I think the idea of the two African American male stereotypes is very accurate. The "Sambo" image presents black men as lazy, irresponsible, docile, and dependent while the "Brute" image presents black men as primitive, animal-like, and sexually aggressive. I feel like these stereotypes do not only exist in America. In Ecuador, black men are seen as sexually aggressive due to their larger penises ("Brute"), while indigenous men are seen as sexually inferior due to their smaller penises. Ecuadorian black men also carry the stereotype of being lazy, and they are also robbers. I feel these African American stereotypes appear in many parts of the world, not just the U.S.
According to the article, many school teachers naturally expect lower performance from black students. I am aware of studies which have been done on the value of education in cultures. Blacks place near the bottom as far as culturally putting value on education and grades. My mom is a teacher. She attended an in-service day which presented these cultural studies to teachers. How do these studies tie in with the expectations of teachers for black students? If teachers are aware that blacks statistically show less educational concern due to their culture, will teachers start expecting less of black students? I have a black cat at home who often behaves stupidly. When my mom was telling a story about our cat to one of the teachers at her school, the teacher replied as a joke "I know why your cat is so stupid, she is black!!" From everything I have heard from my mom, many teachers see black people as being less hard-working and less capable in school. It is unfair to black students that this stereotype exists before they have a chance to prove themselves.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Response to: Safe Boys, Safe Schools
This article discusses the need for boys to remain in the 'box' of masculinity. There is a contrast between weak and strong. Many boys feel pressure to be strong, both physically and emotionally, which can lead to emotional detachment. Emotional detachment is the key factor in allowing violence to occur. Once the aggressor is removed from the sentiments of the victim, it is easier for them to commit acts of aggression (such as sexual harassment, verbal disrespect, etc.). Many boys develop homophobia, a fear of femininity, as a strategy to keep them in the 'box'. The idea of homophobia expands further than a simple fear of homosexuality, and this fear is experienced universally by boys. The idea of homophobia is not battled in many school. Boys who are not seen as masculine "jocks" are harassed as "homos" or "rejects." This harassment is probable cause for many of the school shootings, as the "rejects" see a need to prove their manliness through violence.
Some schools are working now to give boys an opportunity to find positive male role models (who differ from the violent men often portrayed in the media). This occurs through programs like Men Helping Boys with Choices. Schools in Scotland has banned the use of homophobic words such as "sissy" from schools.
In my opinion, I agree with that homophobia is present in many teenage boys. When my boyfriend, Justin, and I first started dating (at age 16), there was a bi-sexual boy who had a thing for Justin. This "crush" bothered Justin to no end. He was terrified that others were going to associate him with being gay or feminine (even though he was dating me?). I used to tease him about the "crush" as a way of pushing his buttons (and because I found it ridiculous). Looking back, I should have talked to Justin on a more serious level about what was going on to help him relieve his insecurities instead of making jokes like other people did...
I really like how the schools in Scotland are banning the use of homophobic words in schools. This is a really positive start to changing the outlook of masculinity (and possibly even increasing the acceptance of homosexuality).
Some schools are working now to give boys an opportunity to find positive male role models (who differ from the violent men often portrayed in the media). This occurs through programs like Men Helping Boys with Choices. Schools in Scotland has banned the use of homophobic words such as "sissy" from schools.
In my opinion, I agree with that homophobia is present in many teenage boys. When my boyfriend, Justin, and I first started dating (at age 16), there was a bi-sexual boy who had a thing for Justin. This "crush" bothered Justin to no end. He was terrified that others were going to associate him with being gay or feminine (even though he was dating me?). I used to tease him about the "crush" as a way of pushing his buttons (and because I found it ridiculous). Looking back, I should have talked to Justin on a more serious level about what was going on to help him relieve his insecurities instead of making jokes like other people did...
I really like how the schools in Scotland are banning the use of homophobic words in schools. This is a really positive start to changing the outlook of masculinity (and possibly even increasing the acceptance of homosexuality).
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Eco/Marxist/Multicultural & Global Feminisms
There are many factors that I like about Eco-feminism. Eco-feminism believes that women is naturally associated with nature. Man make it their goal to overcome nature; and therefore, to suppress women. Looking at nature from a linguistic standpoint, there is Father-sky and Mother-earth. The sky is above the earth, indicating male superiority over women even in nature. The goal of Eco-feminism is to take the association of women with nature and to turn it into a positive image. A beautiful example of women standing up for their connection with nature occurred in a village in Nigeria. The men wanted to cut down the trees to sell them for money. The women valued the trees, because they provided firewood, shade, and protection from the river (with erosion, flooding, etc.). To prevent the men from chopping down the trees, the women tied themselves to the trees. I love this example of women coming together to protect their connection with the environment.
Marxist and Socialist feminism focuses mainly on the rights of women in the workplace. I love this branch of feminism, because I see equality in the work place as a huge issue in the United States. Marxist/Socialist feminism asks why jobs dominated by men are paid higher than jobs dominated by women. It focuses on the invisible labor of women that men do not have to worry about, such as child care, cooking, cleaning, and reproduction in times of war. For me, work rights (and division of work) both inside and outside the home are extremely important. Marxist and Socialist feminism is very appealing to me.
Multicultural/Global feminism recognizes the diversity of women in the world. It resists the idea of female essentialism and identifies with the "multiple jeopardy" of many women between race, class, etc. Multicultural/Global feminism tries to incorporate the interests of women in both the 3rd and 1st world nations. One of my favorite aspects of Multicultural/Global feminism is the want to replace the word "feminist" with "womanist" to indicate pro-woman as not being anti-man.
I see Eco, Marxist, and Multicultural feminism as all positive aspects of feminism, and I can relate to all of them.
Marxist and Socialist feminism focuses mainly on the rights of women in the workplace. I love this branch of feminism, because I see equality in the work place as a huge issue in the United States. Marxist/Socialist feminism asks why jobs dominated by men are paid higher than jobs dominated by women. It focuses on the invisible labor of women that men do not have to worry about, such as child care, cooking, cleaning, and reproduction in times of war. For me, work rights (and division of work) both inside and outside the home are extremely important. Marxist and Socialist feminism is very appealing to me.
Multicultural/Global feminism recognizes the diversity of women in the world. It resists the idea of female essentialism and identifies with the "multiple jeopardy" of many women between race, class, etc. Multicultural/Global feminism tries to incorporate the interests of women in both the 3rd and 1st world nations. One of my favorite aspects of Multicultural/Global feminism is the want to replace the word "feminist" with "womanist" to indicate pro-woman as not being anti-man.
I see Eco, Marxist, and Multicultural feminism as all positive aspects of feminism, and I can relate to all of them.
"Tough Guise"
I really enjoyed the movie "Tough Guise," because I felt like it brought interesting ideas to the concept of violence in our society. Violence in America is committed 90% of the time by men. Our society naturally assumes that men are responsible for violence. When you look at newspapers, the headlines focus on the victims of male-committed crimes and the perpetrators of female-committed crimes. The newspapers do not state male-perpetrators in headlines to avoid being over-obvious. Yet, society may need the over-obvious to be stated to openly connect gender with current violence issues.
There is definitely an uprising to the feminist movements from men like Dice Clay and Howard Stern. Both of these white men attract an audience through degrading women both sexually and professionally. The audience that these shows attract is often men who are not comfortable with the rising power of women. It is sad that such men have to listen to degrading humor to make themselves feel important.
In politics, feminist power is seen as threatening to the right wing. Extreme right-winged people want to see America like it was in the 50s, where men worked and where women were in the household. Ronald Reagan took office immediately after many advancements in feminism, racial equality, and gay rights. These rights began to decline after Reagan was in office. Another right-winged politician who is anti-feminism is Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh creates negative images of what he considers the "typical feminist."
The last interesting bit from "Tough Guise" that I want to mention is male action figures. Since the woman's rights movement, the arms in male action figures have increased dramatically in size. In comparison, the ideal female figure has decreased in size, becoming more frail. In the 50s, Marylin Monroe was a fashion icon at a size 12. Today, Kate Moss is a size 2. Men in the media have become bigger while women have become smaller. Is this a way for high powered men to take control of increasing female power? "Tough Guise" suggests it is.
I really enjoyed the movie "Tough Guise." It addressed some feminist issues with the media that I was not previously aware of. It was interesting for me to see how politics and the media have worked together to portray messages to the American public, as in the increased body size of male action figures or in the character Rambo, who was created to redefine masculinity after loosing the Vietnam war. The concluding message of the movie was that men need to individually have the courage to stand up to the "Tough Guise" stereotype and to support girls and women in their search for equality. I feel this message is really positive, and it gives hope for woman's rights and decreased violence against women.
There is definitely an uprising to the feminist movements from men like Dice Clay and Howard Stern. Both of these white men attract an audience through degrading women both sexually and professionally. The audience that these shows attract is often men who are not comfortable with the rising power of women. It is sad that such men have to listen to degrading humor to make themselves feel important.
In politics, feminist power is seen as threatening to the right wing. Extreme right-winged people want to see America like it was in the 50s, where men worked and where women were in the household. Ronald Reagan took office immediately after many advancements in feminism, racial equality, and gay rights. These rights began to decline after Reagan was in office. Another right-winged politician who is anti-feminism is Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh creates negative images of what he considers the "typical feminist."
The last interesting bit from "Tough Guise" that I want to mention is male action figures. Since the woman's rights movement, the arms in male action figures have increased dramatically in size. In comparison, the ideal female figure has decreased in size, becoming more frail. In the 50s, Marylin Monroe was a fashion icon at a size 12. Today, Kate Moss is a size 2. Men in the media have become bigger while women have become smaller. Is this a way for high powered men to take control of increasing female power? "Tough Guise" suggests it is.
I really enjoyed the movie "Tough Guise." It addressed some feminist issues with the media that I was not previously aware of. It was interesting for me to see how politics and the media have worked together to portray messages to the American public, as in the increased body size of male action figures or in the character Rambo, who was created to redefine masculinity after loosing the Vietnam war. The concluding message of the movie was that men need to individually have the courage to stand up to the "Tough Guise" stereotype and to support girls and women in their search for equality. I feel this message is really positive, and it gives hope for woman's rights and decreased violence against women.
Post-Modern and Third-Wave Feminism
Post-Modern Feminism is known as "feminism for intellects." It focuses on the dichotomy of language and how it enforces gender stereotypes. In language, men are usually associated with positive terms like activity, sun, culture, day, speaking, and high while women are associated with negative terms like passivity, moon, nature, night, writing, and low. Post-modern feminism tries to break the trio of the phallus/penis/pen by playing with language in writing. It is criticized for being "all talk, no walk," because it is too much about writing and not enough about political movement.
Third-Wave feminism is considered to be "lived messiness." It focuses on the contradictions and differences lived by women in society. Whereas second-wave feminism focused mainly on the needs of white women, third-wave feminism tries to understand the individual needs of women of all races and social classes. Third-wave feminism's main goal is female empowerment. It contradicts second-wave feminism, because it focuses on power-feminism instead of victim-feminism. The criticisms of third-wave feminism are the lack of a defined goal, which results from trying to accommodate so many types of women.
Third-Wave feminism appeals more to me than Post-Modern feminism, because it takes an international perspective. After living in Ecuador and seeing the injustices to women in other countries, I like that there is a type of feminism that tries to consider the concerns of everyone. I do understand how it can be unproductive, because women in Ecuador face very different issues than women in America. I wish there was a way to take the ideas of Third-Wave feminism and make them more productive.
Third-Wave feminism is considered to be "lived messiness." It focuses on the contradictions and differences lived by women in society. Whereas second-wave feminism focused mainly on the needs of white women, third-wave feminism tries to understand the individual needs of women of all races and social classes. Third-wave feminism's main goal is female empowerment. It contradicts second-wave feminism, because it focuses on power-feminism instead of victim-feminism. The criticisms of third-wave feminism are the lack of a defined goal, which results from trying to accommodate so many types of women.
Third-Wave feminism appeals more to me than Post-Modern feminism, because it takes an international perspective. After living in Ecuador and seeing the injustices to women in other countries, I like that there is a type of feminism that tries to consider the concerns of everyone. I do understand how it can be unproductive, because women in Ecuador face very different issues than women in America. I wish there was a way to take the ideas of Third-Wave feminism and make them more productive.
Historical Perspective of Male Dominance
I want to briefly write about the historical perspective of male dominance that we discussed in class. Originally, humans had a hunter-gatherer society, where men and women were most likely equally valued. The men hunted while the women gathered, but neither role was seen as superior. When horticulture became popular, women still were viewed equally, as they helped with the farming and with the kids. Agrarian societies caused women to be valued less, because land ownership automatically fell into the hands of men. During the industrial revolution, women were forced to stay at home with the kids while men went out and worked. This further increased the division of the sexes.
The historical perspective also takes politics into account as to why men are superior to women. The hunting-gathering societies were most likely rules by privileged families as opposed to a single, chosen leader. This system gave women power as well as men. When the feudal system took over, the new found "state" governments had to find a way to control the people. By controlling the women, the governments could have control over production and reproduction; whereas controlling the men only gave the opportunity to control production.
The evolution of politics and the development of the division of labor through history make sense to me. I can see how the repression of women could be a gradual process. If the historical theory argues that female oppression is gradual, does this imply that Renaissance women were more free than the women of the industrial revolution? I am not sure that this is accurate. In the Renaissance, women were the property of men. They served mainly 2 purposes; to reproduce and to be icons of wealth. Women wore elaborate dresses, embroidered with their husbands' crests. The oppression of women is easily seen in Renaissance art, where women are painted in profile, without life-like characteristics. Leonardo Da Vinci is often seen as a feminist painter, because he was one of the first painters in history to give women personality and identity. I have a feeling that women during the industrial revolution were seen to have some identity instead of being considered void of personality. While the historical perspective of male dominance makes logical sense to me, I have a reason to doubt the theory.
The historical perspective also takes politics into account as to why men are superior to women. The hunting-gathering societies were most likely rules by privileged families as opposed to a single, chosen leader. This system gave women power as well as men. When the feudal system took over, the new found "state" governments had to find a way to control the people. By controlling the women, the governments could have control over production and reproduction; whereas controlling the men only gave the opportunity to control production.
The evolution of politics and the development of the division of labor through history make sense to me. I can see how the repression of women could be a gradual process. If the historical theory argues that female oppression is gradual, does this imply that Renaissance women were more free than the women of the industrial revolution? I am not sure that this is accurate. In the Renaissance, women were the property of men. They served mainly 2 purposes; to reproduce and to be icons of wealth. Women wore elaborate dresses, embroidered with their husbands' crests. The oppression of women is easily seen in Renaissance art, where women are painted in profile, without life-like characteristics. Leonardo Da Vinci is often seen as a feminist painter, because he was one of the first painters in history to give women personality and identity. I have a feeling that women during the industrial revolution were seen to have some identity instead of being considered void of personality. While the historical perspective of male dominance makes logical sense to me, I have a reason to doubt the theory.
Mr. Juniata
Mr. Juniata is a wonderful spectacle on campus that gives to charity. I always make it a priority to go and to support Circle K. This year was especially interesting, as I found myself paying increased attention to the gender innuendos.
The first gender stereotype occurred with a banana. Many of the guys in Mr. Juniata wore tight costumes. One of the contestants put a banana in his pants (which he pulled out at the end of his act and ate), exemplifying the societal pressures for men to have large penises. Bananas are also items that society sees as phallic, raising the idea of phallic-associated items vs. vaginal-associated items in society. I feel the phallic association of everyday items was best pioneered by Freud, as phallic and vaginal symbols were significant in his interpretations of dreams. This Mr. Juniata skit definitely shed light on gender ideals in our society.
A second, interesting, gender idea occurred in the Indiana Jones skit. Here, the contestant used the idea of the "male conqueror" for his skit. This theme of men as conquerors is constantly in the media today. I loved this skit, and I thought it portrayed our idea of men in Hollywood to a tee.
The last gender stereotype I am going to discuss was present in the escort portion of Mr. Juniata. One of the contestants gave his 2 escorts a pan and a bottle of laundry detergent. While this was meant to be ironic and funny, I found it to be an interesting statement about what society still thinks of women. Even though associations between women and housework are slowly being broken down, they are still extremely prevalent.
Mr. Juniata was wonderful this year. I found it especially interesting to analyze the gender statements throughout the show. I am glad that Circle K used the show to help a charity and that it is a successful fundraiser.
The first gender stereotype occurred with a banana. Many of the guys in Mr. Juniata wore tight costumes. One of the contestants put a banana in his pants (which he pulled out at the end of his act and ate), exemplifying the societal pressures for men to have large penises. Bananas are also items that society sees as phallic, raising the idea of phallic-associated items vs. vaginal-associated items in society. I feel the phallic association of everyday items was best pioneered by Freud, as phallic and vaginal symbols were significant in his interpretations of dreams. This Mr. Juniata skit definitely shed light on gender ideals in our society.
A second, interesting, gender idea occurred in the Indiana Jones skit. Here, the contestant used the idea of the "male conqueror" for his skit. This theme of men as conquerors is constantly in the media today. I loved this skit, and I thought it portrayed our idea of men in Hollywood to a tee.
The last gender stereotype I am going to discuss was present in the escort portion of Mr. Juniata. One of the contestants gave his 2 escorts a pan and a bottle of laundry detergent. While this was meant to be ironic and funny, I found it to be an interesting statement about what society still thinks of women. Even though associations between women and housework are slowly being broken down, they are still extremely prevalent.
Mr. Juniata was wonderful this year. I found it especially interesting to analyze the gender statements throughout the show. I am glad that Circle K used the show to help a charity and that it is a successful fundraiser.
Gender and Biology
Since I have not blogged in a while, I am going to backtrack a few weeks and work myself up to the topics we are doing for this week. First, I want to write about the Gender and Biology lecture from an anthropological perspective. The first item from the lecture that interested me was the difference in the brain regions. The INAH section of the brain has 4 sections. Only sections 1 and 4 are the same anatomically in both men and women; however, the INAH sections 2 and 3 in gay men are identical to women. This fact interested me, because it makes sense that gay men would have similar biology to women. Could the difference in the INAH sections 2 and 3 contribute biologically to the traditional, dominant, manly characters found in some straight men or are these characteristics created culturally?
Other brain differences include the size of the corpus colossum (which is bigger in women than in men)and the sections of the brain used. When listening to a story, men tend to be more lateralized, using only the left half of the brain, while women tend to be more whole brained. When solving a problem, women use the right hippocampus while men use the left. There are obvious differences in the thinking patterns between men and women. Do these thinking patterns contribute to our gender differences?
When giving directions, men use cardinal directions and mileage while women use land marks. In general, men tend to be better at navigating then women. My dad has always told me that I am the only woman he knows that can read a map. Rather I should take this as a compliment to myself or as an insult to my gender, I have not yet decided. Evidence does show, however, that women navigate worse when they are ovulating. This leads me to believe that navigation is closely related with hormones.
The last factor I found interesting from the lecture was the difference in attraction between men and women. The qualities women find most attractive in men are money and attitude towards kids. Men are most interested in younger women (between 22 and 27), symmetry, average-ness, and hip to waist ratio. Women want men who can provide for a family while men want women who are young enough to produce a lot of offspring. When I think about it, these characteristics seem pretty accurate. However, it does bother me that women are gold-diggers and that men are most-interested in looks.
Other brain differences include the size of the corpus colossum (which is bigger in women than in men)and the sections of the brain used. When listening to a story, men tend to be more lateralized, using only the left half of the brain, while women tend to be more whole brained. When solving a problem, women use the right hippocampus while men use the left. There are obvious differences in the thinking patterns between men and women. Do these thinking patterns contribute to our gender differences?
When giving directions, men use cardinal directions and mileage while women use land marks. In general, men tend to be better at navigating then women. My dad has always told me that I am the only woman he knows that can read a map. Rather I should take this as a compliment to myself or as an insult to my gender, I have not yet decided. Evidence does show, however, that women navigate worse when they are ovulating. This leads me to believe that navigation is closely related with hormones.
The last factor I found interesting from the lecture was the difference in attraction between men and women. The qualities women find most attractive in men are money and attitude towards kids. Men are most interested in younger women (between 22 and 27), symmetry, average-ness, and hip to waist ratio. Women want men who can provide for a family while men want women who are young enough to produce a lot of offspring. When I think about it, these characteristics seem pretty accurate. However, it does bother me that women are gold-diggers and that men are most-interested in looks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)