist and oppressive (towards other women!) as men can be, and that men can be as feminist (and seemingly anti-male) as female feminists! Furthermore, her definition of feminism is ageless. I think our society's "feminist" stereotype encompasses a small range of women, from young adult to middle-aged; from hairy, lesbian, hippie chick to a more traditional wealthy, White woman. In reality, however, I think Hooks sums it up best when she writes, "sexist thinking and action is the problem, whether those who perpetuate it are female or male, child or adult." None of our readings thus far have succeeded in stripping the stereotypical feminist identity so bare.
I found it interesting that reformist feminists, who were primarily concerned with gaining gender equality in the current patriarchy actually came second to the revolutionary feminists, whose anger toward male domination ignited the rebellion and resistance that fed the contemporary women's liberation. The revolutionaries' (justified) anger at gender injustice and their urge to completely transform the current patriarchy put them at odds with the reformists. I hadn't previously considered that within feminism, there were different, often conflicting goals that caused two distinct feminist groups to form. Interestingly enough, Hooks points out that reformist feminism was the only (sub)group that surfaced in public; radical/revolutionary feminism only surfaced in academia. Because reformist feminism was easier to accept for both men and women (feminist or not) and was thus more successful than its radical counterpart, reformist feminists (some who had switched from revolutionary feminism...ouch!) stopped considering revolutionary goals and even wished to silence the revolutionaries. Shockingly, the majority of our society hasn't rejected revolutionary feminism because, in reality, we don't know what it is! It was kept under wraps because reformists began to gain gender equality in the existing patriarchy, and that was good enough...it's like a huge government secret that's kept from the masses.
I love how Hooks says "that there could be as many versions of feminism as there were women," which I think goes well with Valenti's idea that, "at the end of the day, feminism is really something you define yourself." Further, I agree with Hooks' claim that a woman's politics define her degree (if any) of feminism, i.e. "one cannot be anti-choice [pro-life] and be a feminist."
In her closing paragraph (Ch.1), she says that "feminist politics is losing momentum because feminist movement has lost clear definitions," but when did this happen? And how? And why did we let it?
In Hooks' chapter 12 excerpt, I think one of the most valuable points made is that feminist reform is not at the individual level. Male domination and female oppression and exploitation remain alive even when/if individual men stop practicing and supporting the patriarchy and its sexist ideals. Hooks explains the way in which the conservative mass media's stereotypical portrayals of feminists as lesbians and the feminist movement as "anti-male" scare people away (by feeding into preexisting notions of homophobia) and prevent the true goals of the feminist movement from being fulfilled.
It was refreshing when she pointed out the the patriarchy also hurts men by defining rigid sex roles and forcing men to feel as though they have to conform to the "ideal male," who unfortunately dominates women. Patriarchy strips individual males from their true identity because they feel pressure to adopt a sexist, masculine gender identity. Because this pressure, accepting and supporting feminism and the feminist movement became risky for men, who often shy away from standing up for what they believe in (whether it's pro-feminism or not), ultimately fueling the patriarchy fire.
The "men's liberation movement" seems a bit ridiculous; perhaps the men were merely trying to call attention the fact that they felt some (radical) feminists were acting too negatively toward individual men because of their severe generalizations about male domination. I couldn't tell if it was a joke or not!
Lastly, I thought it was important that Hooks emphasized the fact that the feminist theory failed to provide an alternative or better-suited patriarchy and masculinity. In a way, it seems like some feminists in the movement only hated on the current situation and generated no motivating alternatives to end sexism, oppression, and/or exploitation of women.
As we continue discussing the definitions of conflict, violence, and aggression in class, I'll consult the Hatty reading with greater depth (it's soooo long!) and blog about that and our other readings in the days to come :)
I found it interesting that reformist feminists, who were primarily concerned with gaining gender equality in the current patriarchy actually came second to the revolutionary feminists, whose anger toward male domination ignited the rebellion and resistance that fed the contemporary women's liberation. The revolutionaries' (justified) anger at gender injustice and their urge to completely transform the current patriarchy put them at odds with the reformists. I hadn't previously considered that within feminism, there were different, often conflicting goals that caused two distinct feminist groups to form. Interestingly enough, Hooks points out that reformist feminism was the only (sub)group that surfaced in public; radical/revolutionary feminism only surfaced in academia. Because reformist feminism was easier to accept for both men and women (feminist or not) and was thus more successful than its radical counterpart, reformist feminists (some who had switched from revolutionary feminism...ouch!) stopped considering revolutionary goals and even wished to silence the revolutionaries. Shockingly, the majority of our society hasn't rejected revolutionary feminism because, in reality, we don't know what it is! It was kept under wraps because reformists began to gain gender equality in the existing patriarchy, and that was good enough...it's like a huge government secret that's kept from the masses.
I love how Hooks says "that there could be as many versions of feminism as there were women," which I think goes well with Valenti's idea that, "at the end of the day, feminism is really something you define yourself." Further, I agree with Hooks' claim that a woman's politics define her degree (if any) of feminism, i.e. "one cannot be anti-choice [pro-life] and be a feminist."
In her closing paragraph (Ch.1), she says that "feminist politics is losing momentum because feminist movement has lost clear definitions," but when did this happen? And how? And why did we let it?
In Hooks' chapter 12 excerpt, I think one of the most valuable points made is that feminist reform is not at the individual level. Male domination and female oppression and exploitation remain alive even when/if individual men stop practicing and supporting the patriarchy and its sexist ideals. Hooks explains the way in which the conservative mass media's stereotypical portrayals of feminists as lesbians and the feminist movement as "anti-male" scare people away (by feeding into preexisting notions of homophobia) and prevent the true goals of the feminist movement from being fulfilled.
It was refreshing when she pointed out the the patriarchy also hurts men by defining rigid sex roles and forcing men to feel as though they have to conform to the "ideal male," who unfortunately dominates women. Patriarchy strips individual males from their true identity because they feel pressure to adopt a sexist, masculine gender identity. Because this pressure, accepting and supporting feminism and the feminist movement became risky for men, who often shy away from standing up for what they believe in (whether it's pro-feminism or not), ultimately fueling the patriarchy fire.
The "men's liberation movement" seems a bit ridiculous; perhaps the men were merely trying to call attention the fact that they felt some (radical) feminists were acting too negatively toward individual men because of their severe generalizations about male domination. I couldn't tell if it was a joke or not!
Lastly, I thought it was important that Hooks emphasized the fact that the feminist theory failed to provide an alternative or better-suited patriarchy and masculinity. In a way, it seems like some feminists in the movement only hated on the current situation and generated no motivating alternatives to end sexism, oppression, and/or exploitation of women.
Publish Post
As we continue discussing the definitions of conflict, violence, and aggression in class, I'll consult the Hatty reading with greater depth (it's soooo long!) and blog about that and our other readings in the days to come :)
Friday, September 10, 2010
Week 2 Readings & Thursday's Class
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 :)
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 :)
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Tuesday's Class
Tuesday's class was, in a word, entertaining. I found the gender-switching/role-playing exercises hysterical but relevant, as each skit facilitated in-depth discussions about our society's prescribed gender roles, as well as demonstrated key points pertaining to gender like social process, micro-interaction, power, gender representation, social structure, etc. I feel as though almost everyone in the class was in some way stimulated by the nature of Tuesday's class (there was more wide-spread input). Spending a class period talking exclusively about the terms and phrases many of us were confused by in the readings (not to mention acting them out/providing physical, concrete examples of some) really helped me grasp concepts that had previously overwhelmed me.
I also appreciated the time taken to explain the concept of essentialism. Before we talked about it in class, I was having difficulty understanding exactly what it is and means because I don't agree with it (at all!). Perhaps I was subconsciously keeping myself from understanding the concept of essentialism because it seems so silly to me to completely discount social/cultural influence in defining men and women.
I was intrigued by the discussion that ended our class on Tuesday (social structure, media, industry, women in power, jobs, etc.) and am looking forward to continuing discussing this topic.
I found the Valenti reading very easy to get through, but the Connell reading required much more focus...more on these later :)
I also appreciated the time taken to explain the concept of essentialism. Before we talked about it in class, I was having difficulty understanding exactly what it is and means because I don't agree with it (at all!). Perhaps I was subconsciously keeping myself from understanding the concept of essentialism because it seems so silly to me to completely discount social/cultural influence in defining men and women.
I was intrigued by the discussion that ended our class on Tuesday (social structure, media, industry, women in power, jobs, etc.) and am looking forward to continuing discussing this topic.
I found the Valenti reading very easy to get through, but the Connell reading required much more focus...more on these later :)
Monday, September 6, 2010
(Delayed) Reflections on Week 1
I really appreciated the time Celia devoted to introductions on the first day of class, as well as the way we went around the room voicing our concerns and expectations. One concern I neglected to mention is that I fear some of the more soft-spoken students will fly under the radar compared to those who thrive on loud, involved arguments (likely as a result of intimidation). Based on my first impressions, our class is comprised of a continuum of personalities, from very boisterous and opinionated to very shy and seemingly apathetic. Because shyness comes and goes for me (some days I wake up fully motivated to be outgoing and talkative with a desire for my voice to be heard, while other days I wish for nothing more than to quietly listen and reflect on the world around me), I expect to struggle with the desire to participate now and then (don't take it personally!). I do hope to improve this personality flaw of mine throughout the course of this class, and perhaps the atmosphere and range of personalities in our class will motivate me to break out of a shy spell, should I find myself in one.
With respect to the readings for last Thursday, I found myself easily overwhelmed and confused. While I understood both readings, I felt I was able to grasp the ideas of the Barker reading more easily as a result of previous classes (Human Nature, Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology) that introduced and covered similar topics concerning self- and social identities, social theories, cultural influence, etc. I was, however, confused by terms such as "agency," "modes of discourse," "essentialism," etc. Reviewing some of these terms in class on Thursday definitely helped diminish my confusion. The Nanako-Glenn reading was harder for me to read in terms of content, and I found myself overwhelmed by everything going on with gender, sex, race, identity, relationality, etc. Both readings brought up interesting points, such as the importance of power/knowledge and the tendency for us to consider White as "raceless."
I enjoyed the in-class activity on Thursday, but wished we could have analyzed the opposite opinions as well (i.e. guys illustrate/describe their ideal woman, gals illustrate/describe their ideal man). It really got me thinking about perceptions and ideals I have about each. For instance, I feel (naturally) more attracted to men who are taller than I am with dark hair, but is that an indirect/subconscious influence of the socio-cultural ideal of "tall, dark, and handsome?" Likewise, I feel more attractive and powerful with make up on, but is that natural or do I expect to be taken more seriously and be more respected by men/society in general if I alter my looks with cosmetics?
At any rate, I love how this class has begun (the readings/ideas/terms/discussions) and I'm excited for how it will progress.
With respect to the readings for last Thursday, I found myself easily overwhelmed and confused. While I understood both readings, I felt I was able to grasp the ideas of the Barker reading more easily as a result of previous classes (Human Nature, Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology) that introduced and covered similar topics concerning self- and social identities, social theories, cultural influence, etc. I was, however, confused by terms such as "agency," "modes of discourse," "essentialism," etc. Reviewing some of these terms in class on Thursday definitely helped diminish my confusion. The Nanako-Glenn reading was harder for me to read in terms of content, and I found myself overwhelmed by everything going on with gender, sex, race, identity, relationality, etc. Both readings brought up interesting points, such as the importance of power/knowledge and the tendency for us to consider White as "raceless."
I enjoyed the in-class activity on Thursday, but wished we could have analyzed the opposite opinions as well (i.e. guys illustrate/describe their ideal woman, gals illustrate/describe their ideal man). It really got me thinking about perceptions and ideals I have about each. For instance, I feel (naturally) more attracted to men who are taller than I am with dark hair, but is that an indirect/subconscious influence of the socio-cultural ideal of "tall, dark, and handsome?" Likewise, I feel more attractive and powerful with make up on, but is that natural or do I expect to be taken more seriously and be more respected by men/society in general if I alter my looks with cosmetics?
At any rate, I love how this class has begun (the readings/ideas/terms/discussions) and I'm excited for how it will progress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)