Last night I watched “The Groomsmen,” an endearing film about a group of guys who get together the week before one of their best friends gets married. Like many movies, the film offers various characters to balance out the film: the partier, the serious one, the funny one, the insane one, and so one; but what this film really pulls off is something way deeper than that.
In the movie the men are each other’s support networks. They don’t rely on their women to solve all their problems, to cook and clean, to wipe away their tears – like is often portrayed in films. Instead, they show that men can be just as aggressive as they can be sensitive. This may not be a secret to me, but it is my contention that in general, films over-generalize and perpetuate the masculinity of its characters. So many movies have been created to show the intricate web of women whom rely on one another for love and friendship, and this film showed its audience the other side of the coin.
They do other things as well to smash the typical characteristics of men: instead of hiring a limo filled with strippers, so that the groomsmen could get blow jobs as they drove towards Atlantic City for a weekend of debauchery, they opt to play a game of softball. When one of the friends drinks too much and is about to engage in an extramarital affair, his friend reminds him of his commitment to his wife. Later, this friend wakes up to a hangover, only to have his good friend’s dad cook him a hearty breakfast. Lastly, one of the characters left town for eight years because he was afraid to tell his buddies that he is gay. As he opened up to his old pals, they all accepted him for who he is…not shoving heterosexual rhetoric down his throat.
It may seem simple, but you see, these types of films are the ones in which help women. For every man who is not able to be himself – because he must conform to societies gender role of aggressive, straight, unfaithful, unloving, insensitive, etc. – a hatred towards the norm rises, and that anger may come out in the form of abuse against women. It may also come out as a perpetuation of commidification or objectification against women...burying their sensitivity under machismo: "let’s look at women instead of dealing with our own problems."
Many experts have delved in to the subject of gender roles in American society. Nancy Chodorow's essay, "Family Structure and Feminine Personality,” highlights one way in which a perpetuation of misogyny exists. She basically says that most men are raised by their mothers or grandmothers – although this is currently changing a bit, as more men are stepping in to the stay-at-home dad role – they become FIRST accustomed to being gentle, sensitive, and so on; however they must soon step in to their SECOND stage of development in our society: the manly, masculine, aggressive, boys-are-not-allowed-to-cry mentality. This is what society expects of them (generally). In this self identification process men must see themselves as unfeminine – if they want to survive in this world – and therefore begin to scorn their mothers, and all things feminine in order to emphasize their new identity.
One has to wonder how things would be different if these gender roles – femininity and masculinity – were not extricablly assigned to a particular biological sex. Clearly a lot of people cross the “lines” all of the time: While there may be the societal definitions of both male and female, there are also people who are biologically male, but present as a female; and biological females who present as a male. There are biological females who present as a female, but identify with being male, and so on. Really, there are many combinations. Unfortunately the majority does not accept this as real.
Some states are making progressive strides towards changing this.
In Vermont this week, a bill banning the discrimination of people based on their gender or, more importantly perhaps, their gender identification, has passed their legislature, and now awaits their governor’s John Hancock. If signed, it will go in to effect July 1.
The Advocate reported on the bill and quoted a representative from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force as saying, “transgender [residents will] finally crack the dehumanizing and untenable barrier of second-class citizenship and the pervasive discrimination it encompasses."
Showing posts with label gender roles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gender roles. Show all posts
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Thursday, February 22, 2007
One Dead; One Bald
There has been an absolute confluence of news, photos, blurbs, blogs, comments, radio shows, and personal conversations surrounding two famous women in our society: Anna Nicole Smith and Britany Spears.
One is dead, and one is bald.
They are both being flattened by consumers because they are blond (well, Brittany was), busty, sexy, and have satisfied the hunger of men and women around the globe, as they have objectified themselves – giving their all to show more of their physical assets, and less of their intellect.
Both have dealt with, or are dealing with clear issues, yet the media appears to be focusing on other variables.
For instance, Smith’s claim to fame has been her numerous Playboy covers, her sultry look, her life as it mirrors that of Marilyn Monroe, the marriage to the much-older-than-her oil tycoon, and more recently, the death of her son, and the birth of her daughter.
If this were an aunt, sister or mother of any old Jane Doe in this country, red flags would be thrown up all over the place, and they should. Would the focus be on the woman’s – now dead – hotness? Should it be?
If an aunt, sister or mother of any Jane Doe in this country checked into a rehabilitation center twice, and left each time within 24 hours; went through a divorce; recently had a child but is partying harder than before becoming a mother; or drastically changing their image, red flags would also be thrown up all over the place.
What stories like this should do is bring in a plethora of articles that focus less on the individual, and more on the founding problems that got folks like Smith or Spears to this point.
From the day each of them was born they were probably put into little pink outfits, and thrown a Barbie doll.
“Play nice,” someone told them.
“Look nice,” someone else added.
“Don’t forget your doll baby.”
“Look, you can learn to cook on this Easy Bake Oven.”
“No pushing, yelling or feeling angry; you must sit and act like a lady.”
As the years go by, those one-liners turn into headlines on the cover of the woman’s bible: Cosmopolitan:
“How to do one’s hair”
“Secrets to staying young”
“How to please your man in bed, while still looking perfect”
“Thin is in”
“Blond is in”
“Don’t learn to cook; you shouldn’t even be eating”
With the foundation set, is it any wonder that women such as Spears or Smith would find it difficult to lead a life where face-value is everything? We live in a world where they have both been mocked for gaining weight, losing weight, for having hair or not (which a complete no-no because our society says that all women must have the long, flowing locks for their men – and if they don’t, they must be crazy, butch, or a bitch).
With the pressure to look great, is it any wonder that these two have sought help (if Smith’s death is ruled a suicide, and Spears multiple attempts to check into a rehab)?
The point is that there are hundreds of thousands of women out there who are being conditioned in similar ways. In order to avoid future problems the media could step up to the plate and write stories that focus on:
1. Why is it that the patriarchy still rules women’s bodies, minds?
2. How does “being pretty” tie in to sexual, drug, emotional abuse?
3. Eating disorders: why women should not have them.
4. Top ten reasons we don’t all have be white, blond, thin Barbie dolls.
5. The pressures of being a mother.
6. The pressures of being a wife.
7. Rehab: What stigmas are attached, and why don’t we stay?
8. Suicide rates among women – are you the next statistic?
9. Parents: don’t pigeonhole your kids into gender roles.
10. Women are smart, and don’t have to be objectified to be noticed.
Ok. Maybe this is too much to ask for – clearly, the world is not ready for the truths. Nope. Folks would rather flip on the tube and watch exploitive story, after story, after story about celebrities. It’s interesting because those in the limelight are constantly told of their leadership and mentor roles. However, we never reverse this role and use their issues as true insight into what it is really like to be a woman.
Don't want to take my word? Check outSexualization Of Girls Is Linked To Common Mental Health Problems In Girls And Women, a news article highlighting findings published by the American Psychological Association.
One is dead, and one is bald.
They are both being flattened by consumers because they are blond (well, Brittany was), busty, sexy, and have satisfied the hunger of men and women around the globe, as they have objectified themselves – giving their all to show more of their physical assets, and less of their intellect.
Both have dealt with, or are dealing with clear issues, yet the media appears to be focusing on other variables.
For instance, Smith’s claim to fame has been her numerous Playboy covers, her sultry look, her life as it mirrors that of Marilyn Monroe, the marriage to the much-older-than-her oil tycoon, and more recently, the death of her son, and the birth of her daughter.
If this were an aunt, sister or mother of any old Jane Doe in this country, red flags would be thrown up all over the place, and they should. Would the focus be on the woman’s – now dead – hotness? Should it be?
If an aunt, sister or mother of any Jane Doe in this country checked into a rehabilitation center twice, and left each time within 24 hours; went through a divorce; recently had a child but is partying harder than before becoming a mother; or drastically changing their image, red flags would also be thrown up all over the place.
What stories like this should do is bring in a plethora of articles that focus less on the individual, and more on the founding problems that got folks like Smith or Spears to this point.
From the day each of them was born they were probably put into little pink outfits, and thrown a Barbie doll.
“Play nice,” someone told them.
“Look nice,” someone else added.
“Don’t forget your doll baby.”
“Look, you can learn to cook on this Easy Bake Oven.”
“No pushing, yelling or feeling angry; you must sit and act like a lady.”
As the years go by, those one-liners turn into headlines on the cover of the woman’s bible: Cosmopolitan:
“How to do one’s hair”
“Secrets to staying young”
“How to please your man in bed, while still looking perfect”
“Thin is in”
“Blond is in”
“Don’t learn to cook; you shouldn’t even be eating”
With the foundation set, is it any wonder that women such as Spears or Smith would find it difficult to lead a life where face-value is everything? We live in a world where they have both been mocked for gaining weight, losing weight, for having hair or not (which a complete no-no because our society says that all women must have the long, flowing locks for their men – and if they don’t, they must be crazy, butch, or a bitch).
With the pressure to look great, is it any wonder that these two have sought help (if Smith’s death is ruled a suicide, and Spears multiple attempts to check into a rehab)?
The point is that there are hundreds of thousands of women out there who are being conditioned in similar ways. In order to avoid future problems the media could step up to the plate and write stories that focus on:
1. Why is it that the patriarchy still rules women’s bodies, minds?
2. How does “being pretty” tie in to sexual, drug, emotional abuse?
3. Eating disorders: why women should not have them.
4. Top ten reasons we don’t all have be white, blond, thin Barbie dolls.
5. The pressures of being a mother.
6. The pressures of being a wife.
7. Rehab: What stigmas are attached, and why don’t we stay?
8. Suicide rates among women – are you the next statistic?
9. Parents: don’t pigeonhole your kids into gender roles.
10. Women are smart, and don’t have to be objectified to be noticed.
Ok. Maybe this is too much to ask for – clearly, the world is not ready for the truths. Nope. Folks would rather flip on the tube and watch exploitive story, after story, after story about celebrities. It’s interesting because those in the limelight are constantly told of their leadership and mentor roles. However, we never reverse this role and use their issues as true insight into what it is really like to be a woman.
Don't want to take my word? Check outSexualization Of Girls Is Linked To Common Mental Health Problems In Girls And Women, a news article highlighting findings published by the American Psychological Association.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
A Letter to Kortni
This is a letter I wrote to a woman who is the same age as me, however, she will sit in prison until the day she dies. She is a very smart person with dreams and aspirations that have managed to survive, despite her life sentence. We have decided to chat about philosophy and society -- she is learning as much about me, as I am learning about her.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Kortni-
I have decided to write you on the computer because a). I type faster than I handwrite, and b). my handwriting can be tricky to decipher at times.
So. Thank you for the latest letter; I truly enjoy these philosophical discussions! First, let me clear up a question you had. Like you, I am a very quiet and often reserved-into-my-own-thoughts-in-public type of person. I enjoy writing, because it gives me time to think; in addition to making me feel less on the spot. I tend to blush when I talk to folks about extremely deep subjects, and therefore prefer to do a lot of thinking in writing. You can do the same if you like – particularly because we only get a minute or two in class to chat amongst ourselves.
Second, how interesting that you speak about women being too much on the level of men – leaving our femininity and replacing it with manliness. I just read a book by Ariel Levy, called, “Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture.” If you get the chance to read this, please do. The book basically says that women who take part in societies endless attack on women’s liberation – through things such as being a stripper, taking part in videos such as “Girls Gone Wild,” being overly sexual on TV, etc – are actually reversing the hard work that our earlier feminists have put in.
Meaning, the women who are engaging in the above-mentioned occupations or events think that they are empowered because we have gotten to a point in our culture where it is ok, accepted, and fun to show off our bodies. Um. No. It is not. According to Levy, these counteract the original ideas of equality because it is still a man’s world, and the ones who are getting paid off of, and being titillated are men. In various interviews, women who are strippers, etc. say they do not enjoy their jobs, and the very fact that we are commodifying women’s sexual prowlness, identity, beauty, etc. is debilitating for women on a whole.
Further, she also talks about tomboys. I am not a woman who wears makeup, deep v-necks, has manicures and pedicures, nor one who wears pink, glitter or heels. Nope. I like my brown-colored clothing, my Chucks, and wife-beater tanks. In the book, Levy says that if one is not wearing frou-frou clothing, sipping martinis, and being, well, feminine, then she is also doing her part in reversing the hard work of the feminists who came before us.
Why? Because if being equal to men means losing the identifying factors of being a female, then all we are doing (by dressing and acting the way men do) is wanting to be like men; emulating men. That is not equal, she says, instead, it is a culture of men.
Hmmm. I see her point, however, I have been educated in areas that include gender.
First, like everything else in the world, there is nothing that is black or white. While there may be the societal definitions of both male and female, there are also people who are biologically male, but present as a female; and biological females who present as a male. There are biological females who present as a female, but identify with being male, and so on. Really, there are many combinations. Therefore, I do not think that we moving towards an all-male society just because we act like men. Why? Because who said what a man is supposed to be like, look like, act like, etc? Not me. Why could it not have been that women are the aggressive population, and men are the demur ones? Why is it that we cannot move beyond the stereotypes and molds that some culture hundreds of years back set up? The answer is simple. In order to maintain the status quo of male culture, power, and enslaving women to their duties of motherhood, housewife, homemaker, etc – even in the career world women still only make 80 cents to every dollar a man makes.
How interesting that an author such as Levy thinks she is empowering her audience by telling them that their prowlness is not for themselves, but for men at large; but in actuality, what she is doing is perpetuating the stigma and role that we are supposed to play. How many folks in prison portray their femininity – make sure their hair is in place, their makeup is on every morning, no fighting, cussing, eat only salad, etc? Is it scary for you to be around that many women who look like men (as you put it in your letter)? What do you think about my argument about the tags we stick on biological males and females? Can we eliminate them without losing equality?
Next, without getting into the same Marx discussion, I wanted to thank you for your thoughts on the Conflict Theory. As you could clearly see, America is most certainly a mirror – many fake truths and mirages lie in our paths. And while it is easy to simply attempt to avoid the pitfalls, often, we are so pigeon-holed into stereotypes – regarding race, class, age, sex, orientation, and so on – that actually moving up the ladder is very hard. And when one does – because often society allows whose who “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” to be respected because of their hard work – as soon as they mess up, this country will punish them by drudging up the old stereotypes.
You asked if I am a captain; if I hold the power to control. Yes and no. I have worked hard – and continue to strive daily to educate myself, reach deep into the foundations of our society and uncover the truths, break down walls, etc. – yet I am still a woman who comes a family with no money, who is the second kid in my family to graduate from college (my YOUNGER sister completed her degree a year before me), who was raised by a single mother, who has addicts in her family, whose OLDER sister is a lost soul who has abused her body through prostitution and drugs for so long that it weighs heavy on my heart and shoulders…these details are part of me, and they marginalize me, and stigmatize me. In many ways, I embrace them because without someone telling me what I supposed to be, I would never find the words to fight that mold. In that way, I am my own captain – but in so many other ways, we are all captains of one another. As the saying goes, we do not live on our islands – instead we must work, live, learn and embrace each other.
Anyways, I hope you have a great holiday, and I look forward to hearing your response to all of the topics mentioned above. You are a wonderful, intellect who deserves the best in life. May you find the strength to continue the struggle.
All the best,
Bonnie
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Kortni-
I have decided to write you on the computer because a). I type faster than I handwrite, and b). my handwriting can be tricky to decipher at times.
So. Thank you for the latest letter; I truly enjoy these philosophical discussions! First, let me clear up a question you had. Like you, I am a very quiet and often reserved-into-my-own-thoughts-in-public type of person. I enjoy writing, because it gives me time to think; in addition to making me feel less on the spot. I tend to blush when I talk to folks about extremely deep subjects, and therefore prefer to do a lot of thinking in writing. You can do the same if you like – particularly because we only get a minute or two in class to chat amongst ourselves.
Second, how interesting that you speak about women being too much on the level of men – leaving our femininity and replacing it with manliness. I just read a book by Ariel Levy, called, “Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture.” If you get the chance to read this, please do. The book basically says that women who take part in societies endless attack on women’s liberation – through things such as being a stripper, taking part in videos such as “Girls Gone Wild,” being overly sexual on TV, etc – are actually reversing the hard work that our earlier feminists have put in.
Meaning, the women who are engaging in the above-mentioned occupations or events think that they are empowered because we have gotten to a point in our culture where it is ok, accepted, and fun to show off our bodies. Um. No. It is not. According to Levy, these counteract the original ideas of equality because it is still a man’s world, and the ones who are getting paid off of, and being titillated are men. In various interviews, women who are strippers, etc. say they do not enjoy their jobs, and the very fact that we are commodifying women’s sexual prowlness, identity, beauty, etc. is debilitating for women on a whole.
Further, she also talks about tomboys. I am not a woman who wears makeup, deep v-necks, has manicures and pedicures, nor one who wears pink, glitter or heels. Nope. I like my brown-colored clothing, my Chucks, and wife-beater tanks. In the book, Levy says that if one is not wearing frou-frou clothing, sipping martinis, and being, well, feminine, then she is also doing her part in reversing the hard work of the feminists who came before us.
Why? Because if being equal to men means losing the identifying factors of being a female, then all we are doing (by dressing and acting the way men do) is wanting to be like men; emulating men. That is not equal, she says, instead, it is a culture of men.
Hmmm. I see her point, however, I have been educated in areas that include gender.
First, like everything else in the world, there is nothing that is black or white. While there may be the societal definitions of both male and female, there are also people who are biologically male, but present as a female; and biological females who present as a male. There are biological females who present as a female, but identify with being male, and so on. Really, there are many combinations. Therefore, I do not think that we moving towards an all-male society just because we act like men. Why? Because who said what a man is supposed to be like, look like, act like, etc? Not me. Why could it not have been that women are the aggressive population, and men are the demur ones? Why is it that we cannot move beyond the stereotypes and molds that some culture hundreds of years back set up? The answer is simple. In order to maintain the status quo of male culture, power, and enslaving women to their duties of motherhood, housewife, homemaker, etc – even in the career world women still only make 80 cents to every dollar a man makes.
How interesting that an author such as Levy thinks she is empowering her audience by telling them that their prowlness is not for themselves, but for men at large; but in actuality, what she is doing is perpetuating the stigma and role that we are supposed to play. How many folks in prison portray their femininity – make sure their hair is in place, their makeup is on every morning, no fighting, cussing, eat only salad, etc? Is it scary for you to be around that many women who look like men (as you put it in your letter)? What do you think about my argument about the tags we stick on biological males and females? Can we eliminate them without losing equality?
Next, without getting into the same Marx discussion, I wanted to thank you for your thoughts on the Conflict Theory. As you could clearly see, America is most certainly a mirror – many fake truths and mirages lie in our paths. And while it is easy to simply attempt to avoid the pitfalls, often, we are so pigeon-holed into stereotypes – regarding race, class, age, sex, orientation, and so on – that actually moving up the ladder is very hard. And when one does – because often society allows whose who “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” to be respected because of their hard work – as soon as they mess up, this country will punish them by drudging up the old stereotypes.
You asked if I am a captain; if I hold the power to control. Yes and no. I have worked hard – and continue to strive daily to educate myself, reach deep into the foundations of our society and uncover the truths, break down walls, etc. – yet I am still a woman who comes a family with no money, who is the second kid in my family to graduate from college (my YOUNGER sister completed her degree a year before me), who was raised by a single mother, who has addicts in her family, whose OLDER sister is a lost soul who has abused her body through prostitution and drugs for so long that it weighs heavy on my heart and shoulders…these details are part of me, and they marginalize me, and stigmatize me. In many ways, I embrace them because without someone telling me what I supposed to be, I would never find the words to fight that mold. In that way, I am my own captain – but in so many other ways, we are all captains of one another. As the saying goes, we do not live on our islands – instead we must work, live, learn and embrace each other.
Anyways, I hope you have a great holiday, and I look forward to hearing your response to all of the topics mentioned above. You are a wonderful, intellect who deserves the best in life. May you find the strength to continue the struggle.
All the best,
Bonnie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
