To clear up any confusion, this postcard portrays a young women who has just failed to propose before midnight. Apparently, women were only allowed to pick their mates on a leap year (again, this is folklore). Considering that it is 29 February, a "leap day," I thought it would be interesting to bring up the topic of "women" proposing to "men" in order to consider the wider topic of marriage altogether. Earlier in the week, I responded to Matthew's post about Jay-Z and Beyonce. Rather than attempting to parse out whether or not this particular marriage undermines Beyonce's Feminist Mystique, I wanted to look more generally at marriage itself. Quick Caveat: Without giving too much information out, I should warn anyone reading this that I haven't exactly had the opportunity to observe many "great" marriages. I say this because I think my perspective may be a little bit skewed, however, numbers don't lie. At this moment, statisticians believe that, if you were to get married today, you have a fifty percent chance of getting divorced. Well, divorce can't be that bad, right? I mean, c'mon, everyone knows people that have been divorced that seem to be doing fine. Well, according to a Times article I read a few years back, as far as your health goes (physical & mental), you'd be better off becoming a widower than going through a divorce. It turns out, these damn things are quite traumatic. I am sure being in a marriage is worth the risk though. It is such a beautiful thing. There is the ceremony, the booze, the cake, the crab-cake. Oh shit, I could go on forever. Not to mention society says its cool to have kids no (out of necessity to fill the gaping not-holes in your life). And, I almost forgot, when the cops catch you in the back of the car screwing your spouse you can say, "its cool officer, we're married." Turns out, though, for women especially, marriage can be quite traumatic itself. Apparently there are four types of domestic violence: Pysical, Sexual, Emotional, Verbal, and Economic (until recently, there was no such thing as marital rape). Obviously, this violence does not occur only between married couples. Regardless, here come some numbers. On average, three women are one man are killed by their significant others every day in the United States (YIKES!). Three quarters of women who report rape or sexual assault say that it was either a current or previous sexual partner. Nearly three million children witness domestic violence every year (studies have shown that these children have a higher proclivity towards certain behavioral disorders). For a man or women in an abusive marriage, escaping these violent realities becomes much more difficult. All of this marriage stuff seems quite antiquated anyhow. Aside from the obvious legal advantages, what is so different after you get married. For many people (I recognize all of the religious objections to this, I use the word many very loosely) that are already living with their partners, it would seem marriage is mostly symbolic. I'm just interested in the origin of that significance. Are all those stories about Men and Women developing chronic lethargy after marriage true? If so, what is the appeal? It seems to me that this is just the socially acceptable form of "Human Trafficking." Okay, that may have been a bit harsh. I will conclude by asking generally how does everyone feel about the "female" proposing to the "male?" Also, how (if you do) do you perceive marriage as being the "next step" in a serious relationship?
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Tradition Travesties
To clear up any confusion, this postcard portrays a young women who has just failed to propose before midnight. Apparently, women were only allowed to pick their mates on a leap year (again, this is folklore). Considering that it is 29 February, a "leap day," I thought it would be interesting to bring up the topic of "women" proposing to "men" in order to consider the wider topic of marriage altogether. Earlier in the week, I responded to Matthew's post about Jay-Z and Beyonce. Rather than attempting to parse out whether or not this particular marriage undermines Beyonce's Feminist Mystique, I wanted to look more generally at marriage itself. Quick Caveat: Without giving too much information out, I should warn anyone reading this that I haven't exactly had the opportunity to observe many "great" marriages. I say this because I think my perspective may be a little bit skewed, however, numbers don't lie. At this moment, statisticians believe that, if you were to get married today, you have a fifty percent chance of getting divorced. Well, divorce can't be that bad, right? I mean, c'mon, everyone knows people that have been divorced that seem to be doing fine. Well, according to a Times article I read a few years back, as far as your health goes (physical & mental), you'd be better off becoming a widower than going through a divorce. It turns out, these damn things are quite traumatic. I am sure being in a marriage is worth the risk though. It is such a beautiful thing. There is the ceremony, the booze, the cake, the crab-cake. Oh shit, I could go on forever. Not to mention society says its cool to have kids no (out of necessity to fill the gaping not-holes in your life). And, I almost forgot, when the cops catch you in the back of the car screwing your spouse you can say, "its cool officer, we're married." Turns out, though, for women especially, marriage can be quite traumatic itself. Apparently there are four types of domestic violence: Pysical, Sexual, Emotional, Verbal, and Economic (until recently, there was no such thing as marital rape). Obviously, this violence does not occur only between married couples. Regardless, here come some numbers. On average, three women are one man are killed by their significant others every day in the United States (YIKES!). Three quarters of women who report rape or sexual assault say that it was either a current or previous sexual partner. Nearly three million children witness domestic violence every year (studies have shown that these children have a higher proclivity towards certain behavioral disorders). For a man or women in an abusive marriage, escaping these violent realities becomes much more difficult. All of this marriage stuff seems quite antiquated anyhow. Aside from the obvious legal advantages, what is so different after you get married. For many people (I recognize all of the religious objections to this, I use the word many very loosely) that are already living with their partners, it would seem marriage is mostly symbolic. I'm just interested in the origin of that significance. Are all those stories about Men and Women developing chronic lethargy after marriage true? If so, what is the appeal? It seems to me that this is just the socially acceptable form of "Human Trafficking." Okay, that may have been a bit harsh. I will conclude by asking generally how does everyone feel about the "female" proposing to the "male?" Also, how (if you do) do you perceive marriage as being the "next step" in a serious relationship?
Who Are You Wearing?
In class on Tuesday, the Oscars were briefly brought up and the conversation stuck with me after class. The general consensus was that while both males and females are there to honor their achievements, it might not always seem that way. The idea of women as spectacles is highlighted at award shows like the Oscars. Dr. Johnson observed that during interviews, men are asked to talk about their nominations and future projects while for the ladies, it’s dress talk all the time. This rhythm is expected nowadays and people speculate what trendy styles will pop up and which designers will be lucky enough to have their creations walk the carpet.
In the link posted below, it shows People magazine’s list of 15 best dressed at Sunday’s award show. Notice, not one man makes the list. The fascination with women’s attire is nothing new but it is interesting to look at how the focus on wardrobe might take away from putting the spotlight on their career. While the men get to talk about and promote their projects, women describe their dress choices and what made them decide what to wear. What implications result from this? How does it affect girls watching at home? Is it just another way that society tells girls that for them, it’s important to look their best and play the part while for men it’s about recognition for hard work?
http://www.peoplestylewatch.com/people/stylewatch/package/gallery/0,,20552373_20568781,00.html
Besides the red carpet itself, “fashion experts” later analyze the women. Their dresses, jewelry, hair, weight, and everything is picked apart and critiqued until there is a summary of what was good and what was just plain bad. Although this is common for celebrities, how is this healthy? How are women celebrities able to ever be comfortable with their bodies and choices when the whole world, including other women, pull apart their appearance piece by piece? This hardly ever happens for men, give or take a few comments about a haircut or such matters.
In the link posted below, it shows People magazine’s list of 15 best dressed at Sunday’s award show. Notice, not one man makes the list. The fascination with women’s attire is nothing new but it is interesting to look at how the focus on wardrobe might take away from putting the spotlight on their career. While the men get to talk about and promote their projects, women describe their dress choices and what made them decide what to wear. What implications result from this? How does it affect girls watching at home? Is it just another way that society tells girls that for them, it’s important to look their best and play the part while for men it’s about recognition for hard work?
http://www.peoplestylewatch.com/people/stylewatch/package/gallery/0,,20552373_20568781,00.html
Besides the red carpet itself, “fashion experts” later analyze the women. Their dresses, jewelry, hair, weight, and everything is picked apart and critiqued until there is a summary of what was good and what was just plain bad. Although this is common for celebrities, how is this healthy? How are women celebrities able to ever be comfortable with their bodies and choices when the whole world, including other women, pull apart their appearance piece by piece? This hardly ever happens for men, give or take a few comments about a haircut or such matters.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Inescapability of Objectifation
This class thus far has left me in a wierd place in terms of my thoughts about being a woman and projecting myself as such. There has been moments, for example, with the Butler essay, when I have felt confident in the steps I have taken to disrupt the expectations of my gender. There has been other times that I am left feeling that there is literally no escape from being oppressed and even further by being oppressed by my own choices. After watching the Beyonce videos and taking a closer critical look at women in pop culture, I am concerned about the image that is being projected as progressive and positive to women in our society. I do not see how the way women like Beyonce or Lady Gaga present themselves is doing anything beyond turning themselves into objects. This has led me to further analyze the way women present themselves and question whether or not we can escape from turning our selves into objects. Yet this too is complicated, because the intentions that go into the way women present themselves is always different. I do believe that Beyonce as a pop star uses her sexuality as a tool to gain popularity and make money, and therefore I do not believe she is making a strong feminist statement by any means. But, on the other hand, are women who are simply born with traits that are typically attractive able to present themselves in a way that is not objectifying themselves, or should they even have to? How are we supposed to feel comforatable in our own bodies if we are not comforatable being thought of as objects to someone, anyone that is ready to percieve us that way?
I realized through this that I do not know how paint to women, that I am afraid to paint women, because I am afraid to objectify them. It seems inherent in the art making process that to make a visual representation of something or someone, you must first think of them as an object to make a copy of it or them. So, know I begin to wonder if our sense of sight or our cultural focus on viewing and being entertained by viewing does not immediately make an object out of what we are looking at. If peoples bodies are being presented to us for a purpose that only serves ourselves are we not thinking of these bodies as an object in relation to our own subjecthood? And if this is the case, then perhaps objectification is not always a bad thing. This leads me to wonder: where is do we draw the line? Is all objectification oppressive? Is the way to feel comforatable in our bodies to feel comforatable with being thought of as objects? Or is this asking too much?
I realized through this that I do not know how paint to women, that I am afraid to paint women, because I am afraid to objectify them. It seems inherent in the art making process that to make a visual representation of something or someone, you must first think of them as an object to make a copy of it or them. So, know I begin to wonder if our sense of sight or our cultural focus on viewing and being entertained by viewing does not immediately make an object out of what we are looking at. If peoples bodies are being presented to us for a purpose that only serves ourselves are we not thinking of these bodies as an object in relation to our own subjecthood? And if this is the case, then perhaps objectification is not always a bad thing. This leads me to wonder: where is do we draw the line? Is all objectification oppressive? Is the way to feel comforatable in our bodies to feel comforatable with being thought of as objects? Or is this asking too much?
Friday, February 24, 2012
Male sexual objectification?
The comment was made in class yesterday (I'm afraid I can't remember who said it) that when men are objectified sexually, as in Right Said Fred's "I'm Too Sexy", it is seen as a joke, whereas the objectification of women is seen as "normal". I think this is an excellent observation, but to push it further, it seems that male objectification is quite often accompanied by female objectification. Men are not turned into sexual objects, alone, as women so often are. If a man is objectified, so too must be women.
Take, for example, the aforementioned song:
Right Said Fred (a British pop duo of Richard and Fred Fairbrass) created this song as a satirical swipe at the fashion industry, but in it can still be seen depictions of women as objects of the male gaze. Note the female photographers in bikinis and the "poor pussycat" in a latex suit. But this is much more benign than anything we see today, and, in fact, because the males in the video are equally seen as sexual objects (with their leather pants and mesh shirts), it is somewhat of a subversion of objectification. The video is interlaced with footage of men and women "on the catwalk" or displaying fashion, and the lyrics are jokingly narcissistic. The song's message could read something like: the fashion industry, with its focus on appearances, turns men and women into sexual objects of themselves.
But here is a more recent example:
We all know this song. The video is surprising in that there isn't the large number of clothes-less ladies that one would find in so many other pop songs (just think of some of the videos we watched in class). These are replaced, it would seem, by the speedo-wearing Redfoo, the codpiece-clad SkyBlu (the DJ names of the electro-pop duo LMFAO), and their cronies. Note, however, at 0:43 and 1:12, pornographic model Ron Jeremy accompanied by several scantily clad women. When Redfoo is pumping iron, 1) he is surrounded by women in suggestive party attire, and 2) box-head-guy is struggling to lift a dumbell in the background (this is important later). When the assorted (I can only assume) party rockers are dancing at the bar, the women present are there in the background, appearing to love it. When SkyBlu longboards across the table, one girl reaches out and grabs his codpiece. There is an older woman who dances, but here image is juxtaposed with that of a large, hairy man. Of the two younger, thinner women who dance, the camera focuses in on their their legs and asses. In the end, box-head-guy walks out the bar door with, not one, but two ladies on his arms.
It is interesting that in both videos, there is a strong subtext of homoeroticism (unsurprisingly in the first--Richard Fairbrass in openly bisexual). In the first, there is no attempt to subvert this, and, as such, the objectification of both men and women can be seen as something of a joke, simply because the song is so ridiculous (the early 90's swag doesn't help). In the second, however, the objectification serves to reinforce masculine displays of sexuality. Instead of being seen as ridiculous, the men's willful objectification becomes self-serving when their performance impresses women. When box-dude saunters off with a couple pretty girls, we know that male objectifaction, in this context, only serves to facilitate the gratification of male sexual desire.
Does this analysis hold up? Is male objectification always accompanied by female objectification?
Take, for example, the aforementioned song:
Right Said Fred (a British pop duo of Richard and Fred Fairbrass) created this song as a satirical swipe at the fashion industry, but in it can still be seen depictions of women as objects of the male gaze. Note the female photographers in bikinis and the "poor pussycat" in a latex suit. But this is much more benign than anything we see today, and, in fact, because the males in the video are equally seen as sexual objects (with their leather pants and mesh shirts), it is somewhat of a subversion of objectification. The video is interlaced with footage of men and women "on the catwalk" or displaying fashion, and the lyrics are jokingly narcissistic. The song's message could read something like: the fashion industry, with its focus on appearances, turns men and women into sexual objects of themselves.
But here is a more recent example:
We all know this song. The video is surprising in that there isn't the large number of clothes-less ladies that one would find in so many other pop songs (just think of some of the videos we watched in class). These are replaced, it would seem, by the speedo-wearing Redfoo, the codpiece-clad SkyBlu (the DJ names of the electro-pop duo LMFAO), and their cronies. Note, however, at 0:43 and 1:12, pornographic model Ron Jeremy accompanied by several scantily clad women. When Redfoo is pumping iron, 1) he is surrounded by women in suggestive party attire, and 2) box-head-guy is struggling to lift a dumbell in the background (this is important later). When the assorted (I can only assume) party rockers are dancing at the bar, the women present are there in the background, appearing to love it. When SkyBlu longboards across the table, one girl reaches out and grabs his codpiece. There is an older woman who dances, but here image is juxtaposed with that of a large, hairy man. Of the two younger, thinner women who dance, the camera focuses in on their their legs and asses. In the end, box-head-guy walks out the bar door with, not one, but two ladies on his arms.
It is interesting that in both videos, there is a strong subtext of homoeroticism (unsurprisingly in the first--Richard Fairbrass in openly bisexual). In the first, there is no attempt to subvert this, and, as such, the objectification of both men and women can be seen as something of a joke, simply because the song is so ridiculous (the early 90's swag doesn't help). In the second, however, the objectification serves to reinforce masculine displays of sexuality. Instead of being seen as ridiculous, the men's willful objectification becomes self-serving when their performance impresses women. When box-dude saunters off with a couple pretty girls, we know that male objectifaction, in this context, only serves to facilitate the gratification of male sexual desire.
Does this analysis hold up? Is male objectification always accompanied by female objectification?
My Role in Pop Culture
Our
class discussion this week really got me thinking about pop culture and our
acceptance of a lot of offensive things. Many songs, TV shows and movies
perpetuate stereotypes about women and continue their oppression. Rap songs
objectify a women's body. Reality TV shows about housewives confirm stereotypes
about women as being petty and shallow. Obviously these ideas are prevalent
throughout pop culture so they are almost inescapable. Many of the things I
enjoy are not beneficial for the liberation of women. I enjoy shows like the
Real Housewives on Bravo and listen to artists like Rihanna and Lil Wayne.
Therefore, I am part of the system that is continuing these ideas. Obviously I
enjoy other things that are not negative towards women as well, and I like many
artists that do not objectify women or TV shows that have strong female
characters, but it is hard to escape that. Often times, this makes me feel bad
because I am contributing to the problem. Do I need to stop buying Rihanna's
albums because she lets herself get objectified? Should I continue to support
Beyonce because some of her songs have feminist ideas incorporated? I struggle
with how much my abstinence from watching these reality shows or buying these
albums would really make a difference. If people who are educated about
feminist ideas were to boycott these things, would it really change society? I
don't think that it will. Even without my support, these ideas will be
perpetuated. I think what is more important is to focus on consciousness. If
people are aware of the way women are represented in pop culture and we
continue to analyze these ideas, people will be more critical of what is going
on around them. And for myself, if I like a song that is negative towards women
but I am conscious of the ideas it is perpetuating, is that enough to keep me
immune to the messages?
What do you think? Do I need to actively boycott these things or is it enough to raise social consciousness? I know it would be really difficult to stop listening to artists that I enjoy that also perpetuate negative stereotypes of women. Do you think I should feel bad about it or is it just part of our society that I should make others aware of?
What do you think? Do I need to actively boycott these things or is it enough to raise social consciousness? I know it would be really difficult to stop listening to artists that I enjoy that also perpetuate negative stereotypes of women. Do you think I should feel bad about it or is it just part of our society that I should make others aware of?
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Why Can't Beyonce Put A Ring On It? And Other Concerns
Whenever I hear “All The Singles Ladies,” aside from the extreme annoyance from having heard it a million times and the sheer repetitiveness of the song itself, I am plagued with the question I asked in class I would like to discuss more in depth on the blog. Why can’t Beyonce, the strong-willed independent woman that she is, simply take the initiative, if it is what she desires, to put on a ring on her man? If she desires equality and things of that nature, why does she conform herself to such a traditional gender role as having to be the one asked for marriage rather than being proactive and breaking the role? It simply doesn’t make sense to me that she would claim all these things and then degrade herself by implicating she is not capable of being the one to put a ring on it, instead of waiting for her man to the same thing?
Also, one of the things I find humorous and would like to discuss, is the issue of Beyonce, being a “feminist” in a more generous sense of the word, and her marriage to Jay-Z. It seems to me that any feminist in any sense of the word would not devote her life and partnership with someone as famously misogynistic as Jay-Z. Is it possible for a feminist to live and respect someone who has the beliefs that he should only “thug ‘em, fuck ‘em, love ‘em, leave ‘em, cause I don’t fucking need ‘em. Take ‘em out the hood, keep ‘em looking good, but I don’t fucking feed ‘em,” or a man that has such advice as “If you’re having girl problems I feel bad for you, son. I got 99 problems but a bitch ain’t one.” While I know Beyonce only claimed to be a feminist in the loose sense of word and believes in the strength and independence of women, is it possible for her work and message to be taken seriously when she marries a man such as Jay-Z who does nothing but demoralize, degrade, and objectify women and treat them as nothing but sex toys and sub-human creatures? It seems to me that by partnering herself with such a man who has a completely contradictory message to hers she loses some of the validity and points she is trying to portray about women in the music we have been studying. Is this the case? Or can we just use the old “oh well they are both just trying to entertain people and it’s part of their business” excuse, and if we delegate it to this excuse, doesn’t it take away the meaning from her work we have been studying thus far?
Also, one of the things I find humorous and would like to discuss, is the issue of Beyonce, being a “feminist” in a more generous sense of the word, and her marriage to Jay-Z. It seems to me that any feminist in any sense of the word would not devote her life and partnership with someone as famously misogynistic as Jay-Z. Is it possible for a feminist to live and respect someone who has the beliefs that he should only “thug ‘em, fuck ‘em, love ‘em, leave ‘em, cause I don’t fucking need ‘em. Take ‘em out the hood, keep ‘em looking good, but I don’t fucking feed ‘em,” or a man that has such advice as “If you’re having girl problems I feel bad for you, son. I got 99 problems but a bitch ain’t one.” While I know Beyonce only claimed to be a feminist in the loose sense of word and believes in the strength and independence of women, is it possible for her work and message to be taken seriously when she marries a man such as Jay-Z who does nothing but demoralize, degrade, and objectify women and treat them as nothing but sex toys and sub-human creatures? It seems to me that by partnering herself with such a man who has a completely contradictory message to hers she loses some of the validity and points she is trying to portray about women in the music we have been studying. Is this the case? Or can we just use the old “oh well they are both just trying to entertain people and it’s part of their business” excuse, and if we delegate it to this excuse, doesn’t it take away the meaning from her work we have been studying thus far?
So wait, who exactly runs the world?
I think it's fairly interesting, as the bottom video points out, that Beyonce's lyrics are really just lies. Women don't run the world at all, considering mass rates of murder and sexual violence against women, sex trafficking, and rampant inequality. But is there any power to Beyonce saying that there is? If you were a young girl watching this video would you feel like you run the world. Or would you feel like you could run the world if you were Beyonce (in Africa, dancing raunchily, wearing lady gaga fashion, and blonde wigs). Yet, there are some full-figured dancers in the video which may suggest Beyonce's embracing of different body types, and a re-figuring of the usual women we see in videos, with perfect proportions. But I do think it's always worth returning to Shawna's point--that these videos are often marketed towards young women. Would this empower a young woman? Or would it make her think that power is sexuality, power is being able to grind and thrust, power is have long, flowing, BLONDE locks (it's also telling that Beyonce often wears blonde weaves). I think I'm really interested in the effects this could have on a young girl, on future feminists, that is. Also, what do you make of the African imagery? How does this compare to the videos we've been watching all week?
it's britney, bitch.
In class today we spoke briefly about the future of the next generation of women. It was suggested that women like Beyonce and Lady Gaga are doing a fair amount of psyche-shaping in the youth of today, and that their videos have deeper effects on those who have not yet decided who they wish to be. This means that these women have more responsibility as role models so that the next generation doesn't grow up to be something, well, less than productive to the feminist movement.
The problem with this, however, is that we are not allowing the next generation any volition of their own, any ability to listen and not come to their own conclusions. By this logic, we would all be products of (arguably) the biggest icon of our formative years: Britney Spears.
"I'm A Slave 4 U" came out in 2001, during the height of my middle school years, a time when many kids are searching for performances of gender outside of their family. While this song is offensive on so many levels, it is catchy, and, to the middle school eye, it appears that Britney has some power over her own sexuality (although the lyrics would suggest otherwise). Britney's antics certainly didn't begin or end with this song, but I think it's a great representation of female role models that supposedly shaped our psyches.
How much influence do we really believe these performers have on us? Is the next generation better off because of the changing face of performers, or are they harmed more by a watered-down, skewed version of feminism?
The problem with this, however, is that we are not allowing the next generation any volition of their own, any ability to listen and not come to their own conclusions. By this logic, we would all be products of (arguably) the biggest icon of our formative years: Britney Spears.
How much influence do we really believe these performers have on us? Is the next generation better off because of the changing face of performers, or are they harmed more by a watered-down, skewed version of feminism?
Friday, February 17, 2012
WTF!?!?! Can't Seem to Escape the Man
This week’s discussions spent a lot of time exploring the notion that
the female concept of sex and sexuality is one that is male-centric and
therefore none existent as it relates to the woman. During these discussions, I remember thinking that I simply
did not agree with the fact that a woman’s sexuality, and the resulting concept
of sex, revolved around the idea of a needing a man. An argument can be made
that women really do have a sense of sexuality that is more female-centric, and
that the male-centric argument discounts the fact that women have the
capability to construct their own sexuality and concept of sex independent of
the presence of the male. On first thought, there
seems to be much evidence that discounts the male-centric theory. Oh but wait a minute….is
there really?
After giving more
thought to the subject on my own time, I began to ask some similar questions
that were raised in class on my own. Questions like: Can a woman really
construct her sexuality without thinking that her partner needs to be male? Isn’t
the simple act of needing a penis, or a penis-shaped object, to bring sexual
pleasure clear evidence that the man himself, or that some object resembling
his contribution to the act of intercourse, is needed? How then does a woman
accomplish sexual pleasure without the aid of the penis? Not only did I have
trouble answering these questions on my own, but to top it all off I came
across this video on the Yahoo newsfeed…
And that video had a link to this one…
WTF!?!?! After
seeing these videos it became even more apparent to me that the case that I was
trying to make is one that is really difficult to make and make well. Both
videos suggest that there are only a few things that men find attractive and
sexy. There are only a handful of hairstyles and a handful of clothing options
open to women in order to be considered “sexy”. Is beauty not in the eyes of the beholder? Two things that I find problematic.
First, what does this say about women in general? I know plenty of women that
don’t have enough hair to put into a ponytail or the body to fit into, and look good in, the
styles of clothing made based on a woman that wears a size 2. So with me having a natural, teeny weeny afro, hair that would get me the side eye if I decided to pull the "bed head" look off, and clearly not fitting into
anything with the size of one digit….am I not attractive? Can you believe that
as I was watching both videos I was even thinking how can I get my hair in that hairstyle or
wear clothes like that? These standards are stereotypes pulled from a minority
group of women and imposed on women in general. This is so detrimental to the
healthy development of a woman’s sense of self and self-worth.
Second, this video was posted on Yahoo!’s website The Thread which is a fashion
and style website FOR WOMEN! Granted
it is okay to know what a man likes and dislikes, but to make it seem like the options are so few is not the helpful advice that women
need. Besides what one man may find attractive another may not. How about: “How to communicate to your man what YOU find attractive.” Where are the
interviews and videos on that? And even then it seems that we have to beg or
put too much effort forward to have a man go the extra mile for us as his
woman?
Needless to say,
my opinion now is completely different from the opinion I held initially. It seems
not matter what example you offer there is still some way in which a woman is
judged as it relates to a man and not that of herself. What do you think? Do
you agree or disagree? Can a woman truly and genuinely construct a healthy
concept of herself and her sexuality independent of the influence of the man?
The Dangers of Objectification
I recently participated in a long conversation with a local artist about how his music and his videos serve to objectify women. He, of course, disagreed with me. But, at the same time, contended that men, including himself, like women in professional settings because they are pretty “things” to look at. He also suggested that my feminine appearance would allow me to get ahead. At this point, I decided that it would be fun, if also infuriating, to draw this discussion out further. By the end of our conversation he tried to make the argument that rape is not more common only because men do not want to be punished, because, as you know, it is illegal to rape people.
This really concerned me. In his view, all men are predisposed to want sex. This desire is so ingrained in them that they have the urge to become aggressive if only to have their desire achieved. Their desire is so strong that they disregard the autonomy and agency of the female (or male) through which this desire is to be fulfilled. Sex becomes something that is not a mutual pleasure to be shared between consenting partners, but something that is demanded by one and fulfilled by the other, the female (or male), the object. This desire is so strong and powerful that it does not matter if ‘she’ does not share the desire, it does not matter if ‘she’ says no, it does not even matter if the act hurts another human being. He cannot be stopped by ‘her’ because ‘she’ is just an ‘it’. In fact, the only thing that can stop him is a threat to his own, personal wellbeing. The idea that the pain of the punishment could potentially outweigh the pleasure of his desire is the only thing that can stop rape.
Whereas, I do not, by any means, believe that this is the view that all men have, I do think that it clearly does exist among some. This idea illuminates the dangers that can arise from women becoming merely objects. When people become objects they lose their meaning. They becoming something that cannot be perceived as having feeling, something that cannot be empathized with, something that simple does not matter because it does not exist for its own sake, it only exists for the sake of those who objectified it. Is it as dangerous as I think it is to have men wandering the streets thinking to themselves, “Well, I could force her to have sex with me. That could be fun. But then again, I might get arrested. That seems bad.” Does this mentality actually exist? How is it perpetuated by the schemas portrayed in pornography?
Male on male
I thought it was really interesting in class how we distinguished
the rape of women from any other form of sexual in counter or any rape like the
rape of men. As we mentioned, it might be because the purity of the girl is
violated and taken away from her, or perhaps it’s because it’s using the fact
that women are most of the time weaker than men. But I thought it was
interesting how lacking the rape of men coverage in research or even on the
media and I understand it’s probably because those incidents don’t occur as
much as the attacks against women. I stumbled upon an interesting article when
searching on psych-info about the statistics and psychological damage that rape
victims go through. The article is called “Male victims of rape and sexual
abuse” and I wish I could upload the PDF here somewhere but I’m going to
highlight a few of the information pieces I found interesting in it and if any of ya'll want it I can email it to you so you can read them.
In relation to male victims and posttraumatic disorders the article
mentioned that a large sample suffer a great deal of psychological trauma which
directly causes posttraumatic stress disorder with symptoms of severe insomnia,
panic attacks, and a startled reaction. Furthermore, male victims of rape have
a huge problem of forming close relationships with adult men so the men were
found to have evidence of a fear of men and situational fears concerning men.
One really interesting piece of information I found was that the rape victims
became homophobic because many survivors feel like their attackers are
homosexuals so they have extreme negative feelings towards this issue. Moreover,
in the study they had conducted 22 of the men had attempted suicide, 13 men
reported suicidal thoughts and one man in the study committed suicide, thus,
suicide is also a strong outcome to sexual abuse and rape.
How do you feel like the rape of men is perceived socially? Are we as
judgmental of male rape victims as we are of female victims? Why do you guys
feel like these attacks are rarely highlighted in the media?
Coxell, A. W., & King, M. B. (2010). Male victims of rape and
sexual abuse. Sexual And Relationship Therapy, 25(4), 380-391.
Does your check list allow for your 'Rape Victim' status?
It would appear that each year, the society we live in has a much better attitude towards sex. While the days where sexually active women were seen as pariahs are quite gone, they aren't entirely. One of the first books I read that got me into feminist theory was The Purity Myth by Jessica Valenti. Each chapter is focused on a different aspect of sexuality in modern day America (published in 2010) and starts with a very poignant quote. One of the chapters started with a comment made by former South Dakota Senator Bill Napoli, responding to a question about what kind of woman should be "allowed" to have an abortion:
"A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated."
Just... Wow. Let us dissect this quote: to receive this special pardon she must be a rape victim (special status), but also a religious, virginal, 'saving herself' virgin. But not only must she be all of these things, she must have been "brutally" raped, and sodomized. If she was not brutally raped, would she thus not be allowed for pardon? Would her case not be as dire? What does it mean to be 'gently' raped?
We discussed in class this idea of rape victims having a special status and whether it has only a positive effect in society. Now, as Dr. J did before stating her comments on rape victims' status, let me give a comment before I say anything that can be misconstrued: rape victims are indeed violated in a way different than simply being punched in the face, they are traumatized, shamed by society and very typically confused with no idea of what to do after the event occurs. They do typically need help both physically and emotionally and I believe they should in fact get that help. However, I do not think that all rape victims get this status. Look at this quote, as I mentioned in class, the rape victim must be the 'ideal' candidate for preference. She is probably not poor and/or a minority, she can't have had sex before (especially with multiple partners) and she must have been 'brutally' raped. This idea of rape victim status reaffirms some of the traditional ideals of men versus woman: the frail beautiful girl was taken advantaged of in her submissive state and must again be saved.
I do not know what sort of solution there could be to all of these problems other than the initial problem of how our society views sexuality.
(Sidenote: http://thetyee.ca/Video/2012/02/15/SlutShamingUnderstood/ watch this great video by a 13 year old on how slutshaming harms our society. It's nice to see preteens who can reaffirm faith in the future).
Until woman are actually allowed to own their sexuality and not be branded as a slut or 'the angry feminist' there can not be real progress in this. People must be educated and aware of everything involved in sex, not just shoving it under the rug until someone does something without realizing it's implications.
"A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated."
Just... Wow. Let us dissect this quote: to receive this special pardon she must be a rape victim (special status), but also a religious, virginal, 'saving herself' virgin. But not only must she be all of these things, she must have been "brutally" raped, and sodomized. If she was not brutally raped, would she thus not be allowed for pardon? Would her case not be as dire? What does it mean to be 'gently' raped?
We discussed in class this idea of rape victims having a special status and whether it has only a positive effect in society. Now, as Dr. J did before stating her comments on rape victims' status, let me give a comment before I say anything that can be misconstrued: rape victims are indeed violated in a way different than simply being punched in the face, they are traumatized, shamed by society and very typically confused with no idea of what to do after the event occurs. They do typically need help both physically and emotionally and I believe they should in fact get that help. However, I do not think that all rape victims get this status. Look at this quote, as I mentioned in class, the rape victim must be the 'ideal' candidate for preference. She is probably not poor and/or a minority, she can't have had sex before (especially with multiple partners) and she must have been 'brutally' raped. This idea of rape victim status reaffirms some of the traditional ideals of men versus woman: the frail beautiful girl was taken advantaged of in her submissive state and must again be saved.
I do not know what sort of solution there could be to all of these problems other than the initial problem of how our society views sexuality.
(Sidenote: http://thetyee.ca/Video/2012/02/15/SlutShamingUnderstood/ watch this great video by a 13 year old on how slutshaming harms our society. It's nice to see preteens who can reaffirm faith in the future).
Until woman are actually allowed to own their sexuality and not be branded as a slut or 'the angry feminist' there can not be real progress in this. People must be educated and aware of everything involved in sex, not just shoving it under the rug until someone does something without realizing it's implications.
Sex & Sexuality
Within
the gendered sexual system, violent instances of sexuality are somewhat easy to
come by. Mackinnon states that “only 7.8 percent of women in the United States are not sexually assaulted or harassed
in their lifetimes.” Despite this statistic, acts of sexual violence are often
taken as acts of violence, separate and distinct from the sexuality that is
innately present within them. Mackinnon suggests that this conception of rape
as violence and not sex needs to be reassessed. In neglecting the sexual nature
of sexual harassment, assault, and rape, there is a blatant refusal to
acknowledge the fact that sexuality, at times, is inclusive of violent acts.
This violence is one of the reasons why sexuality is such a heavy issue for feminism.
The
employment of violence in sexuality reinforces the notion of physical and
social male dominance within patriarchy. Once again, it places women in the
submissive role. This role is reinforced time and time again through the ways
that sexuality is expressed. As Mackinnon affirms through her argument against
pornography, sex is taught in such a way that promotes the subjection and
objectification of women.
This
idea of sexual violence complicates the idea of sexuality as it reflects a physical
dominance of men over women. This causes Mackinnon to call into question the
very idea of consent. She states that women are objectified socially to the
extent that they become irrevocably linked to their sexual functions. Mackinnon
again suggests that this can be attributed largely to the way that sexuality is
depicted in pornography. She suggests that it is the “appearance of choice or
consent [in pornography], with their attribution to inherent nature, [that] are
crucial in concealing the reality of force.” This corrupts the reality of
consent in that it “legitimizes the political system by concealing the force on
which it is based.”
I
question whether or not sex is innately violent and/or oppressive. Mackinnon
does not provide any solution to the problems that she presents so I am left
wondering where to go from here. Are one’s own sexual expressions merely a
reflection of what one has been taught? If so, does this challenge the idea of
consent? While I am not sure where I stand on Mackinnon’s arguments, I can say
that they make me think about my role in the gendered sexual system.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Feminists: Warriors and Victims
Recently at a Pentagon Press Conference, General Patton announced that women would now be allowed to play a more combative role in war. What exactly this means for servicewomen is unclear. Vague language was used to articulate a slight increase in the risk-factor of the jobs available to women; More specifically, women will be allowed to serve in battalions--a group of 800 units--as non-combat personnel (i.e. radio operators, medics, and tank mechanics). The nature of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have already necessitated that women serve in these roles due to shortages in personnel. Therefore, this seems to be a situation in which policy is finally catching up with the realities of war. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are conflicts fought in guerilla style; there is no clear "front" or "rear" line. No one serving in this kind of a conflict is completely safe. As of this moment, 140 women have died in the Middle East conflicts. This begs the question: why the announcement, and why the uproar?
Many of the RNC candidates have come out against this move, even though it merely announces what has already been going on. Rick Santorum (poor guy, his last name refers to a frothy fecal-lube mixture that is sometimes a byproduct of anal sex) came out and declared this an abomination because men have a "natural" inclination to protect the "weaker sex." In other words, women would only be a distraction to "missions." Here is a video where he alludes to the emotional frailty of women. In it, he speaks of women as if they are simply hanging out: "a good, important addition." Newt and friends took similar unsurprising stances on this issue. These kinds of statements undermine the sacrifices being made my all military personal in addition to perpetuation gender stereotypes that simply have no basis in fact. Each one of these fools has essentially declared war on Iran in the build up to the presidential elections. It seems to me that they should be supporting this move that gives women more responsibility and respect (Of course, there is still quite a ways to go towards any semblance of equality in the armed forces).
Participating in the infantry is one prerequisite to advancement. The current system prevents women from serving in the infantry which, not surprisingly, inhibits to some degree their military careers. How is that fair, or just? Liz Trotta, a correspondent for yes, you guessed it, Fox News Corp, came out and accused "Feminists"--from the video it is unclear who exactly she means--for assuming the position of the victim and warrior. She sites a statistic about sexual assault: "since 2006, instances of sexual assault have increased by 64%." She then goes on to blame women for these attacks. It makes me sick, so I will just let you all check it out for yourselves.
I cannot begin to understand these comments. I included a lighter clip from the daily show mocking Trotta and her idiotic comments attempting to characterize the inherent natures of both men and women as a consequence of their anatomical compositions. While it is in jest, note all of the phallocentric language ect. They are kidding, but not really which is why it is so depressing. Check it out:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| V-Jay Jay Day - Samantha Bee's Apology | ||||
| ||||
With each class, I become less and less convinced of the so-called "differences" between men and women. I believe that anyone should be allowed to enlist, fight, and advance in the military if they so choose. But, I would love to hear what everyone thinks.
Sex Talk
In class yesterday, our conversation took a temporary shift to talking about where kids get their information about sex and discussion or the lack of discussion about sex between children and parents. This was really interesting to me because it exposed a lot of holes in the system and showed how the majority of parents aren’t open to the discussion or they are in a particular way.
We’ve all been through the infamous sexual education classes in school. However it seems like sometimes the classes are really just teasers. No real questions are answered. No real issues are talked about. Kids just have another opportunity to witness adults being uncomfortable talking about sex. Especially nowadays, kids are very curious about sex because it is so prevalent in society. It is brought up all the time and when adults remain tight lipped about it, kids are further intrigued. It seems to me that most parents would be appalled to know that their children might be looking using pornography to get some of their questions answered. So why aren’t more parents open about answering questions and promoting “sex talk”? Well, it’s awkward. It can be awkward for the parents and the kids so it is most of the time easier to just avoid it. But when things like pornography are so easily available, parents need to be even more open.
The questions I have been thinking about have to do with sexual education and the possible differences between parents talking to their son or daughter. Every family is different but I think it is safe to assume that there are many talks only a mom will have with the daughter and only a father will have with the son. When it comes to sex and developing bodies, is it important for both parents to offer their perspective? Does having an all girl or all boy conversation simply promote the view that communication between two genders about sex is taboo? Why should the overall information be presented in different ways?
We’ve all been through the infamous sexual education classes in school. However it seems like sometimes the classes are really just teasers. No real questions are answered. No real issues are talked about. Kids just have another opportunity to witness adults being uncomfortable talking about sex. Especially nowadays, kids are very curious about sex because it is so prevalent in society. It is brought up all the time and when adults remain tight lipped about it, kids are further intrigued. It seems to me that most parents would be appalled to know that their children might be looking using pornography to get some of their questions answered. So why aren’t more parents open about answering questions and promoting “sex talk”? Well, it’s awkward. It can be awkward for the parents and the kids so it is most of the time easier to just avoid it. But when things like pornography are so easily available, parents need to be even more open.
The questions I have been thinking about have to do with sexual education and the possible differences between parents talking to their son or daughter. Every family is different but I think it is safe to assume that there are many talks only a mom will have with the daughter and only a father will have with the son. When it comes to sex and developing bodies, is it important for both parents to offer their perspective? Does having an all girl or all boy conversation simply promote the view that communication between two genders about sex is taboo? Why should the overall information be presented in different ways?
Let's Talk about Sex
Sorry for the title. Anyway, below are two links relevant to our discussion yesterday. The first is a sort of mini Ted Talk by a woman named Cindy Gallop (disclaimer: it's explicit). She started a website called Make Love, Not Porn. The link to that is inside the article. Basically, she has issues with the fact that porn is becoming a substitute for sex education, and her site puts the myths of porn up next to more realistic facts about sex. The second link is to the article on the sex ed teacher who talks about the importance of pleasure in his class. His approach is really interesting.
http://blog.ted.com/2009/12/02/cindy_gallop_ma/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/magazine/teaching-good-sex.html?pagewanted=all
Both of these articles take a really different view of sex than Mackinnon. Discussion revolves around pleasure and frank discussion. There's a discussion of gender bias and the ways to achieve parity. There is no shaming and while there is a challenge to male dominance or male-centered sex, it is not a blame situation but a "make it better" discussion. The attitude about sex and sexuality acknowledges gender but privileges personal desire and experience where Mackinnon would put gender as the central issue. This sort of reminded me of the issue of trans identity in a feminist discourse that has adopted the idea of social construction. What do we do with the very real personal experiences of trans individuals? We can't minimize them, and I don't think we have the right to try and put them within the boxes of the theory we've adopted. It's the same with personal desire. To trivialize what we want in our lives by putting all of it on society and by making us victims to culture is insulting. At the same time, we can't deny that we are, to a great extent, impacted by our culture.
I agree with Mackinnon that women, and men for that matter, are fish swimming in a bowl of female objectification, but I can't agree with her that sexual desire and pleasure can be boiled down to an issue of gender discrimination or gender violence. The discussions in these articles point to an attempt to try and make sure that women and men are healthy and satisfied in their sex life, to reveal the dangers and discuss the potential benefits of pornography, and to demystify sex. I know Mackinnon's issue is that we're too deep in the fish bowl to get any clean water (sorry this metaphor might be going too far), but it seems like an open discussion of what is happening during sex and how it can be about two people (or five) and not about only one partner can only be beneficial.
What do y'all think? Do you think discussion and awareness is the answer? If not, what do you think we can do about the messages we send in sex education, contemporary culture, and pornography?
Monday, February 13, 2012
Hooters: A Business for Objectifying Women?
As I was reading through some articles on BBC.com I came across an article that focused on the closing of a Hooters restaurant in Bristol, located in Millennium Square. The restaurant opened in 2010 and was recently closed as of February 6th. The reason this story caught my eye was because a spokeswoman for the Bristol Feminist Network came forward after the closing and told audiences how pleased she was that the US restaurant chain was shut down. The restaurant, just as it is in America, featured scantily clad waitresses. The reasons for the restaurant closing involved financial reasons, such as the turnover targets were never reached. The company director, Bill McTaggart, claimed that the business did not thrive simply based on the location of the Hooters being in, “a relatively quiet part of the city centre.” This closing, however, sparked recognition in the Bristol Feminist Network. Sian Norris, a member of the network said, “I think it’s a positive step because Hooters is all part of the normalization of the sexual objectification of women.”
The women of the Bristol Feminist Network continued their remarks on how they were thrilled that the Hooters restaurant was closing. One of the comments mentioned how the restaurant, “served women up as sexual commodities.” The members of the Bristol Feminist Network were very polite in acknowledging what a shame it is that those individuals lost their jobs, but they still saw Hooters as, “outdated and does not having a place in any modern city that values equality.” Most of us have heard of Hooters, maybe seen a Hooters, or have even been to a Hooters, and seen the women in scantily clad uniforms. Do you think the uniforms are “serving women up as sexual commodities?” As you know, we have a Hooters in downtown Memphis, do you think that our “modern city” should not be supportive of the business because many would view it as not valuing equality? Why have the feminist networks in the UK spoken up against hooters, but in America, Hooters is still thriving? I’m really excited to hear what you guys think on this topic! I personally think Hooters has some good food, but I’m not sure how I feel about the issue of the uniform, so let me know what you guys think! Also, sorry for posting so early this week, I have a lot going on so I wanted to blog early when I had the chance and before I forgot to do it! Also, Happy Valentines Day!
Here is the article if you are interested in checking it out: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-16932892
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)