Monday, March 10, 2008
McGowan/Dawson Rolling Stone Ads
When we were talking about the Rose McGowan and Rosario Dawson ad, today, a thought occurred to me that suddenly shed new meaning on the idea of bullets as (scanty) clothing. We discussed the enticing/welcoming gaze in the ad, too, and this concept helped support my reading of the ad, which is that the women are not necessarily passive, as some of us said in class. One the one hand, the women are naked and inviting, which seems passive (like they are inviting us for sex but, more specifically, to be the "active" participants); on the other hand, while these women are putting on an enticing and passive air with their respective expressions and postures, and their nudity, they are dressed, albeit scantily, in bullets. Thus, with this "clothing" as a protective barrier, they seem to say that they are not "push overs" and, thus, that they can take care of themselves. They have some agency, and if/when they choose to exert it, they will. "Come here," they seem to say, "I DARE you." To me, that is not passive but rather a shining example of feminism and female power.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Faludi
As we see in all of the Susan Faludi chapters, women still do not have equal rights as men. They are not treated fairly and not respected as women. One could say that women are seen as objects and not intellectual beings as they are. The static’s speak for them when she explained the number of women working in fortune 500 companies and just in the workplace in general. These are problems that I do not think have changed even now in 2008. I think that some of these numbers are old. I would like to see the results from these same polls today. The idea of blaming feminism on all of women’s problems in getting jobs and their success with men I believe is a stretch. Some of these problems come with popular culture and social norms of society. The biggest gap that I see is in education and how women make as much money as someone with out a college degree after they graduate. Along with that there is a large gap between funding and popularity between women and men’s sports. Men get hands down a significantly larger amount of funding no mater the sport.
Faludi
As we see in all of the Susan Faludi chapters, women still do not have equal rights as men. They are not treated fairly and not respected as women. One could say that women are seen as objects and not intellectual beings as they are. The static’s speak for them when she explained the number of women working in fortune 500 companies and just in the workplace in general. These are problems that I do not think have changed even now in 2008. I think that some of these numbers are old. I would like to see the results from these same polls today. The idea of blaming feminism on all of women’s problems in getting jobs and their success with men I believe is a stretch. Some of these problems come with popular culture and social norms of society. The biggest gap that I see is in education and how women make as much money as someone with out a college degree after they graduate. Along with that there is a large gap between funding and popularity between women and men’s sports. Men get hands down a significantly larger amount of funding no mater the sport.
Who is to Blame?
The questions raised within the articles were very thought provoking, especially in the wake of watching and thinking about The Hours. I must agree with the comments from many, that without any strong evidence and without citations it seems that even with the most sound arguments seem lacking within Faludi's arguments. If these arguments are taken at face value and applied to a text or film, even without strong evidence they present very interesting perspectives and analysis. By applying her ideas to The Hours, new and unseen perspectives emerge that put the film in a larger network of social commentary and critique. Operating under these applications does give the movie a greater richness and perspective that would otherwise be missed.
Friday, February 22, 2008
B.Meyer's Backlash Against the Backlash Against the Women-Folks
Susan Faludi had a point to make. And, yes, Reagan is to blame for a lot of things (and Bush and Clinton and Bush). I found Faludi's arguments to be very refreshing and common sensical--yes, a lot of things we see on TV are not representative of the larger crowd. I cannot find anything at all wrong with this, or these, articles, except the dubious claim of overkill--but in plain sight of this severe backlash against feminism and women in general, I find it very adequate.
She elucidates so many under-the-surface issues and behind-the-scenes actions that we as digestors of popular culture and media are unaware of. Some things that we DON'T see on TV or read in newspapers are just, plainly, unknown to us. Although we attempt to understand that "radio and TV--poison," as rapper Nas said it, we still are affected by what we see, and absent the appropriate counterbalance, and as male participants in this sexist culture, we sometimes tend to believe it, though we don't want to, or succumb to this persistent popular culture. Understand, there are no objective observers. We are all participants within this culture.
Thus, a lot of things that Faludi attempts, and succeeds, in discrediting are things I actually thought had some tinge of truth. Such as: career women succumb to negative psychological effects; feminists are a bit cold-blooded; infertility is rising--blame the women; women are hungry for sex/men, etc. Although I would usually argue against this being a majority of all cases, I would, in the deeper part of me, believe that at some level these statements are true. Therefore, her elucidation on these matters--especially considering the vast, almost conspiratorial efforts by popular media and Hollywood to push the women back in the kitchen--and knowing these to be already racist/sexist institutions--convince me of the larger issue at hand. Which is male insecurity.
Enter Wabash.
What got me was the almost subconscious, paranoid response of the fundamentalists and politicians and psychological ramifications on males involved in this system. Men are so frailly insecure that to have the women step out of the tungsten-thick definitions of reality, the fragile box of reality created for women, would upset the system in its entirety. Even disregarding facts, common sense, plain knowledge, experts who actually know what they're talking about. Our definitions of manhood are so sensitive that even a slight deviation from this mandatorily uncontested "norm" would leave us blubbering, shivering in a corner, writing suicide notes. And so, there stands the grey elephant we call Wabash.
Honestly, we really cannot ignore its presence in the room, i.e., all-male institute, i.e., fragile male self-identification. What I'm trying to point out is our history as a College and the reaction at the mere thought of allowing women in. How much of our lives have been constructed on the perception--covert perception, sometimes overt--that we are in fact dominators, or in some sense in charge or should be by some societal hierarchy. Until the question is asked, the answer won't be provided. In order for the question to be asked, one has to accept the possibility that the system we find ourselves in is in fact sexist--not only that, but as benefitors of this systematic sexism, what is our participation and in which ways do we either fight this or support this? These questions I pose, I guess, are not actual questions to be answered because they're deeper questions that take a long time to answer--rhetorical tools then. My point is, the psychological, widespread backlash that feminism received in Faludi's article's time (late '80s-early '90s I'm sure) is still very much persistent in our times, and we can see this by looking at our pop culture and asking ourselves very honest questions.
I found Faludi's arguments to be eye-opening and at the same time unsurprising when I really thought about it.
She elucidates so many under-the-surface issues and behind-the-scenes actions that we as digestors of popular culture and media are unaware of. Some things that we DON'T see on TV or read in newspapers are just, plainly, unknown to us. Although we attempt to understand that "radio and TV--poison," as rapper Nas said it, we still are affected by what we see, and absent the appropriate counterbalance, and as male participants in this sexist culture, we sometimes tend to believe it, though we don't want to, or succumb to this persistent popular culture. Understand, there are no objective observers. We are all participants within this culture.
Thus, a lot of things that Faludi attempts, and succeeds, in discrediting are things I actually thought had some tinge of truth. Such as: career women succumb to negative psychological effects; feminists are a bit cold-blooded; infertility is rising--blame the women; women are hungry for sex/men, etc. Although I would usually argue against this being a majority of all cases, I would, in the deeper part of me, believe that at some level these statements are true. Therefore, her elucidation on these matters--especially considering the vast, almost conspiratorial efforts by popular media and Hollywood to push the women back in the kitchen--and knowing these to be already racist/sexist institutions--convince me of the larger issue at hand. Which is male insecurity.
Enter Wabash.
What got me was the almost subconscious, paranoid response of the fundamentalists and politicians and psychological ramifications on males involved in this system. Men are so frailly insecure that to have the women step out of the tungsten-thick definitions of reality, the fragile box of reality created for women, would upset the system in its entirety. Even disregarding facts, common sense, plain knowledge, experts who actually know what they're talking about. Our definitions of manhood are so sensitive that even a slight deviation from this mandatorily uncontested "norm" would leave us blubbering, shivering in a corner, writing suicide notes. And so, there stands the grey elephant we call Wabash.
Honestly, we really cannot ignore its presence in the room, i.e., all-male institute, i.e., fragile male self-identification. What I'm trying to point out is our history as a College and the reaction at the mere thought of allowing women in. How much of our lives have been constructed on the perception--covert perception, sometimes overt--that we are in fact dominators, or in some sense in charge or should be by some societal hierarchy. Until the question is asked, the answer won't be provided. In order for the question to be asked, one has to accept the possibility that the system we find ourselves in is in fact sexist--not only that, but as benefitors of this systematic sexism, what is our participation and in which ways do we either fight this or support this? These questions I pose, I guess, are not actual questions to be answered because they're deeper questions that take a long time to answer--rhetorical tools then. My point is, the psychological, widespread backlash that feminism received in Faludi's article's time (late '80s-early '90s I'm sure) is still very much persistent in our times, and we can see this by looking at our pop culture and asking ourselves very honest questions.
I found Faludi's arguments to be eye-opening and at the same time unsurprising when I really thought about it.
Faludi's Backlash
On the whole, I found the reading selection from Faludi's Backlash to be, if nothing else, well-organized and easy to read. Like others posting, I agree that her lack of citation is frustrating; I would have really appreciated footnotes or endnotes, and their absence makes me inherently a little skeptical towards the material. Also, I felt that I would be more compelled by the data if it was in a more current book... a lot happens in 15+ years and I cannot help but wonder how valid her arguments and data are today, whether or not this backlash against feminism died with the late 80s and early 90s or if it still exists today. However, looking past these two issues, I feel she does a good job of making a convincing argument, particularly in the second chapter when she goes issue by issue and tears apart these feminist "myths."
Blame It On Feminism
I thought Faludi's "Blame It On Feminism" presented a number of very interesting arguments. However, like many other people who have already posted blogs, I had trouble taking her argument too seriously due to the way she threw in stats and quotes with no citation or any evidence to prove her validity. To go back to my rhetoric 101 class, it is important to establish credibility while making an argument, and that is not necessarily done in this article in a few places. (I know this isn't a speech, but some of the same ideas apply) This is almost too bad because I think this essay is very well written and formulated, and a few of her ideas caught my attention. One of these things was her idea on backlash, and how it is quietly, almostly secretly, working out of men's fear of women becoming equal. Though I will agree that equality between men and women is still a problem, especially in the work force, I don't know how seriously I can take her argument that there is an actual concentrated effort on the part of men to keep women down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)