I want to share a quick story with you all from my experiance at dinner tonight!
I went out with a group of friends, and at the table behind us sat a couple who looked to be in their late 50's. When the waitress brought them their check she sat it slightly closer to the woman, apparently this was a very poor decision on her part. The older gentleman got very upset that the check was sat in front of his wife as if she was going to pay. He continued to make a scene and explain to the waitress she should either sit the check in the middle of the table or closer to the man. As he was leaving the table after finally paying his bill, and bring the poor girl to tears, he was mumbling about how "young people these days just don't understand correct chivalry. How dare she think my wife would pay for the dinner bill."
My friends, and everyone around, were very confused by the elder mans entire situation. I'm not sure if he was so worried about this because of the generation gap and people not thinking the check must me sat in front of the male at the dinner table, or maybe because he felt that his rights as the man of the family were being taken from him? This little incident just got me thinking about how different power, as well as the male and female roles, are between generations!
Saturday, February 23, 2013
ROYALLY PRIVILEGED?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21502937
Take a quick look at the article. Who would you side with? David Cameron or Hillary Mantel?
Take a look at the Duchess of Cambridge. Does she submit herself to the male gaze? Is the male gaze something that permeates even the class hierarchy of society? Is it so deeply imbedded that royalty are ruled by it?
What do you THINK??? If women of royal families are made to conform to a certain image of woman then does this play a role in how "normal" women feel about and define themselves? Does the Duchess of Cambridge represent something greater than herself? Or alternatively, is it the case that royal women (the arguable epitome of powerful women) have even less freedom to self-define than other women?
This is a big question!
I guess what I want to ask everyone is this:
As a woman is increasingly exposed to media coverage and successes of varying degrees, is she confined to an even greater degree than her "normal" female counterparts?
Take a quick look at the article. Who would you side with? David Cameron or Hillary Mantel?
Take a look at the Duchess of Cambridge. Does she submit herself to the male gaze? Is the male gaze something that permeates even the class hierarchy of society? Is it so deeply imbedded that royalty are ruled by it?
What do you THINK??? If women of royal families are made to conform to a certain image of woman then does this play a role in how "normal" women feel about and define themselves? Does the Duchess of Cambridge represent something greater than herself? Or alternatively, is it the case that royal women (the arguable epitome of powerful women) have even less freedom to self-define than other women?
This is a big question!
I guess what I want to ask everyone is this:
As a woman is increasingly exposed to media coverage and successes of varying degrees, is she confined to an even greater degree than her "normal" female counterparts?
women's work
http://youtu.be/oip36NSwQXc
Watch this video. What does the commercial imply??
Take note:
1. What task is being performed? What is the "value" of that action.
2. Who is performing which tasks?
3. Whose voice do you hear during the commercial? What are the roles taken by men voices and women voices?
4. Who is the commercial selling to? How are they doing it?
What do these things suggest about the roles of men and women?
There are several variations of this commercial, the one that made me post is actually not like the one I posted, but it's similar. In mine, a sponge (voiced by a man) commands the woman to pose her beautiful hands for him. Afterwards, he emphatically encourages her to "enjoy" doing the dishes since it's making her skin soft and smooth. No one escapes the male gaze, especially when capitalism itself relies upon categories of people to pander to.
Watch this video. What does the commercial imply??
Take note:
1. What task is being performed? What is the "value" of that action.
2. Who is performing which tasks?
3. Whose voice do you hear during the commercial? What are the roles taken by men voices and women voices?
4. Who is the commercial selling to? How are they doing it?
What do these things suggest about the roles of men and women?
There are several variations of this commercial, the one that made me post is actually not like the one I posted, but it's similar. In mine, a sponge (voiced by a man) commands the woman to pose her beautiful hands for him. Afterwards, he emphatically encourages her to "enjoy" doing the dishes since it's making her skin soft and smooth. No one escapes the male gaze, especially when capitalism itself relies upon categories of people to pander to.
Friday, February 22, 2013
The "Other"
Yesterday in my Anthropology class we discussed how the male gaze can also be applied to lesbian women when they are not in the presence of men. Although we have discussed this briefly in class, and I agree that women of any sexual orientation are influenced by the dominant culture they were raised in (in our case, androcentric/heteronormative) I questioned whether lesbian women really are dressing and catering to male desire. As our discussion progressed, our professor brought to our attention Focoult's idea about "othering," which I have discussed in previous classes (race, gender, and sexuality). The concept of "othering" focuses on all people, much like the male gaze, but caters less to male desire and more generally focuses on how we think people perceive us."Othering" means simply making note and being aware of different people,
whether they be racially, politically, socially, sexually, or in any
other way different from you."
This is not necessarily the same thing as the male gaze, but it is based upon similar principles. The idea of "other" that we project is the driving force behind the way we dress, act, and interact with other people. According to Foucault, this idea of "othering" effects us all, because it is part of human nature.
I found this easier to "swallow" than the idea that lesbian's are also subject to the male gaze, but I am still not convinced... simply denying association with a concept because I don't find it tasteful doesn't mean that it does not effect me. It may effect lesbians in a different way, and maybe the fact that I have an insider view on this certain issue limits my understanding of how lesbians can also be impacted by male desire.
So, I ask, How do you think lesbians are also subjected to the scrutiny of the male gaze?
This is not necessarily the same thing as the male gaze, but it is based upon similar principles. The idea of "other" that we project is the driving force behind the way we dress, act, and interact with other people. According to Foucault, this idea of "othering" effects us all, because it is part of human nature.
I found this easier to "swallow" than the idea that lesbian's are also subject to the male gaze, but I am still not convinced... simply denying association with a concept because I don't find it tasteful doesn't mean that it does not effect me. It may effect lesbians in a different way, and maybe the fact that I have an insider view on this certain issue limits my understanding of how lesbians can also be impacted by male desire.
So, I ask, How do you think lesbians are also subjected to the scrutiny of the male gaze?
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Instragram
For those of you who do not know what Instragram is or have not seen it, it is an application for smart phones in which users can upload pictures (personal or not). Their "followers" can then like or comment on pictures. There are also hashtags (#) which sum up what the picture is about such as a picture of an elephant would have a hashtag #elephant #animal.
In the past few weeks, I've noticed a new hashtag called #mancrushmondays and #womancrushwednesdays. The user uploads pictures of men or women celebrities, generally, who they think are attractive. It didn't really phase me at first, but this week was different. At first, I acknowledged that perhaps this new trend was not the worst thing ever since it caused women to post pictures of women they thought were attractive and vice versa breaking down social constructions of how women should not think other women are sexually attractive and so on.
Today (on women crush Wednesday) I started noticing other captions individuals were placing along with their celebrity crushes. One of them hashtagged the picture with the word #idol. It shocked me. The only reason this women celebrity was this certain individual's "idol" was due to her looks (from what I've noticed most of the pictures uploaded are very sexual much like the pictures from magazine we hung up). It had nothing to do with the celebrity's character, life aspirations, etc.
Another question that popped into my mind since we have been discussing this often -- who do we think created this new trend? a man or a woman? and why?
In the past few weeks, I've noticed a new hashtag called #mancrushmondays and #womancrushwednesdays. The user uploads pictures of men or women celebrities, generally, who they think are attractive. It didn't really phase me at first, but this week was different. At first, I acknowledged that perhaps this new trend was not the worst thing ever since it caused women to post pictures of women they thought were attractive and vice versa breaking down social constructions of how women should not think other women are sexually attractive and so on.
Today (on women crush Wednesday) I started noticing other captions individuals were placing along with their celebrity crushes. One of them hashtagged the picture with the word #idol. It shocked me. The only reason this women celebrity was this certain individual's "idol" was due to her looks (from what I've noticed most of the pictures uploaded are very sexual much like the pictures from magazine we hung up). It had nothing to do with the celebrity's character, life aspirations, etc.
Another question that popped into my mind since we have been discussing this often -- who do we think created this new trend? a man or a woman? and why?
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Mother v. Father
I'm an avid watcher of the show "The New Normal, " a story that deals with a homosexual couple and their experiences with their "abnormal" family in preparation for their baby. If you haven't seen this show-please do! It's amazing.
Enough advertising for "The New Normal".
In one of the recent episodes, Brian and David, the two main characters, do not like the idea of a full-time nanny/helper, therefore they want one of them to be a stay-at-home dad. Both take up the challenge by watching their surrogate's daughter and they come to realize that it's no easy job.
Parents often times worry about the effects and the adequate learning and child care children receive from nannies compared to those raised by their moms, but home many times do we consider males as child carers?
Our most recent reading assignment discusses the differences between girls and boy and their "gender role identification" that they receive and develop from their primary source of socialization: the mother in the home. Although nowadays the majority of couples are both in the workforce, women continue to be the stay-at-home parents for at least some period of time. If our first interactions and socialization with our mother develop our gender role and its meaning, this made me wonder: what would our gender roles and our understanding of them look like if men/fathers were the ones who stayed home and socialized children?
What do you think it would look like?
Enough advertising for "The New Normal".
In one of the recent episodes, Brian and David, the two main characters, do not like the idea of a full-time nanny/helper, therefore they want one of them to be a stay-at-home dad. Both take up the challenge by watching their surrogate's daughter and they come to realize that it's no easy job.
Parents often times worry about the effects and the adequate learning and child care children receive from nannies compared to those raised by their moms, but home many times do we consider males as child carers?
Our most recent reading assignment discusses the differences between girls and boy and their "gender role identification" that they receive and develop from their primary source of socialization: the mother in the home. Although nowadays the majority of couples are both in the workforce, women continue to be the stay-at-home parents for at least some period of time. If our first interactions and socialization with our mother develop our gender role and its meaning, this made me wonder: what would our gender roles and our understanding of them look like if men/fathers were the ones who stayed home and socialized children?
What do you think it would look like?
Monday, February 18, 2013
Gendered Nouns
After our discussion today about how some cultures place genders on specific nouns, I happened across a TV commercial that did just that. I have taken Spanish courses, as well, and always wondered at who chose whether a noun was masculine or feminine and how these were applied. While 'la casa' may appear to be an obvious critique on the woman as belonging in the house, some other nouns do not follow an easily identifiable issue such as 'la casa.'
The commercial I watched was for a TV program like Comcast -- I can't remember the exact name. At the beginning of the commercial, they identified the program as a 'she.' I was shocked to hear a program for a TV that allows 100s of channels and free movies to be identified as a 'she.' It does not make much sense nor is it a necessary part of the commercial. After a few moments the scene changes to a woman standing behind an actual TV showing off the program which is displayed on the TV.
I soon came to the understanding -- in my opinion, at least -- that the TV and its program are feminized because they are a source of entertainment. The TV program made new shows, movies, and stations much more accessible to its viewers. Much like 'la casa' is feminized because women remain in the house cleaning, cooking and caring for children, women are responsible for entertaining and providing for the happiness of others. Although it may not be an every day though, it is one explanation for this gendering of nouns in our society since we do not use markers such as 'el' and 'la' in our direct language.
The commercial I watched was for a TV program like Comcast -- I can't remember the exact name. At the beginning of the commercial, they identified the program as a 'she.' I was shocked to hear a program for a TV that allows 100s of channels and free movies to be identified as a 'she.' It does not make much sense nor is it a necessary part of the commercial. After a few moments the scene changes to a woman standing behind an actual TV showing off the program which is displayed on the TV.
I soon came to the understanding -- in my opinion, at least -- that the TV and its program are feminized because they are a source of entertainment. The TV program made new shows, movies, and stations much more accessible to its viewers. Much like 'la casa' is feminized because women remain in the house cleaning, cooking and caring for children, women are responsible for entertaining and providing for the happiness of others. Although it may not be an every day though, it is one explanation for this gendering of nouns in our society since we do not use markers such as 'el' and 'la' in our direct language.
Dirty Dancing
I was on the phone with my mom earlier today and we were talking about my sister's dance she had last night for an organization that she is in through school. Girls ask the guys and it's always been a big deal for everyone to dress up, go out to dinner and go to the dance and dance with their date and other people. These days, dancing is more of "grinding" as my mom calls it. She doesn't understand why a girl wants to "grind" on a guy and doesn't understand why it's called dancing. She said she was talking to my aunt about it and at the school in her district that her kids went to, they banned one of their dances and students now have to sign a contract to attend prom saying they will not "grind" and if they're caught, they will be expelled.
My aunt and my mom thought that was a good idea. My aunt even said that she saw a girl when she was a chaperone that was a really good kid and she saw her "grinding" on a guy and the guy standing behind her with his hands on hips and touching her butt. She judged the girl and condemned the girl for the dancing. Nothing was said about the guy when he was at fault, too. He stood there and let it happen without stopping it because he liked it, just like she enoyed doing it. The guys are doing just as worse while they're touching all over the girl, but it's okay for him.
Women are seen differently for dancing like this and men don't get any ridicule for doing just as much as women. It isn't fair. Why are the girls the only ones talked about for "grinding" when guys are just at fault?
My aunt and my mom thought that was a good idea. My aunt even said that she saw a girl when she was a chaperone that was a really good kid and she saw her "grinding" on a guy and the guy standing behind her with his hands on hips and touching her butt. She judged the girl and condemned the girl for the dancing. Nothing was said about the guy when he was at fault, too. He stood there and let it happen without stopping it because he liked it, just like she enoyed doing it. The guys are doing just as worse while they're touching all over the girl, but it's okay for him.
Women are seen differently for dancing like this and men don't get any ridicule for doing just as much as women. It isn't fair. Why are the girls the only ones talked about for "grinding" when guys are just at fault?
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Text message responses
Here's a picture of a web of thoughts between women and men... read the guy's thoughts...
text message responses
(click on the picture to enlarge it full screen, the font is kinda small otherwise)
text message responses
(click on the picture to enlarge it full screen, the font is kinda small otherwise)
Article: In Defense of Traditional Gender Roles
Here is an excerpt from an article I found online:
The good news for Hymowitz and those legions of desperate women is that the problem isn’t as dire as they believe. They may simply be looking for love in all the wrong places, because the men they want do exist. But good men of quiet confidence and maturity by definition don’t draw attention to themselves, so the search may be a little like finding Waldo in a crowd of males who feel emasculated, useless and defensive, and who respond by retreating into frat-boy man-caves and dragging out their “pre-adulthood.” Their immaturity is reflected in, and reinforced by, entertainment biz exemplars like Adam Sandler and Will Ferrell, in contrast with the iconic masculine confidence of the John Waynes and Clark Gables of eras past.
So what is to be done? Is this indeed the end of men? Will men ever be men again, in the positive, old-fashioned sense? Will women ever be able to find a real man to partner with instead of a “guy” to babysit?
They will be when our news media stop demonizing men and traditional values; when radical academics stop sowing division between the sexes; and when pop culture stops rewarding bad behavior and perpetuating tired old stereotypes like the Hapless Sitcom Dad. Men will be men again when both men and women understand that appreciating age-old gender differences is not a threat to gender equality; when we raise our boys to be responsible, respectful, honorable; and when we teach them to be as proud of their masculine nature as we teach our girls to be proud of their feminine one.
Full text :In Defense of Traditional Gender Roles
Before taking this class I probably would have agreed with some of these statements. I didn't care if all guys weren't "manly men", but I believed in traditional qualities (hard-working, honest, respectful) for men to have. But saying men need to "man up" and women need to remain "feminine" begs the question, "what does it mean to be feminine"? After reading everything we've read, I'm not sure I can give a clear answer to that without my answer being culturally constructed to fit gender roles and feed into the male hierarchy. Thoughts?
Read & Respond
Found this link on twitter the other day. I honestly was pissed off by it, agreed with some aspects, but mostly thought the author was ignorant. The last paragraph basically tells us we should be content with how things are because women in other countries have it way worse... not sure that justifies how women are being treated here. It's tricky comparing equality among different cultures.
Link to article (short)
Link to article (short)
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Talking
Every day I talk to my Dad on the phone. We are very close and we enjoy chatting with each other. However, usually I am upset at something that happened during the day, such as an issue with a sorority sister (which is more often than not the case), and thus I want to talk to my Dad about it because he always gives me good advice on how to handle the situation.
The other night I was ranting to him about one of my sisters who had greatly annoyed me, and he asked me "Why are you always so concerned with what another girl is doing? Why are women always concerned with this useless crap? What do you care what [said sister] does or says to you? Just try and let it go! [Said sister] doesn't mean anything in the context of your whole life, so don't let her ruin your day!"
This made me think of the Ortner article that we read. Of course I am concerned with what my sisters are doing and they are concerned with what I am doing because I feel that we are conditioned to do so! Society tells us that because we are girls we need to be nit-picky with each other, and we often say things to each other that are nit-picky, and mostly hurtful. I told my Dad "If I didn't talk to you about [said sister] irritating me to no end, then what would I talk to you about?" He replied "I don't know. The weather, your philosophy classes, what you ate for lunch, etc." See? I want to talk about particulars and my Dad wants to talk about general concepts!
Society has shaped each gender to want to talk about different things. Men are not supposed to have "feelings" and to show emotion, while women are encouraged to do so. And it's hard, as a woman, not to want to nit-pick at others and things. It just seems like such a natural thing to do, and every other woman around you is doing it too! Men just aren't interested in hearing about that stuff I suppose.....but then, what are men and women supposed to talk about since they are interested in completely different topics?
The other night I was ranting to him about one of my sisters who had greatly annoyed me, and he asked me "Why are you always so concerned with what another girl is doing? Why are women always concerned with this useless crap? What do you care what [said sister] does or says to you? Just try and let it go! [Said sister] doesn't mean anything in the context of your whole life, so don't let her ruin your day!"
This made me think of the Ortner article that we read. Of course I am concerned with what my sisters are doing and they are concerned with what I am doing because I feel that we are conditioned to do so! Society tells us that because we are girls we need to be nit-picky with each other, and we often say things to each other that are nit-picky, and mostly hurtful. I told my Dad "If I didn't talk to you about [said sister] irritating me to no end, then what would I talk to you about?" He replied "I don't know. The weather, your philosophy classes, what you ate for lunch, etc." See? I want to talk about particulars and my Dad wants to talk about general concepts!
Society has shaped each gender to want to talk about different things. Men are not supposed to have "feelings" and to show emotion, while women are encouraged to do so. And it's hard, as a woman, not to want to nit-pick at others and things. It just seems like such a natural thing to do, and every other woman around you is doing it too! Men just aren't interested in hearing about that stuff I suppose.....but then, what are men and women supposed to talk about since they are interested in completely different topics?
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Need Rescuing?
Monday, in class, we discussed about how women have greater symbols than men. We said one of the symbols women have is being sought out and rescued, needing protection. In movies, women are always treated like we can't do anything for ourselves and need a man to come rescue us anytime we are in some danger, at all.
I watched a movie with my mom last weekend on Lifetime Movie Network. I don't remember the name of it, but it was about a woman that had a daughter who was killed. She began getting phone calls from someone who was going to kill another girl and it was her duty to save the little girl because what he truly wanted was to kill her. When she was away, her boyfriend, a detective, couldn't find her because she wouldn't tell anyone where she was going and he ended up finding her. He was so dead-set against her being alone without some protection. He didn't believe she could defend herself if anything happened, even when he had taught her to use a gun in the past. The whole movie just portrayed her as being helpless and not being able to defend herself without a man to protect her from any harm.
After watching the movie and having the discussion, I wondered if maybe woman really are helpless and need a man to defend them. I want to say no and we can do anything men can, but I don't know if that's completely true. Me and my roommate watched a movie where a mom killed someone to protect her children and my roommate said she could never do that even in self-defense and I was quick to say that I could do that in self-defense, even when I don't know if I really could. Are woman helpless and need rescuing when in danger, or can we do it ourselves?
I watched a movie with my mom last weekend on Lifetime Movie Network. I don't remember the name of it, but it was about a woman that had a daughter who was killed. She began getting phone calls from someone who was going to kill another girl and it was her duty to save the little girl because what he truly wanted was to kill her. When she was away, her boyfriend, a detective, couldn't find her because she wouldn't tell anyone where she was going and he ended up finding her. He was so dead-set against her being alone without some protection. He didn't believe she could defend herself if anything happened, even when he had taught her to use a gun in the past. The whole movie just portrayed her as being helpless and not being able to defend herself without a man to protect her from any harm.
After watching the movie and having the discussion, I wondered if maybe woman really are helpless and need a man to defend them. I want to say no and we can do anything men can, but I don't know if that's completely true. Me and my roommate watched a movie where a mom killed someone to protect her children and my roommate said she could never do that even in self-defense and I was quick to say that I could do that in self-defense, even when I don't know if I really could. Are woman helpless and need rescuing when in danger, or can we do it ourselves?
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Aren't we all just people?
This is something that I have wanted to share for awhile, and I didn't know when would be the best time, considering we have mentioned the subject I am about to comment on repeatedly throughout our class discussions. Although it has not been a main point, it has been a reoccurring reference, and one that I find carries heavy meaning.
During our talks about women's roles and the way women are confined to these roles, we have more than once mentioned the phrase "boxed in," whether in literal reference to checking boxes M or F on application forms or in figurative (although real) terms of not having the ability to transcend the roles that have defined femininity/ masculinity, and to a greater extent sexuality in our culture. The vocalization of this phrase always makes my ears perk up, because I have written about this very thing before, and as my avatar name presupposes, I do write poetry, and my poetry often times has a sociopolitical voice to it. So, I'm sure you can already guess that I'm going to share another one of my poems with you. It speaks a lot about Queer Theory, and the dismissing of labels (which in and of itself could be another blog post) anyway here it is:
Boxed In:
Boxed in- M or F?
What the fuck am I?
These stupid applications
always asking questions,
Well, here's my genderless reply-
I am me, no box required.
You can call me it.
That's what happens anyway,
you think I give a shit?
What's it to you anyway,
if I'm a man or not?
I'm human, not a box
you need to see my twat-
Twat, What was that?
Another constraint, a restriction
to my identity. M or F,
defined by a box?
I'm more than that,
I'm more than just a cock
so suck on that!
I'll write outside the box
because I have no problem
with who I am.
What's it to you anyway
if I'm a woman or a man?
Do you need to see what's
between my legs to help you understand?
What if I left my dick at home?
Does that make me less of who I am?
I'm a human, not M or F
just I.
I'm a human, and that is my reply.
During our talks about women's roles and the way women are confined to these roles, we have more than once mentioned the phrase "boxed in," whether in literal reference to checking boxes M or F on application forms or in figurative (although real) terms of not having the ability to transcend the roles that have defined femininity/ masculinity, and to a greater extent sexuality in our culture. The vocalization of this phrase always makes my ears perk up, because I have written about this very thing before, and as my avatar name presupposes, I do write poetry, and my poetry often times has a sociopolitical voice to it. So, I'm sure you can already guess that I'm going to share another one of my poems with you. It speaks a lot about Queer Theory, and the dismissing of labels (which in and of itself could be another blog post) anyway here it is:
Boxed In:
Boxed in- M or F?
What the fuck am I?
These stupid applications
always asking questions,
Well, here's my genderless reply-
I am me, no box required.
You can call me it.
That's what happens anyway,
you think I give a shit?
What's it to you anyway,
if I'm a man or not?
I'm human, not a box
you need to see my twat-
Twat, What was that?
Another constraint, a restriction
to my identity. M or F,
defined by a box?
I'm more than that,
I'm more than just a cock
so suck on that!
I'll write outside the box
because I have no problem
with who I am.
What's it to you anyway
if I'm a woman or a man?
Do you need to see what's
between my legs to help you understand?
What if I left my dick at home?
Does that make me less of who I am?
I'm a human, not M or F
just I.
I'm a human, and that is my reply.
Monday, February 11, 2013
What's your master status?
After reading the text for our upcoming class -which I won't get too much into detail since we haven't discussed it yet- I was reminded of an instance I had during high school in a Gender in America elective I was taking. The class had been discussing this same issue of feminist ideology and women of color, and we were asked which one is more important, our race or gender?
From a sociological standpoint in world of mass globalization, it is a very conflicting issue that (I believe) creates an identity crisis. The author mentions the issues that arise when feminist approaches fail to recognize the differences among women and their experiences. White women have been the standard female experience and model for such movements, but what about all the other aspects/institutions that mold a woman's experience and/or those who don't identify with this status/experience?
I think about this a lot and it makes me think about the master status I want to give to myself and identify with and the one society gives me. I have always said that "woman" is my master status because I believe my gender will determine my treatment and roles within my race/ethnicity, but when I ask other women of color they always seem to place race above gender, and they make the same argument. There is not doubt at all that race and gender -as well as other institutions such as class- are intertwined, but does one trump another? This is obviously a case by case personal opinion, but what are your thoughts?
From a sociological standpoint in world of mass globalization, it is a very conflicting issue that (I believe) creates an identity crisis. The author mentions the issues that arise when feminist approaches fail to recognize the differences among women and their experiences. White women have been the standard female experience and model for such movements, but what about all the other aspects/institutions that mold a woman's experience and/or those who don't identify with this status/experience?
I think about this a lot and it makes me think about the master status I want to give to myself and identify with and the one society gives me. I have always said that "woman" is my master status because I believe my gender will determine my treatment and roles within my race/ethnicity, but when I ask other women of color they always seem to place race above gender, and they make the same argument. There is not doubt at all that race and gender -as well as other institutions such as class- are intertwined, but does one trump another? This is obviously a case by case personal opinion, but what are your thoughts?
Concrete
Today in class we talked about Ortner's article; about how women are closer to nature and men are closer to culture. I have to agree with Ortner that women's psyche is completely different from men! Women do think about things that are different from men--more concrete details, and often more domestic topics. I had a boyfriend over the summer, and while he was a nice guy (for the most part) he wanted to be the dominant one in the relationship (which I could use a whole other blog post to talk about), and when we broke up he told me that he couldn't be with me (partly) because we "never talk about anything philosophical or deep."
Now...why would he say that? I am going to have to relate it back to Ortner's article, and say that because he is a man, and is very intelligent, that he "got tired" of hearing me talk about "everyday" subjects. The only thing that I have to say back to that is "fuck you," but instead I feel like everyday subjects are the subjects that really mean something to me. And to most women, I would say. I feel that women care about everyday occurrences because they really care about people. Maybe I'm generalizing women here, and I don't mean to because there are men that care about everyday subjects, and people, as well. These things have a value and a meaning to me because I care about others and what is going on around me. I'm sure that I was socialized as a woman to feel this way, but I think that in order to help people and to be a good friend then you need to concern yourself with others and everyday things. I like to talk about people's feelings and what they did and gossip and nail painting. Women put a lot of value on these subjects, and maybe that is why everyone is trying to recreate their mother-child relationship. Your mom listens to you and helps you solve your problems. She concerns herself with what you are concerned about, versus your Dad who is just there, maybe for more "philosophical and deep" stuff. Maybe if men were different and concerned themselves with domestic topics and everyday subjects then people would be trying to be with them as they are with women!
I feel that, socially, it is women's role to be the listener and the problem-solver, and people do appreciate this role, even if it is undervalued. So, as a girlfriend can I talk about deep and philosophical stuff? Absolutely. Do I want to talk about deep and philosophical stuff with whomever I am dating? Maybe, and I probably would. But on a daily basis I want to concern myself with what they did for the day and things that they liked. I want to appreciate them and show them this, and the only way that I can do that is to talk about everyday stuff with them!
Now...why would he say that? I am going to have to relate it back to Ortner's article, and say that because he is a man, and is very intelligent, that he "got tired" of hearing me talk about "everyday" subjects. The only thing that I have to say back to that is "fuck you," but instead I feel like everyday subjects are the subjects that really mean something to me. And to most women, I would say. I feel that women care about everyday occurrences because they really care about people. Maybe I'm generalizing women here, and I don't mean to because there are men that care about everyday subjects, and people, as well. These things have a value and a meaning to me because I care about others and what is going on around me. I'm sure that I was socialized as a woman to feel this way, but I think that in order to help people and to be a good friend then you need to concern yourself with others and everyday things. I like to talk about people's feelings and what they did and gossip and nail painting. Women put a lot of value on these subjects, and maybe that is why everyone is trying to recreate their mother-child relationship. Your mom listens to you and helps you solve your problems. She concerns herself with what you are concerned about, versus your Dad who is just there, maybe for more "philosophical and deep" stuff. Maybe if men were different and concerned themselves with domestic topics and everyday subjects then people would be trying to be with them as they are with women!
I feel that, socially, it is women's role to be the listener and the problem-solver, and people do appreciate this role, even if it is undervalued. So, as a girlfriend can I talk about deep and philosophical stuff? Absolutely. Do I want to talk about deep and philosophical stuff with whomever I am dating? Maybe, and I probably would. But on a daily basis I want to concern myself with what they did for the day and things that they liked. I want to appreciate them and show them this, and the only way that I can do that is to talk about everyday stuff with them!
Work like a man, Act like a lady
Today in class we talked about how women are the mediators between culture and nature. This really stuck out to me when we were speaking of the different jobs that women carry out (like babysitting) that go unappreciated. I kept thinking not only does womens work go unappreciated because of the mediator title, but it also causes a large amount of stress to women for perfection. When women perform a task that is generally done by males, my experience is that they are held to a higher standard for the said task. It is almost as if they are competeing with the men for a right to be able to perform the specific task generalized for the male being. Kind of like saying "If women can't do it better than men, then why do it at all?"
I feel like this concept is highly portrayed in everyday life, even beyond the status of being the mediator between culture and nature. In today's society women are expected to fulfill the male and female role at the same time, and balance those roles appropriatley. Hence having to mediate the role of both male and female at once. I find this to be extremely true in the workforce. Women are expected to gain the education that men due in order to perform a certain job (which is fair) yet in some cases they are expected to wear more feminine clothes because they are a women. Women, by society, are also expected to look 'sexy' while performing these jobs. Meaning they must portray the educated male as well as the sexy female in every situation. I find this true in my personal life as well. Being on a coed athletic team we are expected to do just about everything that the guys team does. We practice together, do workouts together and compete together. But if we come into practice without having some kind of alternative sex appeal we are treated differently than on days we might have on makeup or wear short shorts! Once again, we are being told to perform on the same level as men, yet also have the status of a women. I feel like we teach our children this from a very young age! The thought that sparked this whole thought was when I was younger my dad told me I need to "Work like a man, Act like a lady". Coming from a farm and outdoors family I was expected to do everything the boys did. My dad made me go out and replace fence posts with my male cousins, and expect me to be able to perform at the same level. I grew up doing these things my whole life, then when I got a little older and started acting like the boys (talking like them, behaving like them) my dad told me that he was going to send me to a Little Lady class because I need to "learn how to be a girl".
My whole point through this post is that throughout out lives we are not only the mediators between culture and nature, but we mediate between the dominant and submissive roles. As women, we are expect by society, to play the role of both the male dominant and the female submissive if we want to be considered a productive member of society!
I feel like this concept is highly portrayed in everyday life, even beyond the status of being the mediator between culture and nature. In today's society women are expected to fulfill the male and female role at the same time, and balance those roles appropriatley. Hence having to mediate the role of both male and female at once. I find this to be extremely true in the workforce. Women are expected to gain the education that men due in order to perform a certain job (which is fair) yet in some cases they are expected to wear more feminine clothes because they are a women. Women, by society, are also expected to look 'sexy' while performing these jobs. Meaning they must portray the educated male as well as the sexy female in every situation. I find this true in my personal life as well. Being on a coed athletic team we are expected to do just about everything that the guys team does. We practice together, do workouts together and compete together. But if we come into practice without having some kind of alternative sex appeal we are treated differently than on days we might have on makeup or wear short shorts! Once again, we are being told to perform on the same level as men, yet also have the status of a women. I feel like we teach our children this from a very young age! The thought that sparked this whole thought was when I was younger my dad told me I need to "Work like a man, Act like a lady". Coming from a farm and outdoors family I was expected to do everything the boys did. My dad made me go out and replace fence posts with my male cousins, and expect me to be able to perform at the same level. I grew up doing these things my whole life, then when I got a little older and started acting like the boys (talking like them, behaving like them) my dad told me that he was going to send me to a Little Lady class because I need to "learn how to be a girl".
My whole point through this post is that throughout out lives we are not only the mediators between culture and nature, but we mediate between the dominant and submissive roles. As women, we are expect by society, to play the role of both the male dominant and the female submissive if we want to be considered a productive member of society!
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Pant Suits
Today I went to a workshop at our Career Center titled "How To Work A Job Fair." It was very beneficial for the upcoming job fairs that I am going to, but ONE THING that was mentioned at the workshop really irked me. And it has bothered me all damn day!
The first thing that I was told at this workshop was what to wear for the job fairs. I was instructed that I (as a woman) needed to wear a black, gray, or navy PANT SUIT!!! They said that we can wear a skit suit if we must, but that a pant suit is the most preferred outfit! Why does this irk me to no end, you may ask. Well, to me, pant suits are for men! And I know that Hilary Clinton wears pant suits all of the time, but she at least gets to wear them in fun colors such as yellow and lavender. I have to wear one that is either black, gray, or navy. How masculine is that?
To me, this pant suit business is just screaming "If you do not dress like a man for this job fair then no one will want to hire you because you look like a woman, and who wants to hire a woman?!" And frankly, I think that this is ridiculous. I do NOT own a pant suit. I have never owned a pant suit, and I have to wear dress clothes a lot for my sorority and I still do not own a pant suit. I wear colored dress pants with heels and a cute sweater. I wear dresses with cardigans, and shirts with Peter-Pan collars, NOT PANT SUITS!
I think that this very much shows the presence of the male gaze in our society, especially in the workforce. And the fact that in order to be a successful woman you have to act/look/be like a man. The male gaze is very present in the workforce because in order to be a high-powered woman you have to dress like a man (aka- black, gray, or navy pant suit), because we equate success and power in society with being masculine and male. Thus, you can't wear a hot pink skirt and a shirt with a Peter-Pan collar to work if you are a woman with a high power job. I do not understand why not, but I suppose that this would only be a reminder to people that you are a women, and thus people would not take you very seriously anymore. If you dress like a man, then people might take you more seriously and actually listen to you because you look "professional" & "masculine" & "dominant." However, I still don't understand what is so wrong with me wearing purple dress pants with a bow belt and a black sweater to this job fair, but I think that if I did then I would not be taken very seriously because I would look feminine and "weak/submissive." Thus, I shall buy and wear a pant suit to this job fair, but I'm not happy about it and I do not plan on having a job that requires me to wear one everyday. I should be free as a women, and as a person, to express myself with my clothing however I choose. And I choose colored dress pants or a dress with a cardigan!
The first thing that I was told at this workshop was what to wear for the job fairs. I was instructed that I (as a woman) needed to wear a black, gray, or navy PANT SUIT!!! They said that we can wear a skit suit if we must, but that a pant suit is the most preferred outfit! Why does this irk me to no end, you may ask. Well, to me, pant suits are for men! And I know that Hilary Clinton wears pant suits all of the time, but she at least gets to wear them in fun colors such as yellow and lavender. I have to wear one that is either black, gray, or navy. How masculine is that?
To me, this pant suit business is just screaming "If you do not dress like a man for this job fair then no one will want to hire you because you look like a woman, and who wants to hire a woman?!" And frankly, I think that this is ridiculous. I do NOT own a pant suit. I have never owned a pant suit, and I have to wear dress clothes a lot for my sorority and I still do not own a pant suit. I wear colored dress pants with heels and a cute sweater. I wear dresses with cardigans, and shirts with Peter-Pan collars, NOT PANT SUITS!
I think that this very much shows the presence of the male gaze in our society, especially in the workforce. And the fact that in order to be a successful woman you have to act/look/be like a man. The male gaze is very present in the workforce because in order to be a high-powered woman you have to dress like a man (aka- black, gray, or navy pant suit), because we equate success and power in society with being masculine and male. Thus, you can't wear a hot pink skirt and a shirt with a Peter-Pan collar to work if you are a woman with a high power job. I do not understand why not, but I suppose that this would only be a reminder to people that you are a women, and thus people would not take you very seriously anymore. If you dress like a man, then people might take you more seriously and actually listen to you because you look "professional" & "masculine" & "dominant." However, I still don't understand what is so wrong with me wearing purple dress pants with a bow belt and a black sweater to this job fair, but I think that if I did then I would not be taken very seriously because I would look feminine and "weak/submissive." Thus, I shall buy and wear a pant suit to this job fair, but I'm not happy about it and I do not plan on having a job that requires me to wear one everyday. I should be free as a women, and as a person, to express myself with my clothing however I choose. And I choose colored dress pants or a dress with a cardigan!
Why Women Still Can't Have it All
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-cant-have-it-all/309020/
Check out this article by Anne-Marie Slaughter, the first woman director of policy planning at the State department. Do you plan to have a career and a family? What problems do you foresee?
Check out this article by Anne-Marie Slaughter, the first woman director of policy planning at the State department. Do you plan to have a career and a family? What problems do you foresee?
Super Bowl
Although it's been a few days, there were some interesting things I noticed about the Super Bowl this year that are relevant to things we've discussed in class. My friends and I had a Super Bowl party on Sunday -- I've never even watched the Super Bowl before. While I could comment about many things regarding Beyonce's performance during half time, there were two other things in particular which stood out to me.
The first was the reaction the women in the room had to Beyonce's performance. I was in a room of 8 guys and 5 girls. The girls, however, were the ones speaking and commenting during the performance. What surprised me was what they were saying. They spent the entire ten minutes or so sticking up for Beyonce and supporting her even though no one in the room was criticizing her for her performance/attire/etc. I wasn't quite sure what it was about Beyonce, her performance, what she wore, the fact that she was woman that caused such a reaction from the women in the room.
The second thing I noticed was at the end of the game. Every single boy in the room had stopped watching and left the room the second after the winner was announced. All the girls stayed put, though. A few of them said they wanted to watch all the athletes/coaches/etc as they celebrated. I, personally, wanted to stay to see if the two coaches (the brothers) interacted at all after one of the teams had won and one had lost. It was interesting to notice the striking difference in who stayed to watch the celebration and who left. Was the reasoning behind this something socially constructed? Why did we care about the "emotional" side of the Super Bowl and the boys didn't?
The first was the reaction the women in the room had to Beyonce's performance. I was in a room of 8 guys and 5 girls. The girls, however, were the ones speaking and commenting during the performance. What surprised me was what they were saying. They spent the entire ten minutes or so sticking up for Beyonce and supporting her even though no one in the room was criticizing her for her performance/attire/etc. I wasn't quite sure what it was about Beyonce, her performance, what she wore, the fact that she was woman that caused such a reaction from the women in the room.
The second thing I noticed was at the end of the game. Every single boy in the room had stopped watching and left the room the second after the winner was announced. All the girls stayed put, though. A few of them said they wanted to watch all the athletes/coaches/etc as they celebrated. I, personally, wanted to stay to see if the two coaches (the brothers) interacted at all after one of the teams had won and one had lost. It was interesting to notice the striking difference in who stayed to watch the celebration and who left. Was the reasoning behind this something socially constructed? Why did we care about the "emotional" side of the Super Bowl and the boys didn't?
Scans see 'gay brain differences'
-The title of this post is the title of this news article on the BBC's news feed. I found this article interesting since we have had several discussions on defining one's self. I have not examined the actual article in which they did these experiments, but if these results are significant this could be a huge breakthrough in advancing our public policies. Science of this nature can be easily exaggerated as well. A study involving 90 subjects certainly has the potential to provide solid statistical data.
My argument here:
1. all people should naturally have equal rights.
2. people should be allowed their unique pursuit of happiness, so long as it does not violate another person's separate pursuit.
3. If someone is inclined to act on an "inherent sexual orientation" or otherwise, they are protected by the same rights as other people.
4. this article adds to the probability that there exists an "inherent sexual orientation"
5. Although sexual orientation is not the determinate factor in what kinds of relations a person has. there is plenty of statistical evidence to suggest it plays a major role in the relations a person desires to have.
Here's the link; article is below: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm
The brains of gay men and women look like those found in heterosexual people of the opposite sex, research suggests.
The Swedish study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, compared the size of the brain's halves in 90 adults.
Gay men and heterosexual women had halves of a similar size, while the right side was bigger in lesbian women and heterosexual men.
A UK scientist said this was evidence sexual orientation was set in the womb.
Scientists have noticed for some time that homosexual people of both sexes have differences in certain cognitive abilities, suggesting there may be subtle differences in their brain structure.
This is the first time, however, that scientists have used brain scanners to try to look for the source of those differences.
A group of 90 healthy gay and heterosexual adults, men and women, were scanned by the Karolinska Institute scientists to measure the volume of both sides, or hemispheres, of their brain.
When these results were collected, it was found that lesbians and heterosexual men shared a particular "asymmetry" in their hemisphere size, while heterosexual women and gay men had no difference between the size of the different halves of their brain.
In other words, structurally, at least, the brains of gay men were more like heterosexual women, and gay women more like heterosexual men.
A further experiment found that in one particular area of the brain, the amygdala, there were other significant differences.
In heterosexual men and gay women, there were more nerve "connections" in the right side of the amygdala, compared with the left.
The reverse, with more neural connections in the left amygdala, was the case in homosexual men and heterosexual women.
The Karolinska team said that these differences could not be mainly explained by "learned" effects, but needed another mechanism to set them, either before or after birth.
'Fight, flight or mate'
Dr Qazi Rahman, a lecturer in cognitive biology at Queen Mary, University of London, said that he believed that these brain differences were laid down early in foetal development.
"As far as I'm concerned there is no argument any more - if you are gay, you are born gay," he said.
The amygdala, he said, was important because of its role in "orientating", or directing, the rest of the brain in response to an emotional stimulus - be it during the "fight or flight" response, or the presence of a potential mate.
"In other words, the brain network which determines what sexual orientation actually 'orients' towards is similar between gay men and straight women, and between gay women and straight men.
"This makes sense given that gay men have a sexual preference which is like that of women in general, that is, preferring men, and vice versa for lesbian women.
|
As far as I'm concerned there is no argument any more - if you are gay, you are born gay
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
FEMEN!
I have stumbled upon a feminist group website. This organization is named Femen and it is organized out of Kiev, Ukraine (http://femen.org/en/about) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FEMEN). They are promoting what they call "sextremism", which I gather from the site and videos on the site to mean using your female body, which is viewed a lot as a sex object, to be a weapon and to be used in protest of a patriarchal society. Basically that means that they do all of their protesting topless. They explain that when women are naked everyone wants to look at them, thus if you protest topless/naked then people will pay attention to what you are doing.
Here is a link to a video of Inna Shevchenko, who is one of the main women heading this organization, and she explains "sextremism": http://girlsandrevolts.tumblr.com/post/30515389417/sextremism-is-the-new-weapon-of-feminism-by
At first, I thought that this organization was just a bunch of really bitter women who want all men dead and want women to rule the world. But after poking around the internet and finding out more about them, they seem pretty legit. They mainly protest women's issues such as sex tourism, religious institutions (that are patriarchal), legalized prostitution (they don't want it!), and sexism, but they also protest other social/national/international topics (such as gay marriage!).
I think that it is interesting that women's groups like this exist, and that they are protesting women's issues in a nonviolent way! Femen wants women to be strong, independent, healthily, smart, etc and they are standing up for what they believe in. However, in many countries in Europe, and especially in Ukraine (where the main hub for this group is) they have frequently been detained or arrested when they have done nonviolent protests. I guess that I am surprised at this because they are not hurting anyone, but are standing up for women's rights. But in a way, I am not surprised by this because I feel that anytime women try to stand up for their rights they are shut down. However, I like what Femen is standing for and the fact that they are protesting in a nonviolent way. I think it's great to see a group of women stand up for our entire gender (and for others as well) and to spread a message of equality for all.
What do you think of Femen?
Here is a link to a video of Inna Shevchenko, who is one of the main women heading this organization, and she explains "sextremism": http://girlsandrevolts.tumblr.com/post/30515389417/sextremism-is-the-new-weapon-of-feminism-by
At first, I thought that this organization was just a bunch of really bitter women who want all men dead and want women to rule the world. But after poking around the internet and finding out more about them, they seem pretty legit. They mainly protest women's issues such as sex tourism, religious institutions (that are patriarchal), legalized prostitution (they don't want it!), and sexism, but they also protest other social/national/international topics (such as gay marriage!).
I think that it is interesting that women's groups like this exist, and that they are protesting women's issues in a nonviolent way! Femen wants women to be strong, independent, healthily, smart, etc and they are standing up for what they believe in. However, in many countries in Europe, and especially in Ukraine (where the main hub for this group is) they have frequently been detained or arrested when they have done nonviolent protests. I guess that I am surprised at this because they are not hurting anyone, but are standing up for women's rights. But in a way, I am not surprised by this because I feel that anytime women try to stand up for their rights they are shut down. However, I like what Femen is standing for and the fact that they are protesting in a nonviolent way. I think it's great to see a group of women stand up for our entire gender (and for others as well) and to spread a message of equality for all.
What do you think of Femen?
Monday, February 4, 2013
"Womanly" Duties
For homework in my Great Works class Monday, I had to read an article called "Powhatan Indian Women," which tells about how women lived during this time period and the jobs they had to do. The article was written in 1998 but was set from the 1500s. After reading about the jobs that were done by women, I automatically began thinking of this class and how it would relate. Some of the women's jobs during this time were to plant crops, dig bad wood from canoe's, supervise children in fields, gather wood, build housing, and they did the canoe traveling. The argument of the article was that women were a vital role in society. These job listings shocked me majorly.
I've always heard that women had the less manual labor jobs and were "in the kitchen" or taking care of the children. Some of the jobs, I do understand, but there are others that really confused me and made me wonder why. Why did women have to do canoe work, gather wood, and build housing when they were always seen as not strong and needing to be doing household "womanly" duties?
The biggest question I had was when did everything change? In the 1500s, if women were doing these types of jobs, why was it never heard of? This is the first time I've ever heard of women doing these types of jobs. When did things change that women were only to be doing household duties and raising the children and why the sudden change? Over the years, what was so significant to change the way women were treated when it came to jobs they had to do?
I've always heard that women had the less manual labor jobs and were "in the kitchen" or taking care of the children. Some of the jobs, I do understand, but there are others that really confused me and made me wonder why. Why did women have to do canoe work, gather wood, and build housing when they were always seen as not strong and needing to be doing household "womanly" duties?
The biggest question I had was when did everything change? In the 1500s, if women were doing these types of jobs, why was it never heard of? This is the first time I've ever heard of women doing these types of jobs. When did things change that women were only to be doing household duties and raising the children and why the sudden change? Over the years, what was so significant to change the way women were treated when it came to jobs they had to do?
Queen Bey.
Why yes, I do mean Beyonce. Read the article first!
http://thanley.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/the-wonder-woman-was-created-for-girls-myth-or-beyonces-super-bowl-halftime-show-as-an-example-of-william-moulton-marstons-approach-to-feminism/
So do you guys think male-accepted feminism needs to come wrapped in a pretty bow, with boobs out and booty shaking? Or can women do the separatist thing and assert girl power without the male gaze being the lens through which we look?
Also, I effing love Beyonce, and her awesomeness turned off the electricity.
http://thanley.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/the-wonder-woman-was-created-for-girls-myth-or-beyonces-super-bowl-halftime-show-as-an-example-of-william-moulton-marstons-approach-to-feminism/
So do you guys think male-accepted feminism needs to come wrapped in a pretty bow, with boobs out and booty shaking? Or can women do the separatist thing and assert girl power without the male gaze being the lens through which we look?
Also, I effing love Beyonce, and her awesomeness turned off the electricity.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
Men experiencing labor pains
Men experiencing labor pains
Sorry to upload another video but I found this online and thought it applied to our class. The video shows men getting labor pains through a muscle simulator that replicates contractions. Initially the guys don't take it seriously, and one of the women comments that if they can joke about it, the pain isn't strong enough. If you watch the entire video (under 10 mins), you see them in some pretty serious pain. One of the guys even says he's unsure if he is willing to put his wife through this to have kids. It's an interesting experiment and I thought you guys would enjoy seeing it- I recommend watching it in its entirety.
Sorry to upload another video but I found this online and thought it applied to our class. The video shows men getting labor pains through a muscle simulator that replicates contractions. Initially the guys don't take it seriously, and one of the women comments that if they can joke about it, the pain isn't strong enough. If you watch the entire video (under 10 mins), you see them in some pretty serious pain. One of the guys even says he's unsure if he is willing to put his wife through this to have kids. It's an interesting experiment and I thought you guys would enjoy seeing it- I recommend watching it in its entirety.
Male Gaze in Other Class Discussions
Ashton and I are in an English class called Women in Fiction. We are currently reading Pride and Prejudice, and we just finished reading a bunch of fairy tales/fairy tale re-writes. In class on Friday, we were talking about the section in Pride and Prejudice when Elizabeth admits she never knew who she truly was until she met Darcy. She realizes this after reading a letter from Darcy to herself explaining how she has been wrong in all of her judgments against him.
While most of the other students in the class (an all girls class--something which could be an entirely different discussion post) thought this to be a turning point in the novel in which Elizabeth matures and develops. Ashton, however, so keenly pointed out the opposite. Elizabeth admits to not knowing herself at all until she is known by Darcy. While this isn't in a sexual manner, it does reflect issues regarding the male gaze that we have discussed in this class. Elizabeth didn't know who she was until the male gaze had "seen" her. I found it really interesting to take these Victorian novels in a different direction from the typical discussion topics. It expands and develops our ability to analyze novels and create new ideas instead of limiting us -- even in a novel -- to societal and cultural expectations.
While most of the other students in the class (an all girls class--something which could be an entirely different discussion post) thought this to be a turning point in the novel in which Elizabeth matures and develops. Ashton, however, so keenly pointed out the opposite. Elizabeth admits to not knowing herself at all until she is known by Darcy. While this isn't in a sexual manner, it does reflect issues regarding the male gaze that we have discussed in this class. Elizabeth didn't know who she was until the male gaze had "seen" her. I found it really interesting to take these Victorian novels in a different direction from the typical discussion topics. It expands and develops our ability to analyze novels and create new ideas instead of limiting us -- even in a novel -- to societal and cultural expectations.
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Man's Contribution to Life
Man's Contribution to Life
Watch this short video first (literally less than a minute!) It is a tiny excerpt from one of Jim Gaffigan's standup acts. I really like his humor and thought this fit perfectly into discussions that I'm sure will come from this class. He describes a woman having a baby as a miracle (duh), and how amazing it is that they can grow a baby inside them, deliver the baby, and then feed the baby with her body.
Then we think of the male's contribution. I particularly like the "redneck" voice he gives to the man saying "he helped too, for like 5 seconds, doing the one thing he thinks about 24 hrs a day." it's sort of comical that men demand all this credit for helping make the baby, yet are notorious for not helping out with caring for the baby. It's the woman who must go through 9 agonizing months of pregnancy, deliver the baby, and then take on nearly all of the responsibilities of parenting. While I think this video is funny and accurate, it also is nice to see Gaffigan giving women credit for the miracle of birth, and poking fun at man's less important (though necessary), contribution to life.
Watch this short video first (literally less than a minute!) It is a tiny excerpt from one of Jim Gaffigan's standup acts. I really like his humor and thought this fit perfectly into discussions that I'm sure will come from this class. He describes a woman having a baby as a miracle (duh), and how amazing it is that they can grow a baby inside them, deliver the baby, and then feed the baby with her body.
Then we think of the male's contribution. I particularly like the "redneck" voice he gives to the man saying "he helped too, for like 5 seconds, doing the one thing he thinks about 24 hrs a day." it's sort of comical that men demand all this credit for helping make the baby, yet are notorious for not helping out with caring for the baby. It's the woman who must go through 9 agonizing months of pregnancy, deliver the baby, and then take on nearly all of the responsibilities of parenting. While I think this video is funny and accurate, it also is nice to see Gaffigan giving women credit for the miracle of birth, and poking fun at man's less important (though necessary), contribution to life.
Friday, February 1, 2013
I'm Just A Girl
"Just A Girl" is a song written by Gwen Stefani and Tom Dumont for the band No Doubt. I figure that most of you have heard of No Doubt, and hopefully, you have heard this song before. I think that it is not only a catchy song, but that has a very powerful message about what it means to be a girl in our society. I will go through the song with you.
Take this pink ribbon off my eyes
I'm exposed
And it's no big surprise
Don't you think I know
Exactly where I stand
This world is forcing me
To hold your hand
In the first stanza of the song, the lyrics are talking about taking off a kind of rose-colored glasses and seeing the world for how it really is, and what it really means to be a woman. She is saying that once you remove all of the frills and lace and see things for how they really are, then you see that women are forced to be weaker and more delicate. Society is forcing us as women to hold others' hands because we are too weak to stand on our own.
'Cause I'm just a girl, little 'ol me
Don't let me out of your sight
I'm just a girl, all pretty and petite
So don't let me have any rightsOh...I've had it up to here!
I think in this stanza she is being sarcastic about being a girl. Like "Oh, look at me! I'm so weak! You can't let me do anything for myself!" Society sort of views women in this way, so I feel that the song is just mocking these views.
The moment that I step outside
So many reasons
For me to run and hide
I can't do the little things I hold so dear
'Cause it's all those little things
That I fear
I think that she is trying to say that it is a scary world out there sometimes for a girl. This may even be a coming-of-age kind of song, and this girl is scared of becoming an older woman because she already feels the social constraints that go along with her gender.
'Cause I'm just a girl I'd rather not be
'Cause they won't let me drive
Late at night I'm just a girl,
Guess I'm some kind of freak
'Cause they all sit and stare
With their eyes
I'm just a girl,
Take a good look at me
Just your typical prototype
Once again, she is repeating that it is not so great to be a girl in our society. They won't even let her drive late at night! She feels constantly stared at (male gaze anyone???) and made out to be a kind of freak because she is constantly judged.
Oh...I've had it up to here!
Oh...am I making myself clear?
I'm just a girl
I'm just a girl in the world...
That's all that you'll let me be!
I'm just a girl, living in captivity
Your rule of thumb
Makes me worrisome
I'm just a girl, what's my destiny?
What I've succumbed to is making me numb
I'm just a girl, my apologies
What I've become is so burdensome
I'm just a girl, lucky me
Twiddle-dum there's no comparison
And the song basically ends with her stating that she is tired of being judged and told who she is and what she is expected to do in our society. Maybe some of these expectations she does not want to live up to. Maybe that's not her, who knows? But these expectations make her anxious and worried, and she feels that giving into them is just numbing her true self. She also feels a burden on others, I would assume because she wants help in figuring all of this out--figuring herself out--but many people probably do not want to help her since--according to society--if she would just "act like a girl should" then she wouldn't have any issues to worry about.
I feel that it is a pretty accurate depiction of being a woman and trying to figure yourself out. You want to be your own person, but everyone else is pushing on you to just be a normal woman, to be an "Other." You realize that it is easier on you to just be an "Other", but if you are not cut out for that kind of life then you find it quite unpleasant. Trying to figure yourself out as a woman in our society can be quite tiresome and difficult to figure out. It is a very frustrating process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)