I really enjoyed this movie about the pressures of being male. I think it is easy to focus on the pressures of being female and the oppression that women have suffered, but it's often hard to look at the pressures of being the majority. It is such a narrow box that we seem to put males in. It's scary what ramifications there are from that small box. The correlation to the school shootings were down-right scary; some of those boys were barely teenagers! It's depressing too--how can such an ingrained thing in our culture be changed?
I thought the movie was really well done. They had a good amount of evidence and images from our media. It was interesting how bulked up men and guns have gotten over the decades. I also liked at the end how they showed a lot of positive examples of media masculinity (mcguire & sosa).
It also made me look at the males I know really well and if I saw any of this pressure in them. Some yes, some no. I don't know why it affects some people differently--why do some feel the pressure so much that they start a school shooting and why are some able to live and learn from bullying/pressures to be manly? Nature vs. Nurture? who knows?
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
virgins
Okay, my last post talked about how I really liked the Tong book and some on how I liked the Marxist/socialist chapter, but there is one thing that I definately do not agree with. Juliet Mitchell's section says "women had made sig. progress in the area of sexuality...traditional society generally condemned sexually promiscuous women as 'whores,' contemporary society offers them up as healthy role models...if contemporary society views any group of women as unhealthy, it is probably virgins" (pg. 121).
I know that she did not write that about present day women, but I definately think that her vision did not happen. There still exist 'whores,' 'sluts,' etc, and they definately still have a negative connotation. I don't see anywhere in the media them idolizing porn stars or talking about anybody's adventurous sex life in great detail and admiration. They did however idolize Jessica Simpson and her decision to wait until marriage to have sex with Nick Lachey. They held her up as a role model to younger girls--not as an unhealthy person. If sex was such a universally celebrated thing and virgins were unhealthy, there would not be the huge movement for an abstinence only sexual education. Maybe it was the surge in awareness of STDs/AIDS that kept the virgin idol, I don't know. In general I think Mitchell's idea of 'contemporary society' was just wishful thinking.
While I'm on the subject of sex in this post, one thing that continues to bother me about these feminist readings is their lack of regard for love. Again, maybe I'm just idealistic, but they are always saying that in burgoise (spelling?) especially the woman relies on the man and sexual actions, even within marriage, are like prostitution because in exchange for sex they get protection, security, and money (in the form of the man 'bringing home the bacon'). The have also said (although can't find exact part in the book) that wives are 'slave to male's carnel desire' or something to that effect. It just never says that there is any love in marriage or relationships, or having sex (esp. within marriage) for fun. Maybe it's because i've never been married or something. I just feel like they are undercutting the fact that sex can be, and should be, an act of love instead of an 'exhange of goods.' They also never talk about the fact that some men don't buy into the women aren't equal stereotype and do contribute in the household/'women' duties. I don't know, I just feel like they should look at the other side of the issue.
I know that she did not write that about present day women, but I definately think that her vision did not happen. There still exist 'whores,' 'sluts,' etc, and they definately still have a negative connotation. I don't see anywhere in the media them idolizing porn stars or talking about anybody's adventurous sex life in great detail and admiration. They did however idolize Jessica Simpson and her decision to wait until marriage to have sex with Nick Lachey. They held her up as a role model to younger girls--not as an unhealthy person. If sex was such a universally celebrated thing and virgins were unhealthy, there would not be the huge movement for an abstinence only sexual education. Maybe it was the surge in awareness of STDs/AIDS that kept the virgin idol, I don't know. In general I think Mitchell's idea of 'contemporary society' was just wishful thinking.
While I'm on the subject of sex in this post, one thing that continues to bother me about these feminist readings is their lack of regard for love. Again, maybe I'm just idealistic, but they are always saying that in burgoise (spelling?) especially the woman relies on the man and sexual actions, even within marriage, are like prostitution because in exchange for sex they get protection, security, and money (in the form of the man 'bringing home the bacon'). The have also said (although can't find exact part in the book) that wives are 'slave to male's carnel desire' or something to that effect. It just never says that there is any love in marriage or relationships, or having sex (esp. within marriage) for fun. Maybe it's because i've never been married or something. I just feel like they are undercutting the fact that sex can be, and should be, an act of love instead of an 'exhange of goods.' They also never talk about the fact that some men don't buy into the women aren't equal stereotype and do contribute in the household/'women' duties. I don't know, I just feel like they should look at the other side of the issue.
Tong-general
So over the course of this week I have been reading out of Tong, and I just have to say that I think that it is a fantastic book. I have never really thought about feminists or if I am one, until that "Hardcore Feminist" reading. This book is helping me realize how many different types of feminists there are in the world. I think that I always associated feminism with the radical feminists description in the book, so it has helped me to read about all the different types.
I have specifically read abouty liberal feminism and marxist/socialist feminism.
I liked the liberal feminism section because it discussed a lot about the history of the feminist movement. It was interesting to see how at the beginning of it when they were trying to get females to be educated like males, some feminists thought that with education females would still the abolition of slavery movement was coupled with women's rights, but the women were asked to downplay their issues so that more people would be attracted to the cause. They did, but there was an upswing in the women's movement after the civil war. In more recent days of feminism, the talked about the organization NOW and how they are a women's rights group. In this group there were lesbians trying to push through their issues, and the group on the whole did not support them because they thought is would discourage people from joining the cause. This is an exact parallel of what happened to women's rights and the freedom of slaves.
The chapter also talks about how they have moved to a more humanistic approach to feminism--meaning that men and women should strive to have both masculine and feminine characteristics. I think that in order for this to universally happen there would have to be huge paradigm shifts; I think that this is a little unlikely and too optimistic. It did not give a clear path to try and achieve this goal, it just said that that's what we should be working towards.
This is why I kind of liked the Marxist/socialist approach better. They gave a lot of clear cut examples about how to integrate women into the workforce and give them equal pay/opportunities. I learned a lot from this chapter. They talked a lot about how alienation plays a role in women's oppression; this has to to with how the woman is always working for somebody else (her man or her children), and not herself.
My favorite line (one of anyway) in the Marxist chapter was "a purely biological solution cannot resolve an essentially psychological problem." This is in response to the technological advances in reproduction and how that will make women equal.
There's so much in these chapters, it is hard to comment on them all, so I'm going to let what I've read digest a little, and then maybe I can think about it more. All in all, I really like this book--it is helping me understand feminism.
I have specifically read abouty liberal feminism and marxist/socialist feminism.
I liked the liberal feminism section because it discussed a lot about the history of the feminist movement. It was interesting to see how at the beginning of it when they were trying to get females to be educated like males, some feminists thought that with education females would still the abolition of slavery movement was coupled with women's rights, but the women were asked to downplay their issues so that more people would be attracted to the cause. They did, but there was an upswing in the women's movement after the civil war. In more recent days of feminism, the talked about the organization NOW and how they are a women's rights group. In this group there were lesbians trying to push through their issues, and the group on the whole did not support them because they thought is would discourage people from joining the cause. This is an exact parallel of what happened to women's rights and the freedom of slaves.
The chapter also talks about how they have moved to a more humanistic approach to feminism--meaning that men and women should strive to have both masculine and feminine characteristics. I think that in order for this to universally happen there would have to be huge paradigm shifts; I think that this is a little unlikely and too optimistic. It did not give a clear path to try and achieve this goal, it just said that that's what we should be working towards.
This is why I kind of liked the Marxist/socialist approach better. They gave a lot of clear cut examples about how to integrate women into the workforce and give them equal pay/opportunities. I learned a lot from this chapter. They talked a lot about how alienation plays a role in women's oppression; this has to to with how the woman is always working for somebody else (her man or her children), and not herself.
My favorite line (one of anyway) in the Marxist chapter was "a purely biological solution cannot resolve an essentially psychological problem." This is in response to the technological advances in reproduction and how that will make women equal.
There's so much in these chapters, it is hard to comment on them all, so I'm going to let what I've read digest a little, and then maybe I can think about it more. All in all, I really like this book--it is helping me understand feminism.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
The Conservative Legacy...
This article's core purpose was to talk about the differences between moral and biological conservatism. Moral conservatism says that the traditional set of family values is required for continuing life. Biological conservatism says that the traditional social roles are consistent with nature. In describing the beliefs of these conservatisms, there were quite a few ideas/quotes that angered me:
"women must exercise their erotic power over men; that is, they must offer sexual gratification to the male in exchange for his agreement to her demands for monogamy, marriage, and his roles as provider and protector"
“it is men who make the major sexual sacrifice. The man renounces his dream of short-term freedom and self-fulfillment in order to serve a woman and family for a lifetime”
"Moreover, as society gives way to unmarried mothers, lesbians, and female masturbation, men turn away from family and toward cathartic sports, violence, and drugs"
For the first two: I don't know if I'm being idealistic/too influenced by Disney or something, but this makes it sound like there is no such thing as love. What happened to sharing sex with somebody because you loved them? The first quote makes it sound like a business transaction! They both imply that men do not want love or marriage, that they would rather have random sex with multiple women then be married to one woman their entire life. While this is true for some guys, it is definately not true for all of them. This is discounting male emotions and making them all seem like chauvanistic pigs; I don't think this is fair to them.
For the third quote: Sure, sure, blame all the violence in the world on the fact that not all women are marrying men. I'm pretty sure there was violence all during the history of the world, and womens' liberation/feminism movement is recent (relatively speaking). This seems like an unfair blame and just a way to undercut the feminist movement. I also remember the article saying something about how the feminist movement is a genocide--a genocide of family. It also says that when males try to help run the household, everybody is worse off. This is just ridiculous.
Ok, here's my last main annoyance with the article. I hate it when people put in sex education in the category of womens' liberation! Last time I checked it takes two people to have sex, and ofter at least one of those people is a male. Sure sex education teaches ways of protection and alternatives to abstinence only, and some people may think this makes women 'freer' and of course will lead to drug addiction and violence from males, but it also teaches about the dangers of STDs. Both males and females get them, and if this article is anything to go by, males are programmed to have sex with multiple partners, so it is very important that he learn about STDs and how to protect himself. I know that the sources of conservatism that this article used were written in the 70s, before a lot was known about STDs, but it is still around today--how else would you explain Bush only funding abstinence only sex education classes?
Ok, that's about all for now from this article--but it did get a big reaction from me.
"women must exercise their erotic power over men; that is, they must offer sexual gratification to the male in exchange for his agreement to her demands for monogamy, marriage, and his roles as provider and protector"
“it is men who make the major sexual sacrifice. The man renounces his dream of short-term freedom and self-fulfillment in order to serve a woman and family for a lifetime”
"Moreover, as society gives way to unmarried mothers, lesbians, and female masturbation, men turn away from family and toward cathartic sports, violence, and drugs"
For the first two: I don't know if I'm being idealistic/too influenced by Disney or something, but this makes it sound like there is no such thing as love. What happened to sharing sex with somebody because you loved them? The first quote makes it sound like a business transaction! They both imply that men do not want love or marriage, that they would rather have random sex with multiple women then be married to one woman their entire life. While this is true for some guys, it is definately not true for all of them. This is discounting male emotions and making them all seem like chauvanistic pigs; I don't think this is fair to them.
For the third quote: Sure, sure, blame all the violence in the world on the fact that not all women are marrying men. I'm pretty sure there was violence all during the history of the world, and womens' liberation/feminism movement is recent (relatively speaking). This seems like an unfair blame and just a way to undercut the feminist movement. I also remember the article saying something about how the feminist movement is a genocide--a genocide of family. It also says that when males try to help run the household, everybody is worse off. This is just ridiculous.
Ok, here's my last main annoyance with the article. I hate it when people put in sex education in the category of womens' liberation! Last time I checked it takes two people to have sex, and ofter at least one of those people is a male. Sure sex education teaches ways of protection and alternatives to abstinence only, and some people may think this makes women 'freer' and of course will lead to drug addiction and violence from males, but it also teaches about the dangers of STDs. Both males and females get them, and if this article is anything to go by, males are programmed to have sex with multiple partners, so it is very important that he learn about STDs and how to protect himself. I know that the sources of conservatism that this article used were written in the 70s, before a lot was known about STDs, but it is still around today--how else would you explain Bush only funding abstinence only sex education classes?
Ok, that's about all for now from this article--but it did get a big reaction from me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)