September 22, 2008
Headlines that make you go…huh?
That’s the September 11, 2008 headline of an article about Jaime Nared, the 12 year-old basketball phenom who, back in May, was curiously kicked off of a previously mixed-gender basketball team (the league citing old rules barring coed teams) after she clearly demonstrated she was “too good” to be on the team–she makes the boys look “bad.”
Scary? The article is about how good she is, what potentiaal she has, and how she struggles to find appropriate peers to play with and against. How about describe her as “amazing”? “Phenomenal”? “Incredible” Why “scary”?
Scary she’s so good…because she’s female? Scary that her talent and physical blessings (she’s 6’1″) threaten a male-dominated sport, that women are rapidly becoming more visible in? How about scary that she seems expected to apologize for her talent, her drive, her interest, her skill, her motivation…
Scary that “female” and “exceptional athleticism” still are assumed to be contradictory terms.
September 16, 2008
Desperately seeking female superheroes
Check out this great article over at The American Prospect:
“Progress is slow and often nonexistent,” [Joss, of Buffy fame] Whedon said. “There’s plenty of cool comics with female characters. … But all it takes is one Catwoman to set the cause back a decade.”
He was bemoaning failed superheroine movies that slathered on high camp and special effects while dumbing down their characters. Both 2004’s Catwoman (starring Halle Berry) and 2005’s Elektra (starring Jennifer Garner) were critical and commercial flops because they didn’t embrace the fact that their characters are complicated anti-heroes; neither movie dares to make its heroine really bad or really good and neither movie ends up being very interesting.
Movie studios put out female-led superhero films with poor character writing (and in bad calendar timing, as the article goes on to say), then says there’s no market.
Reminds me of the crappy games put out for women that don’t have much playership, or noting that women don’t want to buy the sexist action games, then saying there’s no female market.
Someone needs to read the Halthor Legacy.
Related previous post: Entertainment and ‘Choice’
I want a female superheroine. I just hope she’s wearing clothes and cool, sensible shoes.
September 13, 2008
Questionable conclusions
The recent article from the New York Times, “As Barriers Disappear, Some Gender Gaps Widen”
discusses a scientific study that I find highly questionable. Apparently, the same-old gendered personalities keep resurfacing in personality tests. Psychologists disagree on the origin of the differences: evolutionary vs. socialization. The article asserts that the latter believes that
personality differences will shrink as women spend less time nurturing children and more time in jobs outside the home.
So the effect of “traditional gender roles” will be eradicated when women are in the workforce more and do child care less? That seems overly optimistic at best, naieve and ignorant about the pervasiveness of gender socialization at worst. But that’s not my real critique.
Several research groups have been studying personality tests sorted by gender on a global basis, and have found that the gender gap in personality tests is smaller in countries that have “more traditional” cultures. What I think they mean by poorly-worded and undefined “traditional” is less industrialized and perhaps more institutionally religious. Because the U.S. sure has a kind of “traditional culture” too–of capitalism and consumerism. What their designation really refers to, in my view, is cultures that are more obviously and directly patriarchal, since the article says,
A husband and a stay-at-home wife in a patriarchal Botswanan clan seem to be more alike than a working couple in Denmark or France.
But again, not my main point.
Since this seems counterintuitive to researchers–surely, our more “advanced” societies, full of legal equality and post-post-industrial economies and wealth coming out of our asses should have less gender disparity in individual personalities. So after another study, looking at 40,000 people, on researcher has concluded that
as wealthy modern societies level external barriers between women and men, some ancient internal differences are being revived.
(I think he meant to say “less external legal barriers.”)
The very next statement in the Times article completely contradicts the researcher’s own conclusion, if you actually think about it:
The biggest changes recorded by the researchers involve the personalities of men, not women. Men in traditional agricultural societies and poorer countries seem more cautious and anxious, less assertive and less competitive than men in the most progressive and rich countries of Europe and North America.
Gee, assertiveness, competitive, lack of concern….surely the presence of these qualities has nothing to do with, for one, western constructions of masculinity?! And what is the implication then, that non-western, less industrialized male populations are too “feminine”? I thought the anti-feminist work of Kathleen Parker already told us that feminism has emasculated American men?! The study itself says the following:
masculinity–femininity describes the extent of emphasis on work goals (earnings, advancement, and assertiveness) as opposed to interpersonal goals (friendly atmosphere, getting along with the boss) and nurturance (higher masculinity–femininity scores reflect masculinity)
Interestingly, but not unsurprisingly, a very Western definition of gender. No wonder “traditional” cultures, that may not make the gendered public/private divide the same way it has been made in industrial and post-industrial American culture, seem to have less gendered personalities. The researchers used a cultural definition of gender as a neutral “fact” of “sex” and then applied them to other nations and cultures whose notions of gender are likely different, and not because they are “less than.” (see p. 172 of the study for more equally problematic indicators of gender equality). I’ll come back to this ethnocentrism. Read the rest of this entry »
July 23, 2008
Guest post: A feminist gamer looks at gender issues in the gaming industry
I have asked Cassandra from No Little Lolita to do some occasional guest blogging about gender and gaming. It is an area I’m very interested in, but not being a gamer myself, can’t give it the treatment it deserves. So I’ve asked Cassandra to fill in that gap here at Don’t you wish your girlfriend was smart like me? Please engage her ideas in the comments with respect.
-lindabeth
Hi, my name is Cassandra – I post on No Little Lolita, a blog about popular culture, teenage years and feminism, gaming, and the pursuits and hobbies of a young Canadian feminist. I’m guestblogging to talk a little about the huge problems in the gaming industry, and why they affect women – even those who aren’t gamers.
We’ve recently entered a ‘new generation’ of gaming, and it’s only show how persuasive the siren song of gaming is. The Nintendo Wii broke records when it was launched – it was the first console that appealed to people beyond gamers, and the inventive remote with add-ons seemed more welcoming and approachable than the controllers of their competitors – the Playstation 3 and the Xbox 360. In contrast, the Xbox 360 and the PS3 seem to be in a market of their own – both of them are powerhouses that appeal to the ‘hardcore’ gamer and boast libraries of games that’ll last you tens upon tens of hours full of deep storylines and complex gameplay.
With this new interactive art form taking center stage, it would be great if we could shed the tired tropes and disgusting stereotypes that show up constantly in movies and on TV. Gaming is a medium that boasts large amounts of interactivity and choice – wouldn’t it be great if the writing was excellent without leaning on racist or sexist stereotypes, the action was tight without being pandering or offensive, and the characters were engrossing and sympathetic and yet realistic and enjoyable to play?
Unfortunately, it seems that most studios either don’t have the capacity or the willpower to create games that fulfill these expectations. Most games have either a shallow story, with the main objective being ‘blow this up’, or rely on stereotypes and tropes when they bother to develop the characters or the storyline at all. Female characters are reduced to simpering, slender sexpots relying on the main character while being just feisty enough to rile him up more often than not – that is, when they even exist. Even when a female is the main character of a game, she is usually designed to be attractive, available and open to possible advances – she’s tough, but not so tough that your average gamer would be threatened! The main character of a game is more often than not white, male, and straight. Often he’s taking down terrorists or criminals or some unsavory group while some female sighs over his hunkiness, and his POC sidekick serves as comic relief. The art form, so far, is heteronormative, overwhelmingly white, and sexist.
The gaming market has produced some feminist-friendly games for sure – the Mario games are a safe bet, the Metal Gear Solid games have a large cast with both genders, and even though the games are set around the American – Russian – Chinese conflict, the third game had a black support member who helped the protagonist on his solo mission talk about his experiences facing racism from the private corporations in America in the 60s; not something you would hear discussed in most media forms of any sort. But for the large part, games are like a gigantic soggy sandwich: you watch the preparation as you starve and drool, you rationalize “It’s still good! It’s still good!” even after the waitress dumps a glass of water over it, but you give up after having a few bites and mourn over what could have been.
There has to be reasons for this: it’s not like a game is somehow functionally incapable of being feminist. Let’s examine some of the prominent reasons as to why we have these complaints: Read the rest of this entry »
July 13, 2008
Hey, NYT: Gender politics are not a ‘lifestyle’
As much as it made me nauseous to read Kathleen Parker’s quotes in New York Times‘ recent review of hers and Jessica Valenti’s new(ish) books, it made me even more ill to see that, yet again, gender politics have been relegated to the “Style”-“Fashion & Style” section. That section is also home to “Dining & Wine,” “Home & Garden,” “Weddings/Celebrations,” and “TMagazine.” The subheader to the review title “Endangered Species or Still the Enemy?” (because clearly gender is either akin to biological survival or war) is “Books of Style.”
Books of style? Gender issues have incredible political, economic, and social implications, and books discussing them are ‘books of style’? Seriously, WTF?! Or should I have expected this from a review that uses the antiquated and inaccurate term “battle of the sexes” to describe the problems these books address.
I may be going out on a limb here, but shouldn’t this book review be in, um, books?
Dear New York Times,
Book about gender issues are books. They are neither style nor fashion, lifestyle nor ‘non-news.’ They are not frivolous, expendable, or irrelevant. Gender studies texts are important, provocative, meaningful, and essential books.
Please list them in the “Books” section.
Sincerely,
lindabeth
July 3, 2008
AT & T and gender: commercial critique part 1
Is anyone besides me really annoyed by the latest AT & T Wireless commercial campaign? They sure say a lot about gender expectations and values vis-a-vis gender and behavior.
The “alter ego” commercials (or so they are dubbed on youTube) have one version of the commercial’s subject talking to the camera and one acting out a scene in the background. The person talking to the camera is saying how someone doesn’t have AT &T, therefore they have no reception, therefore something awful is happening to them, represented by the storyline being acted out in the background.
“Kelly’s Dad” was the first one I saw that I really didn’t like. Like most other annoying representation of stereotyped assumptions, I rolled my eyes and said “great.” But after several more commercials from AT & T that feed unhealthy gender assumptions and values, a pattern has emerged. Read the rest of this entry »
June 28, 2008
Entertainment and ‘choice’
A recent thought I had on entertainment and choosing:
We all like (need?) to be entertained: all genders, sexualities, races, etc.
The sad truth is, we have to choose from what is out there. Sometimes people of progressive sensibilities have to “overlook” things in entertainment that are problematic in order to be able to relax and, well, be entertained.
This is why I am really sick of the following defense/excuse for systematic problematic representations and constructions of “otherness” (non-white/male/middle-class/heterosexual) in entertainment or simply of certain titles in entertainment:
“[insert marginalized group here] watch it/play it/buy it/read it therefore:
- there’s no problem with the ideology perpetuated
- it accurately represents what said people want
- said people enjoy it every aspect of the entertainment”
The bottom line is that we can only be entertained from what’s out there, and what we like and want is heavily informed by what already exists. If every movie I saw was problem-free, I would rarely go to the movies. Just because people consume entertainment doesn’t absolve their -Isms.** I often decline from supporting and entertainment that is even a bit sexist/heterosexist/racist, etc., and I am fine with giving it up but many other people don’t make that sacrifice and that is 100% their prerogative. But that cannot be interpreted to mean that all entertainment consumed by marginalized individuals is not in any way offensive or problematic. Not to mention that oftentimes the problematic nature of some entertainment isn’t known until after spending the $$; thus, when commercial success=implied condoning, the damage is often already done, which makes public critique our primary way of making our disgust known.
Example: this, for me, especially applies to hetero women and porn, of women having resources for sexualized men. women want erotic imagery but the vast majority of images and films are targeted for heterosexual men, and often involve ideologies that progressive women find objectionable. More and more there are non-sexist, non-racist material available, but they are often hard-to-find and are almost never “free” (whereas men wanting “traditional” material have very easy and free access to material that is quite suitable for them). Therefore, many women (or prog-men), who want to satisfy their desire for erotic material, “settle” for traditional material and try to “look over” the deficiencies. Or many cope by occupying the male observer’s standpoint, and sexualize the female involved, thus they may be consuming and enjoying mainstream erotic imagery, but are deprived sexualized male bodies. In other words: when it comes to porn, women who want and enjoy porn as a category have to simply choose between the options they are given, which may or may not actually be 100% what they want. It’s just what’s easily (or freely) available.
Back to entertainment “in general”: These assumptions are further problematic:
- Sexism/racism/homophobia/xenophobia/heteronormativity in entertainment is appropriate because it simply reflects the “truth” of what an identity group “wants” (i.e. sexism is ok because these games are “for men.”): -Isms are not just a “personal preference.
- “Got a problem with it? Don’t buy it/play it/watch it!”: see above and also **above.
- These are the kinds of entertainment that sell: ever think to question how much money and other resources goes into developing entertainment that is non sexist/racist/heteronormative etc? Or how such entertainment is marketed?
Entertainment for guys (read: straight guys) is only defined as such because of the sexism/heterosexism involved. There is no reason why women and gay men can’t enjoy certain entertainment, and they shouldn’t have to put up with BS hetero/sexism to do so. Take games for example. Games that would appeal to guys do not need objectification and homophobia. That is not the reason why guys play these games. Instead, they function to outline the proper audience for these games and to reaffirm hetero-masculine identity. And the fact that women play these games serves as “evidence” that women don’t mind or that women enjoy the roles they are given in these games. As I’ve been trying to show in this post, these are misguided conclusions/assumptions. But since women do choose to play these games (since there are little if any sexism-free equivalent alternatives) there is no incentive to make their games differently since it clearly isn’t affecting their bottom line. But women and queer gamers do voice their dissatisfaction. And the solution is not to make some second-class, underdeveloped alternatives that rely on pathetic tropes and stereotypical marketing (see this Broadsheet article that in part prompted me to write this post today). For example: if women only have the choice between lame-assed girl-games and more complex and interesting games with implicit or overt sexism, women choosing the former does not necessarily mean that’s what “women want” (they may in fact be so sick of the sexism in most games) or that their choosing the latter means that the sexism is acceptable to them.
Bottom line: what we “choose” is not always what we want. It’s just what we have to choose from. And what we want for the most part comes from somewhere-it is shaped by what’s available.
On a related note, keep an eye out next week for a guest post on current issues in gaming!
(cross-posted to The Reaction)
June 16, 2008
Iron Man review
I just saw Iron Man today and I wanted to write a mini-review while it was still fresh. Semi-spoilers below.
The Tony Stark character is reprehensible. My stomach was on fire after the 1st 15 minutes; I asked my partner “I sure hope his superhero actions redeem him.” By that, I meant does he see the jerk of a human being that he was? The answer is yes and no.
The beginning sets up the kind of person that Stark is. He a sexist womanizer. He sees every woman as a sexual conquest. He doesn’t know their names and doesn’t care. He treats professional women as nothing serious–only as sex objects.
His views on military weapons comes out when an attractive female reporter questions him about his company’s support of the war industry. His responses were unapologetically pro-weapons and throughout he propositions her to have sex. She continues to stand her ground, ignoring his sexism and asking the tough questions. She’s well spoken and savvy. We find out she’s Brown educated. Then we find her going to bed with him.
The movie is about his change of heart regarding the effect that weapons have on international relations. His creation–Iron Man–is to rectify his participation in the war machine. Which was great: I love the weapons critique aspect of the story. (See this review for good commentary on the “good vs. bad” weapons users and the “us vs. them” dichotomy that I felt in the film but didn’t know quite what I made of it.) I think the movie as a whole is pretty good, with some predictability and far-fetched aspects (i.e. why would the Afghan militia men put Stark, a weapons designer, in a room with tons of weaponry supplies unattended?)
But he never rectifies his sexist approach to women. Read the rest of this entry »
May 14, 2008
The presidential election and masculinity
Stephen Ducat’s recent Huff-Po article, “Revenge of the Wimp Factor: The Ironies of Proving Manhood in the Democratic Primary” is a fascinating read. He starts off with a very accessible summary of psychoanalytic theory on the phallus as a central organizing term of utmost importance and value, while actually being illusory.
In terms of elections, Ducat says:
In spite of being an evanescent hallucination, political consultants spend much of their time trying to paint a phallus on their candidate. […] In most electoral contests, the question is often “who’s the man?” And the manner in which political manhood gets displayed is tiresomely predictable: macho chest beating, posing with the fetish objects of anxious masculinity (trucks, big machines, and even bigger weapons), humiliating your opponent with castrating insults, calling into question his or her ability to be tough, ruthless, and merciless with the designated enemy of the moment — in short, phallic strutting.
He continues by showing how Sen. Clinton has made herself into the archetypal procurer of the phallus and all it represents, a representation that began by conservatives when she was First Lady, who also represented Pres. Clinton as feminized and emasculated. These representations were negatives for Clinton-as-First Lady, but as used by her campaign as positives.
Ducat makes the important point:
Some may ask a very reasonable feminist question that could challenge this argument: why must toughness, Machiavellianism, combativeness, or even swaggering bellicosity be viewed as masculine? They certainly needn’t. But it is, as we have seen, Hillary Clinton herself, along with her surrogates, who have explicitly gendered those traits in the campaign. As the oleaginous Clinton loyalist, James Carville, has said, if Mrs. Clinton gave Obama one of her testicles, “they’d both have two.” (emphasis mine)
I think this is an excellent point, and refers to the very limiting patriarchal constructions of masculinity and of civic competence specifically. One thing I’m wondering is if her phallic posturing is in part a response to the media’s sexist approach to her being a female candidate (see Shakeville’s series, currently on part 91), on top of the phallic seeming-requirement in politics and a way to avoid “the link American men have always made between effeminacy and aristocratic manners and privilege.”
Then there’s the representation of Sen. Obama:
More recently, we have the example of Barack Obama, the black candidate raised by a poor single mother, being called an “elitist” because of his grace, equanimity, intellect, dismal bowling performance, and reluctance to completely inhale his Philly cheese-steak. This, along with his willingness to negotiate with enemies, we are told, should lead us to question whether he’s man enough to be commander in chief […] Barack Obama stands in stark contrast to the attitude of the Clinton campaign. His guiding political ethos has always been one of bridging but not overlooking divisions, while privileging dialogue, debate, and negotiation over conquest. This is not only a new politics. It is a new masculinity, one that is inclusive of those panhuman qualities previously disowned and projected onto women.
And isn’t that a version of political and civic leadership that could provide space for women’s participation and challenge traditional masculinity while also producing a politics that’s more respectful and just, decent?
May 11, 2008
Recent sports articles remind us that female athletes are (sexual and maternal) women first
First, from Feministing:
The Chicago Tribune online story with this headline:
“WNBA offers advice to rookies: Trying to expand fan base by marketing its players, the WNBA for the first time offers rookies lessons in fashion and makeup”
Yes, you read that right. According to the story, one-third of the WNBA rookie orientation offered makeup and fashion tips. Other seminars included “financial advice, media training and fitness and nutrition”.
“I think it’s very important,” said Candace Parker, the Naperville product who was the league’s No. 1 draft pick out of Tennessee. “I’m the type who likes to put on basketball shorts and a white T, but I love to dress up and wear makeup. But as time goes on, I think [looks] will be less and less important.”
[…]
NBA rookies go through a similar orientation, although their off-court conduct is stressed far more than their wardrobe or physical appearance.
What’s unfortunate is it’s true. Female athletes are not only judged as athletes but are also judged for their adherence to conventional “femininity” (as I’ve written about elsewhere). Some of this happens in the way women’s sports is reported and discussed, and some of it is brought on by the ad campaigns female athletes participate in. While part of their participation in objectifying ads is likely for the income opportunity, I think part of it too is as a way for female athletes to “prove” (via social validation) that despite their physical strength and athletic bodies, they are still “sexy” and “feminine”. Since, of course, being sexually desirable according to socially prescribed standards is the ultimate standard of a woman’s worth.
From the Tribune:
Susan Ziegler, a Cleveland State professor of sports psychology, said disparity in wages and media coverage between male and female athletes, along with a battle against perceived negative stereotypes, are factors in marketing female sports figures for their physicality rather than their athletic assets.
Need examples? Read the rest of this entry »
May 9, 2008
Petition against Dairy Queen for sick and offensive commercial
Thanks to commenter Lee Phillips for alerting me to this petition against this Dairy Queen commercial. even though I spoke more to the gender assumptions rather than the sexualization of kids (a critique to which I say a loud “I agree! of course!” to). From the petition:
The Diary Queen Corporation has just started a new television ad which encourages adults to see young children as sexually seductive. In this commercial, a young girl (about age 8 or 9) decides to intentionally flirt with, and seduce a young boy (about the same age) into buying her a sundae (in the same manner that a man would buy a drink for a romantic interest at a singles bar.) Once the little girl has won the sundae (compliments of the smitten boy) via making “goo goo” eyes at him, she then turns to her mother and says, precociously, “It’s just like shooting fish in a barrel.” In this commercial Dairy Queen cynically seeks to exploit and sexualize young children, in order to sell ice cream.
Dairy Queen seems to have no awareness, or no concern, that our society increasingly sexualizes young children. One only need consider children’s increasing preference for seductive dress, the increasing incidence of pre-teenage anorexia, and body distortion problems, and events like the Joan Benet-Ramsey case to get a sense that our children’s innocence is under attack. Sexualizing children not only puts unhealthy pressure on them and compromises the quality and joy of their childhood, but it also arouses the pruriant interest of pedophiles. Such messages suggest that “permission” is given, and that children welcome sexual encounters.
May 6, 2008
What’s up with the new Dairy Queen commercial?
I just had to write about this.
Anyone else besides me think this new Dairy Queen commercial is pretty fucked up?
Coming from a young child: flirting with a little boy to get free stuff is “like shooting fish in a barrel.” Great. We’re back to unabashedly encouraging girls (and women) to use their femininity to take advantage of men’s apparent “natural weakness” for women. And this manipulative ability and tendency inevitably comes naturally for women–hell, a girl doesn’t even need to learn this. Hear that? It’s easy–just part of who we are, apparently. Talk about valorizing and naturalizing benevolent sexism.
How many awful, reprehensible gender stereotypes does the whole idea of this commercial reinforce?
To me, it’s flat-out anti-feminist.
Any thoughts out there?
(Cross-posted to The Reaction)
April 14, 2008
McCain defends masculinity by resorting to sex-based insults
OK, so this has been mentioned everywhere, but in The Real McCain by Cliff Schecter, he claims that McCain responded to his wife’s comment about his hair thinning by calling her a ‘cunt.’
From the book, via Feministing:
At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain’s hair and said, “You’re getting a little thin up there.” McCain’s face reddened, and he responded, “At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt.” McCain’s excuse was that it had been a long day.
For the record, trollop means “prostitute” or “promiscuous woman.”
(Interestingly, dictionary.com phrases this to imply that a prostitute is a particularly promiscuous woman, as if prostitution as sex work and individual promiscuity for one’s own pleasure -not work- are in fact conceptually related).
See my previous posts on sexed bodies and gendered insults, and on gendered language more generally.
No further comment required.
April 6, 2008
The More Things Change…
The more they stay the same…
Check out these advice nuggets from 1950’s mags. Sound familiar? Via F-Word.org: Food, Fat, Feminism.
And here’s a snippet from Jean Kilbourne’s Killing Me Softly 3 that I found on Youtube. She’s been doing research about media imagery and women’s sexuality and identity for 30 years. And it’s pathetic how much things don’t change. I recommend checking out her film (in lots of libraries!) and her book, Can’t Buy My Love (in my Amazon book picks).
(NOTE: nothing more after the jump)
April 3, 2008
Great NPR Commentary on "Horton" and gender
Living in Canada, I listen to NPR online when I can. Almost every show is available online and you can listen at any hour. I love NPR. And I love Peter Segal, host of “Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me!” their weekly news quiz show with a panel of known comedians (such as PJ O’Rourke, Mo Rocca, and Paula Poundstone) where you get rewarded for your current events geekdom (which used to be called “civic engagement”) with being able to laugh at the jokes.
So check out this great (and quick!) commentary from Peter Segal on how the revised plotline of “Horton Hears a Who” is just the same-old Hollywood gender shaping. Nothing better than a father (of girls) genuinely pissed off at the flat representations of them in movies.
My favorite part:
Have the clowns who made this movie ever met a daughter? Have they dated one? If they did, did they meet the daughter’s father? Did they then ask that daughter’s father if there was anything more dramatic, interesting, arresting, and moving to him than his relationship with his daughter? Did they ask him if he might find that a close relationship with said daughter might be something he would care about? What do they imagine that we do — sit around, and watch our daughters grow and change and suffer and fail and triumph — and idly wish for something more INTERESTING?
And while you’re at it, check out Dads and Daughters.
April 1, 2008
Positive Sports Reporting
Since I last week gave a mini-rant about the sport and gender–how female athletes are represented in that their are either sexualized, passive, and looking “feminine” while playing sports (i.e. the beauty and grace-not strength-in tennis, the media and advertising images of female athletes), OR how they are distinguished from “proper” female bodies and their activities (i.e. the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue), and how this is consistent with the way that women’s accomplishments and skills are persistently assessed–I thought this was worth a nod. Via Feministe, the New York Times in reporting about female athletes used photographs of female athletes in action and on its front page. And not in grace and poise, but in raw strength and power of athletic activity.
Significantly, one of the stories was not even relating to a sport activity-the ideal opportunity to emphasize the beauty and femininity of the athlete over her athleticism. But they didn’t.
This anomaly doesn’t mean that sexism and heteronormative gender-production in sport doesn’t exist. This isn’t “proof” of any sort. Gender and sport (and I’m talking more about representation of women than participation of women in sport) is a big concern on mine, and I expect it is something I will continue to address.
But props where props are due.
And as Jill @ Feministe said,
I just keep repeating to myself: Baby steps.
March 9, 2008
Another interesting perspective on patriarchy hurting men
I’ve been a little more MIA lately than I intended to be. I had a week off from class at the end of February and went to New York City, and now I’m getting into the busy time at school when I have to start thinking about my course paper and am feeling the pressure of writing my thesis….
So here’s a quick post about another post and comments to it that I found interesting.
Posted on Shakesville, “Robbing the Hearts of Men” is speaking about patriarchy hurting men. It’s an excellent read, along with the comments on the post.
A few of my thoughts (and I commented on it as well):
- I was immediately put off by her article at the beginning when she says:
It’s long been my view that sexism and misogyny do every bit as much damage to men as to women.
I do not agree with this. Like one commenter says,
I do not think “sexism and misogyny does every bit as much damage to men as it does to women.” If it did, they would stop it. Damage, yes. “Every bit as much damage” seems to me to be a stretch too large for reality to encompass.
The next commenter indicates why men being damaged by sexism is often hard for men to see or want to do anything about-this damage comes from a system that advantages (white) men. while in many ways they are hurt by it, there are many more ways (or perhaps more tangible or rewarding ways) they are privileged by it.
Perhaps there is a kind of sub-conscious cost-benefit analysis going on here-certainly women who yearn for traditional gender roles or who demand a man to take care of her do the same thing. In fact, attitudes don’t need to be even as retro as that-there are many ways that women choose “the path of least resistance” (please! read The Gender Knot by Allan G. Johnson) by “using” patriarchal attitudes to their advantage instead of fighting them-many uses of “sexuality” to “get what you want” can fall under this category.
Another commenter made this interesting point,
I think many men aren’t fighting to undermine the patriarchy not because they support it or hope to benefit from it, but because they literally don’t understand it’s there. The world is set up for them, it seems to run fine, why can’t everyone else adapt?
It takes actually stepping outside oneself to recognize the level of privilege men have. Now, needless to say, some men are aware of that privilege and are happy to defend it. But many who are opposed to feminism are actually opposed to strawfeminism, many are opposed to “man-hatin’ humor,” which isn’t part of any feminism I’ve seen, and many are afraid of change because they’re just afraid of change.
True, true. There needs to be some way to educate men about feminism and gender analysis. There is the awful assumption that feminists hate men. Many feminists like men an awful lot, they just hate patriarchy. And it can be hard for men who feel like women want to “take away” “their” privileges to see how they are hurt by patriarchy and how its critique can benefit them. then there’s also that darn cost-benefit thing which keeps many men from embracing feminist critique.
- Another concern I had is the way that what she deplores (emotional men denigrated as feminine and therefore men are taught not to experience a range of human emotions) does not seem to be part of the feminist/gender analysis of the social construction of masculinity and femininity, which it most certainly is. She says,
In our society (at least), the following traits are considered primarily “female/womanly”:
Tender, Emotional, Vulnerable, Receptive, Passive, Compassionate….…If you are living in a misogynist, sexist society where privilege is awarded automatically by virtue of manliness/maleness or perceived manliness/maleness, and therefore, being womanly/female is an undesirable (if not despicable) position, then you are going to work hard to avoid the culturally-acceptable traits of womanliness…
…Men feel — because they’re human. They experience moments of tenderness, and vulnerability, and emotion (yes, emotions other than rage) — as well as moments of compassion, and receptivity, and passivity.
The problem is: They can’t express that without looking like a woman. Which, in a sexist, misogynist society, would be a bad thing. A thing that loses you jobs, and gets you called “pussy”, and “mangina“, and subjects you to suggestions that you “sit to pee” — which would all be BAD, because being anything like a woman/female human is BAD.
This is exactly what the feminist critique of gender entails-both that what has been traditionally labeled “feminine” has been denigrated in order to support patriarchy and sexism, and also that there is nothing inherently bad or gendered about these attributes. Masculinity and femininity are not two separate social constructions where you can critique one without the other. consistent with a deconstructive analysis, masculinity is not self-defined-it is defined by what it is not: feminine. So to critique the arbitrary production of femininity and the subsequent denigration of all things female is to also critique masculinity. In this example there are many “wrongs” here-the idea that certain traits are considered “bad”, that those “bad” traits are arbitrarily linked to a particular gender by arguing a natural connection, that this gender is denigrated all over society, that anyone in the dominant gender who exhibits said traits are denigrated as well…(see my post on the politics of the word pussy)
Now many female feminists do not necessarily write extended analyses about masculinity, but there are many male feminists who do, and they are well worth reading. (see my earlier post).
February 18, 2008
How sexism works
I’ve seen this cartoon in a few places today, but it is very true, and worth a few thoughts.
(feministing.com’s headline for this was brilliant, “Boys suck at logic, non-sexism.”Sexism turn attributes of people into attributes of gender. Senator Clinton (I refuse to call her the demeaning “Hillary” as if she were Britney or someone) becomes a poor candidate because she seems like a “bitch” or her expression of emotions are read as “weak” or “manipulative”; if done by a male candidate they would have been read as “caring” (remember Bill Clinton?). Further, the authenticity of her tears was questioned since she, of course, comes off like a cold, hard, bitch.
See a bad driver? When it’s a woman, the comment is often made, “women are such bad drivers.” If the driver is a male do we then say “men are such bad drivers”? Does anyone really keep a tally of the quality of drivers by gender vs. the proportion of the driving population they consist of? And really, does one person’s set of observations really produce a truth?
No it doesn’t-but experiential “evidence” like this is meant to reinforce what we already think about particular identity groups. In the philosophical arena, “direction of fit” is when what we think about the world fits the facts of the world. In the feminist critique of epistemology, we see that this idea doesn’t really happen, because the facts we recognize are those that reinforce what we already think about the world-we see in the world that which confirms what we already believe, and the mere observation of it in the world serves as “proof” of the truth of said belief. Think about it: it is so much easier for people to believe a “scientific study” that confirms “common sense” than one that defies it.
But science has been used for centuries to reinforce ideological views about the inferiority of races (non-white), ethnicities (non-Euro), gender (non-male), and sexualities (non-heteronormative), using their “facts” as “proof” of their discrimination and oppression. Much of the “old” science has been refuted, although many of their claims persist as “common sense.” Indeed, sexist and racist views continue to be circulated in contemporary scientific studies.
Let’s go back to the driving example-all this is to say, have you ever considered that in our society, despite what we think is our “gender equality,” and regardless of whether she holds a paying job (versus the unpaid work of mothering), women disproportionately bear the burden of child-raising and rearing? Thus, if you do happen to notice that women drivers seem to be “bad,” did you ever look to see if there were kids in the car, screaming for her attention? Did you ever think she was trying to make doctor’s appointments and decide what to make for dinner while she’s driving from work to pick the kids up from the sitter’s? IF, and that’s a big IF, women are “worse” drivers, could it actually be because of the prevalence of sexism that causes these things and not because of the “fact” of them being female? This just adds sexism to sexism. Perhaps it is better said that “people with young kids in the car are bad drivers.”
This is the same thing that happens in the math example. IF indeed boys score higher than girls on math exams, it is wrong wrong wrong to say that because we are “gender-equal,” (and that’s up for debate in my book) that means boys are better than girls at math. Don’t blame girls for continued gender discrimination in the classroom, from parents, hell, in the McDonald’s happy meals, where the kinds of play and developments tools we give to kids will highly inform their capacities for certain academic subjects. Of, if a person’s not good at math, maybe they’re just not good at math. Blaming it on their gender is just as logical as blaming it on their eye color.
I think the appropriate saying here is, “you find what you’re looking for.”
And that’s sexism for ya.
February 15, 2008
Msn.com/hotmail.com reiterations of gender stereotypes #1
From the intro:
- More than anything else, sexy is a state of mind, and it starts with you! It’s a feeling that’s all about being warm, inviting and approachable, while maintaining a little bit of mystery. But most importantly, it’s about being confident and comfortable in your skin, and your clothing. So put the idea of the “bombshell” aside, ladies. There are plenty of understated ways for you to feel flirty every day.
So on the positive side, being sexy is about being confident in and comfortable with yourself-this is a good thing! But we also find out that this is something the “ladies” should be concerned with. Hmmm, not so good.
So what are some suggestions toward feeling comfortable and confident in yourself? Well, performing for a male spectator of course, but performing while looking like it’s effortless!
- …your most intimate layers and mini makeup tricks will work wonders toward altering your attitude. Hot hosiery and sexy shapewear are items that are meant to make you feel feminine and fierce — and also excite your guy! Hints of red on your nails or lips are likely to stir up flirtatious feelings…And finally, perfume peaks the sense of smell and makes an invisible seductive statement that will linger in a man’s memory.
Geez, this doesn’t sound like being “comfortable in your own skin”, it’s more like creating a “skin “that has been culturally-approved as sexy so that you can then feel comfortable! Here we also find out who the real target of “sexiness” is-it’s about exciting your guy! It’s all for someone else, not about being confident…unless such confidence is coming from conforming to the social/sexist dictates of female sexiness. Here is also where the heterosexist bias of the article comes in-because no woman who wants to be sexy could possibly be sexually interested in a woman!
- …disarm yourself by dressing in light, delicate colors such as blush and cream. Slip on sensuous-feeling fabrics such as cashmere and silk that conjure up images of cuddling and caressing — something that says sexy in a subtle way! Sheer peek-a-boo effects with a sleeve or thin overlay, and feminine details such as a flirty slip exposed at the hemline, hint at something to be explored later on.
To be sexy, a woman must be feminine-delicate, soft, an object of sexual desire (rather than the active pursuant of it). Yawn.
- The girl next door is a classic symbol of sex appeal, and this look is easy to accomplish!…from a guy’s perspective, casual cute clothing equals adorable and approachable. After all, who isn’t drawn to someone who appears to be fun and easygoing!
Nope-women can’t be too serious you know! And I love how in this “tip” she uses celebrities to make her point-Cameron Diaz, Jennifer Aniston-which I guess just reinforces that being sexy is about a “look”-how she looks to others– and not at all about how a woman herself feels, as the intro so misleadingly claims. And I love here too that it’s not important to be fun and easy going, just look that way by dressing cas.
- Stand out in a crowd with a pop color, and consider a saucy wrap dress, which will show off your most womanly asset — curves…According to a beauty book she [Sophia Loren] wrote back in 1984, colorful jewelry can enhance your allure, but attitude and charm can make anybody beautiful. My two cents…: Don’t forget about a deliciously fun pair of heels! My favorites, to this day, are a pair of pink round-toe slingbacks with red suede roses on the toes. They just make me happy every time I look down. Fabulous accents like these will not only make you happy, but believe me, he will notice!
So here we are reminded that our most feminine asset is our “curves”-clearly not our attitude, intelligence, wit….all things that in addition to good fashion sense could create the confidence and comfort about oneself this article led me to believe (ok now I’m just being silly) that sexiness was! And of course heels are of utmost importance-they are sexy because of how they engage leg muscles and therefore emphasize leg tone, but are notoriously uncomfortable and very bad for your ankles and toes. And not only will you be sexy, but happy! And-HE will notice! The best part is how the Loren quote contradicts this entire article!
After each “tip” are shopping examples for the tip being offered. I mean, to be sexy I absolutely should run out and buy the “Ivory bell-sleeve cashmere sweater, $220; Cream slip dress, $389.” I think now we see why sexiness can’t possibly be about self-confidence that is produced by developing your emotional, intellectual, sexual and physical health…there isn’t a commodity to sell! A profit can’t be made over and over again as female sexiness is continually slightly modified to continually sell products!
Clearly we have the contradictory message that sexiness comes from confidence, but confidence comes from performing classical femininity wrapped up in commodity consumption, all for the (assumed) male viewer (and male CEO!). This pop-advice article reiterates gender stereotypes and heterosexism-apparently, men don’t need to or don’t care to be sexy, and neither do lesbian and bisexual women.
February 3, 2008
Gender Stereotypes and Male Feminists
The f-word has a provocative article (written by a man!) about the way gender stereotypes hurt men, why men tend to not fight them the way women through feminism have, and what we should do about it!
First, an excerpt:
Let’s not kid ourselves here: men as well as women are limited by gender stereotypes. The idea of men as stupid and sex-obsessed is an enduring generalisation that is allowed to flourish in – dare I say it – a much more brazen way than the stereotypes about women, mainly because no man ever stands up and says: “Hey, that’s sexist and it offends me!” The problem is, while women are encouraged to reject the ludicrous ideas that are held about them, men are supposed to embrace them….
…From an early age, women are aware of their gender and what it means for their lives, far more than men are. Feminism encourages women to shed gender stereotypes and consider themselves as individuals. Men simply don’t think about gender. Why would you, when it rarely impacts in a noticeable way on your life? Very rarely is your progress barred because you are a man and it is true that male culture generally does not promote frank and open discussion of such issues.
Many men aren’t feminists simply because it has never occurred to them that they should be: when you’re not faced every day with the challenges thrown up by gender inequality it is very easy to think: “Well, we’ve changed the law so we have equality now.”
And I’d add to his analysis, that often times the gender stereotypes perpetuated for men have the effect of reiterating homophobia and misogyny-so on the one hand, men see little need to challenge them since they don’t seem to directly affect their lives, but also they tend to reinforce their dominant position in society (by labeling the “non-manly” as “gay”, by using overactive sex drive to justify sexism and objectification…)
In order to combat these stereotypes, gender analysis (feminism!) absolutely has to be embraced. This is not only to prove them false by demonstrating they do not accurately reflect the diversity of men’s lives, but also to provide discursive analysis to understand how these stereotypes produce masculinity in particular ways: in much the same way that, for example, feminist analysis showed that the stereotype that women are not as good at math and science as men guided teachers and parents to steer girls away from those subjects at both school and home, after which few women would enter those fields, providing the empirical fact that women do not so well in math and science because few women in fact do work in those fields.
What this example (and many others!) shows is that even if stereotypes do reflect a significant portion of a population, that does not make their manifestation “natural.” It is important to look at how masculinities and femininities are produced as such. And as I allude to above, there is much analysis done already that looks at the sexism and homophobia that produces masculinity in particular ways. So if we want masculinities that are rich and varied, and if we want to combat homophobia and misogyny, men need to embrace gender analysis, feminism, and begin to critique these stereotypes on a regular basis in their daily lives the way feminism has been for decades.
May I recommend…
Books:
Men Doing Feminism
Men in Feminism
The Making of Anti-Sexist Men
Masculinities
Click here to subscribe in a reader
don't ya wish your girlfriend was smart like me? 