Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Revisiting Favorite Books--after a gender seminar
Now that you've gone through a gender studies senior seminar, would you add to, modify, or demote any of the books, plays, poems, films you listed as favorites at the beginning of class? You can refer to any of the texts we've read or looked at, as well as past favorites (or previously disfavored texts) that you now might see in a new light. Try to spend some time reflecting on why you may have changed your views. What new ideas, whether from reading or class discussion, would account for your different views, assuming there has been some change?
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Should all male colleges continue to exist?
I'm going to get us started on this, and you can post new blogs on it or respond to this one. I was reading the Wabash entry in the book Colleges That Change Lives, and there's a quote by former Pres. Andrew Ford who says when asked why Wabash is still single-sex, "You're asking the wrong question. The question is, why did you go coed?" And the writer of the chapter follows with, "And everybody on his campus feels the same way." That this palpably false statement is out in print, in a book widely read, really upsets me. Does "everybody on campus" feel the same way on this issue?
Most informed people know why the vast majority of colleges went co-ed from the 50's on--it was the right thing to do. Single-sex colleges were set up in the 18th and 19th centuries because women were not considered worthy of higher education; it was assumed that they did not have the intellectual capacity for it. If one accepts that this assumption is no longer valid, then what is the basis for single-sex college education? Women's colleges may have a legitimate rationale--historically and socially; women weren't permitted in male colleges, and there continues to be discrimination against women in society which would legitimize the value of their "choosing" to be educated separately from men.
But what is the value an all-male college? After teaching in one for over thirty years I can see that there are some unique benefits, but also some drawbacks, from the perspective of a faculty member.
One benefit for me is having a diverse all-male group discuss issues of masculinity in an insulated, focused way. One disadvantage is having an all male-group discuss this issue, and any issue, in an insulated way, without the benefit of a variety of female perspectives. But I'm not a student here, so I would like to hear the honest response of students about this issue, especially from seniors. What do you see as the benefits--academically, intellectually, emotionally, socially--of this experience? What are the drawbacks for you? As a student in an advanced gender studies class, what lessons learned from what you've studied help shape you current opinions on this question? What out of classroom experiences shape your opinions? Can you think critically about this question, given that you are still immersed in the college environment? Finally, at this point, would you encourage your son(s) to attend? Why or why not?
Most informed people know why the vast majority of colleges went co-ed from the 50's on--it was the right thing to do. Single-sex colleges were set up in the 18th and 19th centuries because women were not considered worthy of higher education; it was assumed that they did not have the intellectual capacity for it. If one accepts that this assumption is no longer valid, then what is the basis for single-sex college education? Women's colleges may have a legitimate rationale--historically and socially; women weren't permitted in male colleges, and there continues to be discrimination against women in society which would legitimize the value of their "choosing" to be educated separately from men.
But what is the value an all-male college? After teaching in one for over thirty years I can see that there are some unique benefits, but also some drawbacks, from the perspective of a faculty member.
One benefit for me is having a diverse all-male group discuss issues of masculinity in an insulated, focused way. One disadvantage is having an all male-group discuss this issue, and any issue, in an insulated way, without the benefit of a variety of female perspectives. But I'm not a student here, so I would like to hear the honest response of students about this issue, especially from seniors. What do you see as the benefits--academically, intellectually, emotionally, socially--of this experience? What are the drawbacks for you? As a student in an advanced gender studies class, what lessons learned from what you've studied help shape you current opinions on this question? What out of classroom experiences shape your opinions? Can you think critically about this question, given that you are still immersed in the college environment? Finally, at this point, would you encourage your son(s) to attend? Why or why not?
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Family Guy coming through for class?
Here's something to think about, even Family Guy is getting in on gender/sexuality statements. Look it up: Season 10 Episode 4: Stewie Takes a Ride
Monday, October 17, 2011
Feminism in Anime
I really enjoy watching movies from the director Hayao Miyazaki. He writes and directs fantastic animated films. Lately I have been thinking about the interesting roles that women play in his stories. The main characters in most of his films are female. One of his best works, Princess Mononoke, features a male lead character, but the film’s title is the name of a central character who is female. She is a girl who is raised by wolves and has a unique perspective because she has roots in both the animal and the human world. The movie is about a war being waged between humans and nature. A very interesting female character in this movie is Lady Iboshi, the leader of the village of Irontown. She displays many characteristics that are traditionally considered male. She is hardened by battle, and puts emotion aside when she makes decisions for her people. She is a strong figurehead for all the people in the village and has respect from her soldiers who consider her powerful and intimidating. I think that Miyazaki’s perspective on women in his stories is something that defies classification. He does not seem to be a feminist, but in a school of though all his own. I strongly recommend Princess Mononoke and all of Miyazaki’s films to anyone who is interested in gender.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
"You are man-ish"
http://tv.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/arts/television/last-man-standing-and-man-up-on-abc-review.html?ref=television
In Tuesday's Arts section of the New York Times i came across this article entitled,"Downsized and Downtrodden, Men are the New Women on TV." The article discusses the recent shift in portrayal of men on new television sitcoms. It focuses on the main characters of the two new shows "Last Man Standing" and "Man Up." I personally have not seen either of the shows, or heard anything about them until this article. However, reading the article does prompt me to think about how men have recently been portrayed compared to past male television figures. I think back to popular television shows in the past with strong, defiant male characters such as "Macgyver," "The Cosby Show," "Home Improvement" and so on. Each of these shows had a male figure who was more or less the center of the household or the storyline in the show, and it often came down to him "saving the day." Obviously in "Home Improvement" Tim was usually fixing one of his mess ups, but none of those were due to his lack of masculinity. A quote in this article that particularly struck me states, "Nowadays men get on their wives' and girlfriends' nerves by not being manly enough." Personally i find this representation of men and masculinity to be a bit over the top and frankly absurd. Yes, the fact that i am a male might factor into this a bit, but the recent rise in feminine achievement and success does not have to mean the masculinity of men take a hit. The way these recent television sitcoms are portraying men as stepping aside the women dominating the scene is only going to hurt both genders in the long run. As was the case with women and their quest to gain equal status as men during the onset of the feminine movement, men are going to be susceptible to the same thing if the pendulum continues to swing in its current direction. There needs to be a happy median found, and if that median is not found soon, and men are continually downcast as weak and effeminate characters, the young boys who are today becoming men in this age will be at a loss, and i feel will suffer tremendously.
In Tuesday's Arts section of the New York Times i came across this article entitled,"Downsized and Downtrodden, Men are the New Women on TV." The article discusses the recent shift in portrayal of men on new television sitcoms. It focuses on the main characters of the two new shows "Last Man Standing" and "Man Up." I personally have not seen either of the shows, or heard anything about them until this article. However, reading the article does prompt me to think about how men have recently been portrayed compared to past male television figures. I think back to popular television shows in the past with strong, defiant male characters such as "Macgyver," "The Cosby Show," "Home Improvement" and so on. Each of these shows had a male figure who was more or less the center of the household or the storyline in the show, and it often came down to him "saving the day." Obviously in "Home Improvement" Tim was usually fixing one of his mess ups, but none of those were due to his lack of masculinity. A quote in this article that particularly struck me states, "Nowadays men get on their wives' and girlfriends' nerves by not being manly enough." Personally i find this representation of men and masculinity to be a bit over the top and frankly absurd. Yes, the fact that i am a male might factor into this a bit, but the recent rise in feminine achievement and success does not have to mean the masculinity of men take a hit. The way these recent television sitcoms are portraying men as stepping aside the women dominating the scene is only going to hurt both genders in the long run. As was the case with women and their quest to gain equal status as men during the onset of the feminine movement, men are going to be susceptible to the same thing if the pendulum continues to swing in its current direction. There needs to be a happy median found, and if that median is not found soon, and men are continually downcast as weak and effeminate characters, the young boys who are today becoming men in this age will be at a loss, and i feel will suffer tremendously.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Sunday, October 9, 2011
"Shame-o-Phobia: Why Men Fear Therapy"
http://www.alternet.org/health/147105/shame-o-phobia%3A_why_men_fear_therapy/?page=1
"Shame may be the least understood dimension of men's inner experience—by both men themselves and the people who live with them. In Affliction, Russell Banks's classic novel about the tragedy of masculinity, a ne'er-do-well named Wade Whitehouse plans a special Halloween weekend with his 11-year-old daughter, Jill, who lives with her divorced mother, Lillian. Wade's clumsy efforts to make sure Jill has a good time succeed only in making her feel anxious and out of place, and she winds up pleading with him to take her home. But instead of her distress, what stands out for him is his sense of failure: he's shamed by the fact that she's unhappy."
I accidentally stumbled across this article on "Shame-o-Phobia" while searching for a secondary source for my Affliction paper, and then I became fascinated as I read the author's description of how men's experience of shame controls their lives--and the article's description of men who don't understand their own experience of shame seems like an exact description of Wade. In class, someone proposed that Wade doesn't truly love his daugher Jill, and that this is evidenced by the fact that he's more concerned about his failure as a father. However, the article above seems to suggest to me that the fact Wade is shamed so deeply is evidence of his deep love for Jill.
David Wexler, the author of the article, describes how men build self-esteem, "A metaphor from self-psychology, the broken mirror, is particularly helpful in understanding the dynamics of male shame. This sensitivity to shame—to feeling incompetent, not valuable, unloved, unneeded, unimportant—is often governed by the psychological relationships with mirroring-self objects in our lives. It works like this: the response from others serves as a mirror, reflecting an image that governs our sense of well-being. Sensitivity to mirroring-self objects and broken mirrors isn't gender-specific, but men are more vulnerable to experiencing these mirrors as referenda on their performance and personal value. When the mirror image is negative (or is perceived as negative), the reflection can reactivate a man's narcissistic injury and deliver a blow to his feeling of competence."
In particular, Wexler says, men who have experienced "toxid doses of shame early in life will do anything to avoid reexperiencing it...A shamed boy [recall Wade's inability to protect his mother from his father's abuse] becomes a hypersensitive man [Wade's sensitivity is evidenced in his quickness to become angry], his radar always finely tuned to the possiblity of humiliation. His reaction to slight's perceived or real and his ever-vigilant attempts to ward them off can become a kind of phobia. Tragically, the very men who are most desparate for affection and approval are the ones who usually can't ask for it: instead, they project blame and rejection and perceive the worst in others."
The quote is particularly telling because it reveals Wade's phobia: Wade sees his father as the ultimate symobl of shame, and so Wade strives as much as possible to avoid comparisons to his father. Every comparison to his father, whether it comes from an external source or from his own thinking, damages and humiliates Wade. He is desparate to be recognized as a good man, but his wife and daughter's unwillingness to give him that affection leads him to see them as vindictive and cruel, and so he perceives the "worst in others"--which inevitably only further damages his relationships and brings him closer to becoming his father. His masculinity proves to be a vicious cycle. I don't have the page number, but I believe that Jill tells his father that he is a bad man, or at least that he used to to be a bad kid somewhere towards the beginning of the book.
Wexler says that when talking to men in therapy, "The idea is to send out the good-men-behaving-badly message. In this way, the man-and, maybe more important, his partner-hears that the problem isn't that he's a bastard with a cold heart and no soul." This idea fits perfectly with Wade. Wade wants recognition and a second chance, and he needs someone to recognize that he is desperate to be a "good man." The problem is that everyone perceives his bouts of anger as simply symptomatic of an especially violent, cruel personality-rather than explosive, emotional outburst as his inability to overcome his overpowering sense of shame by himself.
The article seems to reconcile Wade's inconsistencies and allows us to understand how his violence, shame, and love work together to lead him towards his various actions. However, the article seemed to bring up another possible, and I think, unrelated gender issue.
Wexler gives a few pointers for how to deal with men in therapy, "Offer homework, ation plans, and the rationale for using them, since men's needs and learning styles favor direct, clearcut explanations and instructions. I've found this vaulable with all the men I see." He also mentions how to prepare men for handling relationships outside of class, "If even 10 minutes is too long for a man who can't tolerate the inherent lack of structure in 'feelings-and-relationship' conversations, teach him some very specific relationship-friendly strategies, like 'active listening.'"
Wexler consistently describes how men need "direct, clearcut explanations and instructions" and avoid the "inherent lack of structure" in "feelings-and relationship" conversations. He seems to suggest that men need a rationale and explanation for everything-a strict order through which to understand the world. Could this account for some of Wade's neuroticism towards the end of the novel? Do women not have this problem? Could this be another aspect of male "affliction," a desire or compulsion to "know?"
"Shame may be the least understood dimension of men's inner experience—by both men themselves and the people who live with them. In Affliction, Russell Banks's classic novel about the tragedy of masculinity, a ne'er-do-well named Wade Whitehouse plans a special Halloween weekend with his 11-year-old daughter, Jill, who lives with her divorced mother, Lillian. Wade's clumsy efforts to make sure Jill has a good time succeed only in making her feel anxious and out of place, and she winds up pleading with him to take her home. But instead of her distress, what stands out for him is his sense of failure: he's shamed by the fact that she's unhappy."
I accidentally stumbled across this article on "Shame-o-Phobia" while searching for a secondary source for my Affliction paper, and then I became fascinated as I read the author's description of how men's experience of shame controls their lives--and the article's description of men who don't understand their own experience of shame seems like an exact description of Wade. In class, someone proposed that Wade doesn't truly love his daugher Jill, and that this is evidenced by the fact that he's more concerned about his failure as a father. However, the article above seems to suggest to me that the fact Wade is shamed so deeply is evidence of his deep love for Jill.
David Wexler, the author of the article, describes how men build self-esteem, "A metaphor from self-psychology, the broken mirror, is particularly helpful in understanding the dynamics of male shame. This sensitivity to shame—to feeling incompetent, not valuable, unloved, unneeded, unimportant—is often governed by the psychological relationships with mirroring-self objects in our lives. It works like this: the response from others serves as a mirror, reflecting an image that governs our sense of well-being. Sensitivity to mirroring-self objects and broken mirrors isn't gender-specific, but men are more vulnerable to experiencing these mirrors as referenda on their performance and personal value. When the mirror image is negative (or is perceived as negative), the reflection can reactivate a man's narcissistic injury and deliver a blow to his feeling of competence."
In particular, Wexler says, men who have experienced "toxid doses of shame early in life will do anything to avoid reexperiencing it...A shamed boy [recall Wade's inability to protect his mother from his father's abuse] becomes a hypersensitive man [Wade's sensitivity is evidenced in his quickness to become angry], his radar always finely tuned to the possiblity of humiliation. His reaction to slight's perceived or real and his ever-vigilant attempts to ward them off can become a kind of phobia. Tragically, the very men who are most desparate for affection and approval are the ones who usually can't ask for it: instead, they project blame and rejection and perceive the worst in others."
The quote is particularly telling because it reveals Wade's phobia: Wade sees his father as the ultimate symobl of shame, and so Wade strives as much as possible to avoid comparisons to his father. Every comparison to his father, whether it comes from an external source or from his own thinking, damages and humiliates Wade. He is desparate to be recognized as a good man, but his wife and daughter's unwillingness to give him that affection leads him to see them as vindictive and cruel, and so he perceives the "worst in others"--which inevitably only further damages his relationships and brings him closer to becoming his father. His masculinity proves to be a vicious cycle. I don't have the page number, but I believe that Jill tells his father that he is a bad man, or at least that he used to to be a bad kid somewhere towards the beginning of the book.
Wexler says that when talking to men in therapy, "The idea is to send out the good-men-behaving-badly message. In this way, the man-and, maybe more important, his partner-hears that the problem isn't that he's a bastard with a cold heart and no soul." This idea fits perfectly with Wade. Wade wants recognition and a second chance, and he needs someone to recognize that he is desperate to be a "good man." The problem is that everyone perceives his bouts of anger as simply symptomatic of an especially violent, cruel personality-rather than explosive, emotional outburst as his inability to overcome his overpowering sense of shame by himself.
The article seems to reconcile Wade's inconsistencies and allows us to understand how his violence, shame, and love work together to lead him towards his various actions. However, the article seemed to bring up another possible, and I think, unrelated gender issue.
Wexler gives a few pointers for how to deal with men in therapy, "Offer homework, ation plans, and the rationale for using them, since men's needs and learning styles favor direct, clearcut explanations and instructions. I've found this vaulable with all the men I see." He also mentions how to prepare men for handling relationships outside of class, "If even 10 minutes is too long for a man who can't tolerate the inherent lack of structure in 'feelings-and-relationship' conversations, teach him some very specific relationship-friendly strategies, like 'active listening.'"
Wexler consistently describes how men need "direct, clearcut explanations and instructions" and avoid the "inherent lack of structure" in "feelings-and relationship" conversations. He seems to suggest that men need a rationale and explanation for everything-a strict order through which to understand the world. Could this account for some of Wade's neuroticism towards the end of the novel? Do women not have this problem? Could this be another aspect of male "affliction," a desire or compulsion to "know?"
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Unfair Rule Change
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/london-marathon/8459248/New-rules-for-womens-marathon-runners-put-Kenyan-Mary-Keitany-on-course-to-become-a-world-beater.html
During practice yesterday my teammates and I were running on the local golf course discussing life, as we always do, and of course solving all of the worlds problems. On my teammates brought up a recent video from Flotrack, a website dedicated to everything running from all over the world. The video was released by a professional male runner discussing the recent decision by the head governing bodies of running to change the qualifications for World Records. He was up in arms about how they have decided to strip record holder Paula Radcliffe of her Women's Marathon world record time because she did not run in a race that was "only women." She ran the race with a couple male "rabbits" or "pacers" to help her achieve the world record time. This decision was made quite some time ago, but i just heard about yesterday. I was at a loss for words. The only reason they have for doing this is that she was not solely competing against other women. Let's not look over the fact that she creamed all the other women in the race and the fact that when she crossed the finish line her time was still a world record time. Instead the focus remains on the little fact that there were males who happened to be in the same race. As a fellow runner and distance runner at that i was literally upset when i heard this. Distance athletes train years for that single moment of towing the line on race day. If Radcliffe's body was in good enough physical condition to run the time she did, she could have ran it whether or not those men were in the race or not. It is not fare to strip her of her world record for having men in the race. If anything i would think those head governing bodies would encourage more of this, in order to progress their sport further. The article I have posted above is from before the ruling was made, but the issue has been settled and her world record is no longer valid. I find this cruel, to both women althetes and the running community in general. What a way to darken such a bright spot in running today.
During practice yesterday my teammates and I were running on the local golf course discussing life, as we always do, and of course solving all of the worlds problems. On my teammates brought up a recent video from Flotrack, a website dedicated to everything running from all over the world. The video was released by a professional male runner discussing the recent decision by the head governing bodies of running to change the qualifications for World Records. He was up in arms about how they have decided to strip record holder Paula Radcliffe of her Women's Marathon world record time because she did not run in a race that was "only women." She ran the race with a couple male "rabbits" or "pacers" to help her achieve the world record time. This decision was made quite some time ago, but i just heard about yesterday. I was at a loss for words. The only reason they have for doing this is that she was not solely competing against other women. Let's not look over the fact that she creamed all the other women in the race and the fact that when she crossed the finish line her time was still a world record time. Instead the focus remains on the little fact that there were males who happened to be in the same race. As a fellow runner and distance runner at that i was literally upset when i heard this. Distance athletes train years for that single moment of towing the line on race day. If Radcliffe's body was in good enough physical condition to run the time she did, she could have ran it whether or not those men were in the race or not. It is not fare to strip her of her world record for having men in the race. If anything i would think those head governing bodies would encourage more of this, in order to progress their sport further. The article I have posted above is from before the ruling was made, but the issue has been settled and her world record is no longer valid. I find this cruel, to both women althetes and the running community in general. What a way to darken such a bright spot in running today.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Taking the LSAT
This weekend I was able to take the LSAT. What a wonderful test it was: tested my logical reasoning and ability to sit still for 5 hours. However, as I walked gallantly into Hays to take this test I realized that I would, more than likely, be taking it in the midst of an all male population. In fact, I was wrong. Interestingly enough there were several females that made the arduous trek from IU and Indianapolis to accompany us in task at hand. I sat, having finished a section, feeling a small sense of accomplishment and relief, wondering what in world must this poor IU girl think of the conversation that was taking unfolding between us Wabash men. The conversation, like a UFC fight, was no holds barred: everything and anything could be and was talked about. This poor girl, I say this lightly because she more than likely, being a Bio-Chem Major at IU, beat the scores of everyone in the room by 10, sat silently until the break, and she didn't leave the room during the one allotted 15 minute break. We all tried to make discussion, some attempts more feeble than others, which in itself shows the unabashed, unadulterated conscious of a Wabash man, but none broke through that obviously embarrassed shell. At tests end, she simply got up and left unabated.
Here was my issue: after reading "Theorizing Masculinity," were we Wabash men trying, somehow, to exude such manly dominance and pride that we simply neglected all femininity in the room? I would say so. Joey was there, he could tell you. The author of the text quotes Derrida, and the necessity of femininity to define masculinity, but, obviously, with the exception of a handful of professors, there is no femininity to complement, contradict, anything this Wabash environment, as so well shown in this testing room. Part of me was embarrassed and part of me was so excited to be done that I left the room in the same fashion. But, now, as I look back upon this experience and consider the merits of all-male education, I realize that we lose a lot. The feminine offers everything back, everything we desire so heavily to exclude from our lifestyle here at Wabash. Why must we fight the feminine feeling so consistently. Slow down: let's truly learn something about what we are missing, and why it's important that we keep this environment... or is it?
Affliction the Film
So, I just finished watching the film version of Affliction. There are quite alot of differences. The movie follows the story pretty decently, using many narration voice-overs to stand in for Rolfe's Narration. Here are some major plot differences:
1. Lillian is practically a saint, the worst thing said about her is "She never fit in here, and that's why she left." There is no mention of her sleeping with Lugene Brooks (who is a woman in the film), Nick Wickham, or LaRiviere. Not to mention her affair with her lawyer is never brought up. When Lillian tells Wade that she is disgusted by him going to a new low, she is only referring to the custody lawsuit.
2. Wade is crazy the entire movie. Honestly, it totally misses the whole slowly descending into madness aspect. He seems to be a bit insane the entire movie.
3. The truck never goes under the ice, Jack just shoots the tires out.
4. Jack's death is in the epilogue, with a whole 5 seconds spent on the entire scene.
5. Most of the post-tooth pulling events don't occur. Wade never sleeps with Hettie, never talks to Asa Brown. Just pulls the tooth, gets his daughter, grabs Wickham (a lot more forcefully), finds Margie moving out, throws his daughter, then talks to his father about love, before killing him.
6. Wade blows up his father's truck when he's burning down the barn, there's no explanation how he gets up to the mountain to kill Jack.
7. The story that Wade confuses with Rolfe is not of getting beaten for the bathing accident. Rather it is of a wood chopping story that somewhat combines the barn story and the bath story. Overall, the father seems much less violent, and more incoherent than anything else.
8. Wade is very surprised and remorseful that he killed his father... in the novel he seemed sentimental, but definitely not remorseful.
So, the film representation does do a decently good job of telling the story, but the novel, naturally gives you a much better insight to Wade. His emotions, his frustrations, his downward spiral into homicidal madness. The movie glosses over these, which is unfortunate for people who view the movie and not read the book.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
My Father's Diary
My Father's Diary
by Sharon Olds
I get into bed with it, and spring
the scarab legs of its locks. Inside,
the stacked, shy wealth of his print—
he could not write in script, so the pages
are sturdy with the beamwork of printedness,
WENT TO LOOK AT A CAR, DAD
IN A GOOD MOOD AT DINNER, WENT
TO TRY OUT SOME NEW TENNIS RACQUETS,
LUNCH WITH MOM, life of ease—
except when he spun his father's DeSoto on the
ice, and a young tree whirled up to the
hood, throwing up her arms—until
LOIS. PLAYED TENNIS, WITH LOIS,
LUNCH WITH MOM AND LOIS, LOIS
LIKED THE CAR, DRIVING WITH LOIS,
LONG DRIVE WITH LOIS. And then,
LOIS! I CAN'T BELIEVE IT! SHE IS SO
GOOD, SO SWEET, SO GENEROUS, I HAVE
NEVER, WHAT HAVE I EVER DONE
TO DESERVE SUCH A GIRL? Between the dark
legs of the capitals, moonlight, soft
tines of the printed letter gentled
apart, nectar drawn from serif, the
self of the grown boy pouring
out, the heart's charge, the fresh
man kneeling in pine-needle weave,
worshipping her. It was my father
good, it was my father grateful,
it was my father dead, who had left me
these small structures of his young brain—
he wanted me to know him, he wanted
someone to know him.
This poem stood out to me because the focus on the father-daughter relationship seemed refreshing to me. Olds creates an intense bonding experience between daugher and father by having the daughter read about her father in his diary. The fact that the father even has a diary is a unique twist--culture teaches us that moody teenage girls keep diaries full of their crushes, but the fact that the boy who becomes the girl's father keeps a diary subverts this stereotype. I particularly like how the jumpy nature of the boy's writing reflects the emotions of an adolescent boy--he moves quickly from one thing to the next. Though he no longer lives, the daughter is able to find meaning and inspiration in his words--she sees only the positive aspects of him in his diary, as well as his abounding love for Lois, whom we can presume to be her mother. The daughter now has a more concrete image of her father to hold on to, and she will always to some extent hold him as innocent and pure, as he still appears in his diary when he was younger. I think my favorite line describes his pages, which "are sturdy with the beamwork of printedness." She pictures her father and sees his concreteness and stability in his writing itself. In the end, the poem emphasizes the daughter's desire to connect with her father on a deep, emotional level. Reading her father's diary provides her with the intimacy she is unable to get. It's interesting that the "maleness" of his writing is what intrigues and enchants her--it is clear that she envisions her father as an indiviual who is unwaveringly "solid." I think it's also worth pondering whether or not a son would connect with his father in the same manner. What would he be attracted to in reading his father's diary? The speaker also seems to be particularly interested in the romance between her father and Lois, who is presumably her mother. As Reed pointed out, the language becomes suggestively sexual as the girl envisions the "nectar" drawn from between the "dark legs of the capitals," and the girl seems to read the sexuality into her father's "beamwork of printedness." She notes how her father worships Lois, and she admires this, calling her father "grateful" and "good." She connects herself to her father through her parents' relationship--seemingly able to identify with both her father and her mother.
by Sharon Olds
I get into bed with it, and spring
the scarab legs of its locks. Inside,
the stacked, shy wealth of his print—
he could not write in script, so the pages
are sturdy with the beamwork of printedness,
WENT TO LOOK AT A CAR, DAD
IN A GOOD MOOD AT DINNER, WENT
TO TRY OUT SOME NEW TENNIS RACQUETS,
LUNCH WITH MOM, life of ease—
except when he spun his father's DeSoto on the
ice, and a young tree whirled up to the
hood, throwing up her arms—until
LOIS. PLAYED TENNIS, WITH LOIS,
LUNCH WITH MOM AND LOIS, LOIS
LIKED THE CAR, DRIVING WITH LOIS,
LONG DRIVE WITH LOIS. And then,
LOIS! I CAN'T BELIEVE IT! SHE IS SO
GOOD, SO SWEET, SO GENEROUS, I HAVE
NEVER, WHAT HAVE I EVER DONE
TO DESERVE SUCH A GIRL? Between the dark
legs of the capitals, moonlight, soft
tines of the printed letter gentled
apart, nectar drawn from serif, the
self of the grown boy pouring
out, the heart's charge, the fresh
man kneeling in pine-needle weave,
worshipping her. It was my father
good, it was my father grateful,
it was my father dead, who had left me
these small structures of his young brain—
he wanted me to know him, he wanted
someone to know him.
This poem stood out to me because the focus on the father-daughter relationship seemed refreshing to me. Olds creates an intense bonding experience between daugher and father by having the daughter read about her father in his diary. The fact that the father even has a diary is a unique twist--culture teaches us that moody teenage girls keep diaries full of their crushes, but the fact that the boy who becomes the girl's father keeps a diary subverts this stereotype. I particularly like how the jumpy nature of the boy's writing reflects the emotions of an adolescent boy--he moves quickly from one thing to the next. Though he no longer lives, the daughter is able to find meaning and inspiration in his words--she sees only the positive aspects of him in his diary, as well as his abounding love for Lois, whom we can presume to be her mother. The daughter now has a more concrete image of her father to hold on to, and she will always to some extent hold him as innocent and pure, as he still appears in his diary when he was younger. I think my favorite line describes his pages, which "are sturdy with the beamwork of printedness." She pictures her father and sees his concreteness and stability in his writing itself. In the end, the poem emphasizes the daughter's desire to connect with her father on a deep, emotional level. Reading her father's diary provides her with the intimacy she is unable to get. It's interesting that the "maleness" of his writing is what intrigues and enchants her--it is clear that she envisions her father as an indiviual who is unwaveringly "solid." I think it's also worth pondering whether or not a son would connect with his father in the same manner. What would he be attracted to in reading his father's diary? The speaker also seems to be particularly interested in the romance between her father and Lois, who is presumably her mother. As Reed pointed out, the language becomes suggestively sexual as the girl envisions the "nectar" drawn from between the "dark legs of the capitals," and the girl seems to read the sexuality into her father's "beamwork of printedness." She notes how her father worships Lois, and she admires this, calling her father "grateful" and "good." She connects herself to her father through her parents' relationship--seemingly able to identify with both her father and her mother.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Housewife
Housewife, by Anne Sexton
Some women marry houses.
It's another kind of skin; it has a heart,
a mouth, a liver and bowel movements.
The walls are permanent and pink.
See how she sits on her knees all day,
faithfully washing herself down.
Men enter by force, drawn back like Jonah
into their fleshy mothers.
A woman is her mother.
That's the main thing.
What immediately struck me about this poem was its connection to The Awakening. Edna very deliberately "divorces" herself from her husband's house, which is clearly a way for her to separate herself from Mr. Pontellier. He associated the house with Edna's duties as a wife—to greet visitors, to care for the children inside, to generally care for. Her decision to "marry" the pigeon house separates herself from this role. This is so distressing to Mr. Pontellier that he makes up this whole "renovation" excuse to prevent anyone from learning of Edna's decision. Of course, the line "men enter by force" denotes forced marital sex, which we may remember from the scene where Leonce prowled back and forth on the porch waiting for Edna to "come in."
Analyzing the poem by itself, I think it's interesting how the title has this dual meaning--"housewife" and also house=wife. While women "marry houses," they also become the house in some sense. Both remain the property of the husband in most cases. The various parts of the house correspond to the organs of a woman's body. The wife on her knees who scrubs the floor of her house is simultaneously "washing herself down." The wife, in this context as property of her husband, is entirely submissive to the wishes of her husband. If he wishes to enter her "by force," he may. She is "on her knees," suggesting both domestic and sexual submission to her gender role.
I find the reference to Jonah to be interesting. I'm familiar with the story but I've never thought of reading it in a symbolically sexual way. Sexton makes a connection between sex and childbirth, as men through sex are drawn back into the place, the person, they came from. This brings Sexton to her final conclusion that women are their mothers--that the ordeal of childbirth is much like that sex, suggesting some kind of violation. But how exactly was Jonah "drawn back," as in returning, into the "fleshy mother," or the whale? I though it just swallowed him whole and then spat him out. Perhaps men are like Jonah in reverse, first coming in through sex and then leaving through birth.
Some women marry houses.
It's another kind of skin; it has a heart,
a mouth, a liver and bowel movements.
The walls are permanent and pink.
See how she sits on her knees all day,
faithfully washing herself down.
Men enter by force, drawn back like Jonah
into their fleshy mothers.
A woman is her mother.
That's the main thing.
What immediately struck me about this poem was its connection to The Awakening. Edna very deliberately "divorces" herself from her husband's house, which is clearly a way for her to separate herself from Mr. Pontellier. He associated the house with Edna's duties as a wife—to greet visitors, to care for the children inside, to generally care for. Her decision to "marry" the pigeon house separates herself from this role. This is so distressing to Mr. Pontellier that he makes up this whole "renovation" excuse to prevent anyone from learning of Edna's decision. Of course, the line "men enter by force" denotes forced marital sex, which we may remember from the scene where Leonce prowled back and forth on the porch waiting for Edna to "come in."
Analyzing the poem by itself, I think it's interesting how the title has this dual meaning--"housewife" and also house=wife. While women "marry houses," they also become the house in some sense. Both remain the property of the husband in most cases. The various parts of the house correspond to the organs of a woman's body. The wife on her knees who scrubs the floor of her house is simultaneously "washing herself down." The wife, in this context as property of her husband, is entirely submissive to the wishes of her husband. If he wishes to enter her "by force," he may. She is "on her knees," suggesting both domestic and sexual submission to her gender role.
I find the reference to Jonah to be interesting. I'm familiar with the story but I've never thought of reading it in a symbolically sexual way. Sexton makes a connection between sex and childbirth, as men through sex are drawn back into the place, the person, they came from. This brings Sexton to her final conclusion that women are their mothers--that the ordeal of childbirth is much like that sex, suggesting some kind of violation. But how exactly was Jonah "drawn back," as in returning, into the "fleshy mother," or the whale? I though it just swallowed him whole and then spat him out. Perhaps men are like Jonah in reverse, first coming in through sex and then leaving through birth.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
The Goddess-- Painful Liberation
The Goddess
Denise Levertov
She in whose lipservice
I passed my time,
whose name I knew, but not her face,
came upon me where I lay in Lie Castle!
Flung me across the room, and
room after room (hitting the wall, re-
bounding—to the last
sticky wall—wrenching away from it
pulled hair out!)
till I lay
outside the outer walls!
There in cold air
lying still where her hand had thrown me,
I tasted the mud that splattered my lips:
the seeds of a forest were in it,
asleep and growing! I tasted
her power!
The silence was answering my silence,
a forest was pushing itself
out of sleep between my submerged fingers.
I bit on a seed and it spoke on my tongue
of day that shone already among the stars
in the water-mirror of low ground,
and a wind rising ruffled the lights:
she passed near me in returning from the encounter,
she who plucked me from the close rooms,
without whom nothing
flowers, fruits, sleeps in season,
without whom nothing
speaks in its own tongue, but returns
lie for lie!
****
Denise Levertov
She in whose lipservice
I passed my time,
whose name I knew, but not her face,
came upon me where I lay in Lie Castle!
Flung me across the room, and
room after room (hitting the wall, re-
bounding—to the last
sticky wall—wrenching away from it
pulled hair out!)
till I lay
outside the outer walls!
There in cold air
lying still where her hand had thrown me,
I tasted the mud that splattered my lips:
the seeds of a forest were in it,
asleep and growing! I tasted
her power!
The silence was answering my silence,
a forest was pushing itself
out of sleep between my submerged fingers.
I bit on a seed and it spoke on my tongue
of day that shone already among the stars
in the water-mirror of low ground,
and a wind rising ruffled the lights:
she passed near me in returning from the encounter,
she who plucked me from the close rooms,
without whom nothing
flowers, fruits, sleeps in season,
without whom nothing
speaks in its own tongue, but returns
lie for lie!
****
"The Goddess," by Denise Levertov, is a vigorous narrative poem rich with sensory descriptions. The religious overtones suggest a symbolic meaning for the poem. The goddess in the poem who violently removes the protagonist from "Lie castle" seems to be a figure for some sort of liberating idea or even epiphany. The "lipservice" mentioned, and the fact that the protagonist "passed my time" in "Lie Castle" paints a picture of a complacent, blind life. She is then brought into the light of reality and seeming independence by the "goddess."
The second stanza, however, suggests a process, a struggle to accept this removal, as the goddess "flung me across the room (hitting the wall, re-/bounding- to the last/ sticky wall- wrenching away from it/ pulled hair out!)/ till I lay / outside the outer walls." This physical battle reminds me of the push and pull of Edna Pontellier's often painful growth into an individual throughout "The Awakening." The process of liberation for Edna, as for the woman in this poem, was not simple, quick, and pleasant, as we typically envision an awakening. Nor does the protagonist in either awaken to a world that is uniformly bright and happy. Instead, there is pain in the act itself of becoming awake, and once the woman is awake, the reality she beholds is not necessarily all cheery. She finds herself "There in the cold air/ lying still where her hand had thrown me," and she tastes "the mud which splattered my lips." Reality for this enlightened woman is gritty and unpleasant, but it is genuine and tangible.
The second stanza, however, suggests a process, a struggle to accept this removal, as the goddess "flung me across the room (hitting the wall, re-/bounding- to the last/ sticky wall- wrenching away from it/ pulled hair out!)/ till I lay / outside the outer walls." This physical battle reminds me of the push and pull of Edna Pontellier's often painful growth into an individual throughout "The Awakening." The process of liberation for Edna, as for the woman in this poem, was not simple, quick, and pleasant, as we typically envision an awakening. Nor does the protagonist in either awaken to a world that is uniformly bright and happy. Instead, there is pain in the act itself of becoming awake, and once the woman is awake, the reality she beholds is not necessarily all cheery. She finds herself "There in the cold air/ lying still where her hand had thrown me," and she tastes "the mud which splattered my lips." Reality for this enlightened woman is gritty and unpleasant, but it is genuine and tangible.
There seems to be hope, however, in this new reality, evidenced by the seed that "spoke on my tongue." A forest sprouts from the seed, out from "sleep", and it speaks of a "day that shone already among the stars." It seems that this one woman's experience has the potential to inspire something similar on a larger scale, perhaps a liberation for women in general. The wind that "ruffles the lights" in the second to last stanza re-enforces the feeling that some sort of grand change is imminent.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
The Women Gather
The Women Gather
by Nikki Giovanni
The women gather
because it is not unusual
to seek comfort in our hours of stress
a man must be buried
It is not unusual
that the old bury the young
though it is an abomination
It is not strange
that the unwise and the ungentle
carry the banner of humaneness
though it is a castration of the spirit
It no longer shatters the intellect
that those who make war
call themselves diplomats
we are no longer surprised that the
unfaithful pray loudest every sunday
in every church and sometimes
in rooms facing east
though it is a sin and a shame
So how do we judge a man
most of us love from our need to love
not because we find someone deserving
most of us forgive
because we have trespassed
not because we are magnanimous
most of us comfort
because we need comforting
our ancient rituals demand that
we give what we hope to receive
And how do we judge a man
we learn to greet when meeting
to cry when parting
and to soften our words at times of stress
the women gather with cloth and ointment
their busy hands bowing to laws that decree
willows shall stand swaying but unbroken
against even the determined wind of death
we judge a man by his dreams,
not alone his deeds
we judge a man by his intent,
not alone his shortcomings
we judge a man because it is not unusual
to know him through those who love him
the women gather strangers
to each other because
they have loved a man
it is not unusual to sift through ashes
and find an unburnt picture.
I chose this poem because Nikki Giovanni is one of my favorite poets, and to me this is one of her most interesting poems. In this poem she speaks of things that are not unexpected, although you think they would be. She conveys this message with the image of a group of women gathering in the time of sorrow. Not only do her words help to convey this message but the form of the poem does as well. One thing is that when you think of poetry, you suually expect there to be a rhyme scheme, hwoever, in this poem there is no rhyme scheme, but yet it is not strange that there isn't one. In addition to this, she starts the poem of with a pattern of how her stanzas flow. The first four stanzas folloe the patter of there being four lines in one stanza, and then three in the next. In the fifth stanza when she says "we are no longer surprised" the reader is surprised because in this stanza there are five lines, which does not follow the patttern of the first four stanzas.
One of my favorite lines and probably one of the most powerful lines in the poem is "it is not unusual to sift through ashes and find an unburnt picture." I say this because it conveys the message of the whole poem and it is a striking image. Things may not always be what we expect them to be because of how they appear. We can find beautiful things in the most ugly places.
My Life had stood - a Loaded Gun
My Life had stood - a Loaded Gun - In Corners - till a Day The Owner passed - identified - And carried Me away - And now We roam in Sovereign Woods - And now We hunt the Doe - And every time I speak for Him - The Mountains straight reply - And do I smile, such cordial light Upon the Valley glow - It is as a Vesuvian face Had let its pleasure through - And when at Night - Our good Day done - I guard My Master's Head - 'Tis better than the Eider-Duck's Deep Pillow - to have shared - To foe of His - I'm deadly foe - None stir the second time - On whom I lay a Yellow Eye - Or an emphatic Thumb - Though I than He - may longer live He longer must - than I - For I have but the power to kill, Without--the power to die-- |
This is going to sound absurd, beyond absurd, but I truly enjoy writing to some relaxing, thought provoking music. Tonight I decided upon my Beatles play list. Naturally, I began with "While My Guitar Gently Weeps," but that's not where the absurdity begins... When my thoughts really began to move towards a reading for this poem was when "Happiness is a Warm Gun" came on. The song is a counter perspective, as I read it, to "My Life had Stood." The song's perspective, although the gun being a female, just as in the poem, is sung from a man's viewpoint. It's uncanny the resemblance between the two: I digress... I picked this poem because I truly enjoyed the first lines of the poem, but my favorite stanza is: And do I smile, such cordial light Upon the Valley glow - It is as a Vesuvian face Had let its pleasure through - The slave position in which Dickinson places herself in a position of a slave. Her power is purely derived from the man's touch, his ability to "pull her trigger." Obviously sexual, the gun is a classic phallic symbol, and placing the woman as the gun, Dickinson becomes a toy of sexual desire: she is not of her own sexuality, but entirely his. Just after she fires, kills the doe, a female deer, she gives him pleasure, but the "cordial light" speaks to lack of pleasure that she experiences. Dickinson's use of dashes is absolutely brilliant, I think. The dashes don't let the sentences end, but also allow complete thoughts to come through. Much like the oppression Kate Chopin experienced for voicing her full thoughts on sexual expression, Dickinson is displaying those thoughts, but holding back as if to remain appropriate on some level. The dashes, the nearly stream-of-consciousness style show there is more to be written, said, and she's left thoughts from her poem. She has power, but not without man's approval to use it. |
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
"The Mother"
Abortions will not let you forget.
You remember the children you got that you did not get,
The damp small pulps with a little or with no hair,
The singers and workers that never handled the air.
You will never neglect or beat
Them, or silence or buy with a sweet.
You will never wind up the sucking-thumb
Or scuttle off ghosts that come.
You will never leave them, controlling your luscious sigh,
Return for a snack of them, with gobbling mother-eye.
I have heard in the voices of the wind the voices of my dim killed
children.
I have contracted. I have eased
My dim dears at the breasts they could never suck.
I have said, Sweets, if I sinned, if I seized
Your luck
And your lives from your unfinished reach,
If I stole your births and your names,
Your straight baby tears and your games,
Your stilted or lovely loves, your tumults, your marriages, aches,
and your deaths,
If I poisoned the beginnings of your breaths,
Believe that even in my deliberateness I was not deliberate.
Though why should I whine,
Whine that the crime was other than mine?--
Since anyhow you are dead.
Or rather, or instead,
You were never made.
But that too, I am afraid,
Is faulty: oh, what shall I say, how is the truth to be said?
You were born, you had body, you died.
It is just that you never giggled or planned or cried.
Believe me, I loved you all.
Believe me, I knew you, though faintly, and I loved, I loved you
All.
Gwendolyn Brooks
This poem is thick, and deals with a very heavy issue that mothers must deal with. I picked this poem because it covers all of the emotions of the emotions that a mother feels when raising her children, yet the women in this poem has not experienced those feelings completely as she has opted to have an abortion. Brooks brings all of those struggles encountered in being a mother to life through the eyes of this mother who has opted to have an abortion yet still experiences these motherly feelings "faintly." A line that particularly stuck out to me was, "Though why should I whine, / Whine that the crime was other than mine?--" From this line I took Brooks making a statement that is often made when the topic of abortion comes about. The female is commonly frowned upon when the decision to have an abortion is made, and the male half of the relationship is commonly forgotten about. However, as the old cliche goes, "it takes two to tango." Therefore, this crime of abortion is not solely hers, and the all the responsibility that goes into taking care of a child and the decision to abort the child cannot be solely thrown on the mother. Within the poem itself, Brooks does a great job of using caesura within the body of her poem to put emphasis on those feelings that are felt between a mother and a child. It highlights those feelings that are being lost by the mothers choosing to have an abortion and all the people that the abortion has a long term affect on. Brooks also employs the art of enjambment also. This again adds to her emphasis on particular messages and the take away meaning of her poem. It continues the ideas from one line to the next and continually from the poem itself on into real life where such experiences really occur. Overall this poem was very intriguing and full of emotion that is not experienced by everyone on a daily basis.
You remember the children you got that you did not get,
The damp small pulps with a little or with no hair,
The singers and workers that never handled the air.
You will never neglect or beat
Them, or silence or buy with a sweet.
You will never wind up the sucking-thumb
Or scuttle off ghosts that come.
You will never leave them, controlling your luscious sigh,
Return for a snack of them, with gobbling mother-eye.
I have heard in the voices of the wind the voices of my dim killed
children.
I have contracted. I have eased
My dim dears at the breasts they could never suck.
I have said, Sweets, if I sinned, if I seized
Your luck
And your lives from your unfinished reach,
If I stole your births and your names,
Your straight baby tears and your games,
Your stilted or lovely loves, your tumults, your marriages, aches,
and your deaths,
If I poisoned the beginnings of your breaths,
Believe that even in my deliberateness I was not deliberate.
Though why should I whine,
Whine that the crime was other than mine?--
Since anyhow you are dead.
Or rather, or instead,
You were never made.
But that too, I am afraid,
Is faulty: oh, what shall I say, how is the truth to be said?
You were born, you had body, you died.
It is just that you never giggled or planned or cried.
Believe me, I loved you all.
Believe me, I knew you, though faintly, and I loved, I loved you
All.
Gwendolyn Brooks
This poem is thick, and deals with a very heavy issue that mothers must deal with. I picked this poem because it covers all of the emotions of the emotions that a mother feels when raising her children, yet the women in this poem has not experienced those feelings completely as she has opted to have an abortion. Brooks brings all of those struggles encountered in being a mother to life through the eyes of this mother who has opted to have an abortion yet still experiences these motherly feelings "faintly." A line that particularly stuck out to me was, "Though why should I whine, / Whine that the crime was other than mine?--" From this line I took Brooks making a statement that is often made when the topic of abortion comes about. The female is commonly frowned upon when the decision to have an abortion is made, and the male half of the relationship is commonly forgotten about. However, as the old cliche goes, "it takes two to tango." Therefore, this crime of abortion is not solely hers, and the all the responsibility that goes into taking care of a child and the decision to abort the child cannot be solely thrown on the mother. Within the poem itself, Brooks does a great job of using caesura within the body of her poem to put emphasis on those feelings that are felt between a mother and a child. It highlights those feelings that are being lost by the mothers choosing to have an abortion and all the people that the abortion has a long term affect on. Brooks also employs the art of enjambment also. This again adds to her emphasis on particular messages and the take away meaning of her poem. It continues the ideas from one line to the next and continually from the poem itself on into real life where such experiences really occur. Overall this poem was very intriguing and full of emotion that is not experienced by everyone on a daily basis.
Friday, September 23, 2011
The "Meatheads" Lead the Way
With the recent end in the "don't ask don't tell" debacle within our nations military, The Marines have taken an early lead in the recruitment of gays and lesbians to join their ranks. The New York Times have been covering this developing story closely over the past few weeks, pushing it onto the front page most of the time. The same held true in Wednesday's edition of The Times, as the main article front and center was titled "Marines Hit the Ground Running in Seeking Recruits at Gay Center." This was a shocking headline for me to read. I am an advocate for anyone and everyone being available to apply to join the armed forces (granted they pass the standards set forth by those individual groups themselves) so it was not the fact that recruiting had begun at the Gay Center, but rather the branch that was leading the way on the recruiting trail. The Marines are typically thought of as the most masculine group on the battle field. They are distinctly recognizable by their boisterous "Hooo-Haaaa's" that can be heard from a great distance away. As well as their incessant yelling of "Semper-Fi" the mantra in which they fight and believe. As the article states, the "Marines pride themselves on being the most testosterone-driven of the services." This is what caught my eye. They were the only branch of the service present at the convention doing recruiting. What does this say about the marines? Does this affect their "macho" image? Or is this just a glimpse into the changing times we are apart of in today's society? Me personally, I am happy to see them leading the way. I do not see this as a lessening of their masculine image, or tough side at all. Rather, I see this act as nothing but a strengthening of their overall image as a service branch. They are separating themselves from the rest of the pack, and going above and beyond to find the best civilians to join their ranks and fight for their country. I see this as them gaining a step on everyone else. Even if they did not gain any possible recruits on the day at the Center, they were there taking advantage of the recent change in law, and looking for the right caliber of person to join their ranks. People that the others would have missed out on.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Sexiest Women in the World...Is a Man?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2039478/Womenswear-model-Andrej-Pejic-struggles-maintain-25in-waist.html
I think just about everything in this article is fascinating from a gender perspective. The URL pretty much tells you the gist of the story--a male womenswear model is forced to starve himself in order to maintain his figure. I loved his quote: "Let's be honest. You can't eat much if you want to do this." Obviously Andrej is forced to conform to the societal-imposed standard of thinness=beauty. The strange thing is that one typically thinks of that standard as patriarchical in nature, but here we have a man that's forced to conform to it--and as a result Kate Moss calls him "beautiful"! She's not the only one that thinks he does a good job of it. Not only does he make a good living looking like a woman, but Barnes and Noble actually censored a topless image of him! This of course brings up a whole range of issues. B&N said they did it because they were afraid that someone might think he's a woman.
I can imagine a conversation going something like:
Concerned Parent: "I can't believe they let my kids see this! That's a half-naked woman! This is terrible!"
B&N Worker: "Actually that person is biologically male"
Concerned Parent: "Oh, then that's fine"
There's also an interesting comment in the story about women in his line of work don't like him all that much--because he's too good of a competitor! Besides these larger issues of what society thinks, however, I also thought it was really interesting how Andrej himself thinks about his unique gender-bending role. He is biologically male, and his body is "normal" in that respect. He creates his image through a combination of cosmetics and a strict dietary/exercise regimen. For him, gender is understandably a very fluid concept. He describes how can feel like one and then the other. Interestingly, he doesn't argue that gender is arbitrary or some kind of "spectrum" on which he falls near the middle. He sees it still it as a binary, just one which he may cross over at any time. Yet, at the very end of the article, he says, "I don't want to be a girl, but I like to dress like one." Thus, although Andrej may at times "feel" like a woman, he still clings to his personal identity as a man.
You might also find this link interesting, where FHM listed Andrej as the 98th sexiest "women" in the world...oops!: http://www.fhm.com/upgrade/fhm-andrej-pejic-apology-81335
I think just about everything in this article is fascinating from a gender perspective. The URL pretty much tells you the gist of the story--a male womenswear model is forced to starve himself in order to maintain his figure. I loved his quote: "Let's be honest. You can't eat much if you want to do this." Obviously Andrej is forced to conform to the societal-imposed standard of thinness=beauty. The strange thing is that one typically thinks of that standard as patriarchical in nature, but here we have a man that's forced to conform to it--and as a result Kate Moss calls him "beautiful"! She's not the only one that thinks he does a good job of it. Not only does he make a good living looking like a woman, but Barnes and Noble actually censored a topless image of him! This of course brings up a whole range of issues. B&N said they did it because they were afraid that someone might think he's a woman.
I can imagine a conversation going something like:
Concerned Parent: "I can't believe they let my kids see this! That's a half-naked woman! This is terrible!"
B&N Worker: "Actually that person is biologically male"
Concerned Parent: "Oh, then that's fine"
There's also an interesting comment in the story about women in his line of work don't like him all that much--because he's too good of a competitor! Besides these larger issues of what society thinks, however, I also thought it was really interesting how Andrej himself thinks about his unique gender-bending role. He is biologically male, and his body is "normal" in that respect. He creates his image through a combination of cosmetics and a strict dietary/exercise regimen. For him, gender is understandably a very fluid concept. He describes how can feel like one and then the other. Interestingly, he doesn't argue that gender is arbitrary or some kind of "spectrum" on which he falls near the middle. He sees it still it as a binary, just one which he may cross over at any time. Yet, at the very end of the article, he says, "I don't want to be a girl, but I like to dress like one." Thus, although Andrej may at times "feel" like a woman, he still clings to his personal identity as a man.
You might also find this link interesting, where FHM listed Andrej as the 98th sexiest "women" in the world...oops!: http://www.fhm.com/upgrade/fhm-andrej-pejic-apology-81335
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Women, Dating, and Math
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heidi-grant-halvorson-phd/wanting-love-bad-at-math_b_958916.html
I found this interesting article on the Huffington Post. Basically, it summarizes a study that suggests "girls may prefer to study language, arts and humanities over math and science...[because] they believe, often on an unconscious level, that demonstrating ability in these stereotypically-male areas makes them less attractive to men. The study attempted to prove this by showing how women who had recently viewed romantic images or overheard romantic conversation rated their interest in math lower than women who had not recently viewed romantic images or overheard romantic conversation. On the other hand, men's ratings of their interest in math-related fields remained consistent despite seeing romantic images or hearing romantic conversation.
If the study's conclusion that women avoid math and science because they believe it makes them seem less attractive is correct, it proves that the construction of our gender roles wields an incredible amount of power. And it also makes one question in what ways seeing romantic images would effect men? In what other ways does our gender construction unconsciously affect our thinking and actions?
Also, what happens to a woman who reads about this study? Can she be "awakened" in the same sense that Edna is awakened? Does having a growing conscious and awareness of one's unconscious gender construction allow one to change his/her behavior? Or are we inevitably stuck in our genders, no matter how much information we possess?
I found this interesting article on the Huffington Post. Basically, it summarizes a study that suggests "girls may prefer to study language, arts and humanities over math and science...[because] they believe, often on an unconscious level, that demonstrating ability in these stereotypically-male areas makes them less attractive to men. The study attempted to prove this by showing how women who had recently viewed romantic images or overheard romantic conversation rated their interest in math lower than women who had not recently viewed romantic images or overheard romantic conversation. On the other hand, men's ratings of their interest in math-related fields remained consistent despite seeing romantic images or hearing romantic conversation.
If the study's conclusion that women avoid math and science because they believe it makes them seem less attractive is correct, it proves that the construction of our gender roles wields an incredible amount of power. And it also makes one question in what ways seeing romantic images would effect men? In what other ways does our gender construction unconsciously affect our thinking and actions?
Also, what happens to a woman who reads about this study? Can she be "awakened" in the same sense that Edna is awakened? Does having a growing conscious and awareness of one's unconscious gender construction allow one to change his/her behavior? Or are we inevitably stuck in our genders, no matter how much information we possess?
Music? Again? Really!?
No, I'll change subject matter, at least for the week. What's been on my mind for this last week is Football. I've been watching an inordinate amount of that and ESPN. What self-respecting man wouldn't? (Joke...) However, one thing that I've noticed, on every station, is the repetition of one specific advertisement campaign. Miller Light has began marketing specifically to men... by challenging their manliness. The series of commercials, we all know them, downgrade the manliness of skinny jeans, speedos, fake tanning, and attending the facilities in groups. Hilarity ensues when the women, scantily clad, decide to deride the violations as well. What really struck my fancy, however was the issue of justifying drinking a light beer. Is light beer some how a woman's drink; is this why Miller Light has started a manliness campaign? Me, personally, I thoroughly enjoy light beer from time to time, but I began to thing about my past experience... On this campus, light beer, despite being popular, is frowned upon. I hear, "Why didn't you get heavy?" or "Bud Light? No diesel?" Hmm... Why would an all guy's campus frown upon light beer? As an all-male school, are we the perfect place to define masculinity? I think there is certain merit in that question. But, as many at this campus would say, back to the beer. If light beer is really seen as unmanly, feminine, I can see why Miller is now trying to change a marketing campaign to target men specifically. With luscious females, a casual bar scene, and stubble on their faces, men are being men, and these men, as they denigrate their fellow male companion, judge masculinity based upon their beer choice, which is now, apparently, light! Why however, I must ask though, are skinny jeans, fake tans, and speedos unmanly? Is it really unmanly, or is Miller marketing some sort of homophobia in these ads? The bathroom ad would certainly lead me to believe that they indeed are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)