Posts tagged culture
Posts tagged culture
American society is very like a fish society… . Among certain species of fish, the only thing which determines order of dominance is length of time in the fishbowl. The oldest resident picks on the newest resident, and if the newest resident is removed to a new bowl, he, as oldest resident, will pick on the newcomers.
No society that feeds its children on tales of successful violence can expect them not to believe that violence in the end is rewarded.
If male domination is natural, based on biological imperatives, why, asks sociologist Cynthia Fuchs Epstein, must it be coercive, held in place by laws, traditions, customs, and the constant threat of violence for any woman who dares step out of line?
We teach our children,
that war, sex, and fame are one;
All inside one pill.
A Research Paper submitted to the Graduate Program in Social and Political Thought in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Social and Political Thought Graduate Program in Social and Political Thought York University Toronto, Ontario June 2010
Abstract
Heroic women in science fiction and fantasy television shows have done muchto represent strong, successful women in leadership positions. However, these female roles that are viewed as strong and empowered embody many masculine identified traits, maintaining a patriarchal division of gender roles. This paper analyzes strong female characters within nine television shows by deconstructing their stereotypically “masculine” and “feminine” gender specific attributes and cross referencing how they play within and against traditional archetypes. Employing texts from cultural criticism and feminist theory, I explore how representations of groups in popular culture and mass media messaging uphold structures of power by giving higher value to masculine attributes as observed in patriarchal discourse. Finally, the paper concludes with a discussion of why it is critical to foster television media that supports feminist ideals and breaks out of traditional oppressive gender binaries in order to promote, encourage and envision a just future society.
picklejuice:welcometomanhood:azspot:
This study is consistent with the work of University of Padova researchers. They found that when women were dressed sexually (compared to when they weren’t), people implicitly associated them more with animals.
Other research has found that merely focusing on a woman’s appearance (fully dressed) is enough for people (men and women) to dehumanize a woman. Specifically, we found that people assign female targets less “human nature traits” when focus is on their appearance. These traits are perceived by humans to separate people from machines, automata and objects.
Another study found that these women are seen as less moral (sincere, trusting) and less emotionally warm (likable, warm).
These findings are also consistent with a wide range of work showing that objectified women are perceived as less competent. Interestingly, research even finds that when men view sexualized pictures of women, they subsequently view a female experimenter as doing a worse job. In other words, men “carried over” their views of the sexualized women to another woman, who was not scantily dressed.
And lastly, research shows that men and women view sexualized images (of both men and women) as lacking “mind,” which is basically a denial of thoughts and emotions. In this work, people even had less concern for the sexualized people’s pain, compared to when they were fully dressed.
The picture truly is bleak when women (and in some cases men) are evaluated solely on their looks and/or sexualized.
1. Challenge the glamorization of pimps in our culture
2. Confront the belief that prostitution is a “victimless crime”
3. Stop patronizing strip clubs
4. Don’t consume pornography
5. Tackle male chauvinism and sexism online
6. End sex tourism
7. Talk to men and boys about men’s issues in male spaces
8. Support anti-human-trafficking policies
9. Support creation of “John Schools”
10. Raise sons and mentor boys to challenge oppression
I think the treatment of women in Congo is comparable to the treatment of women in the U.S. Fearing ones own body, and being paranoid about your image, is undeniably tied. I have through a process of letting go and regaining body ownership, and constantly being aware (of the images) and the media/social expectations that I’m supposed to be prescribing too, I have for the most part successfully let go many body standards that have been pushed at me, and are. I came to realize that I have another enemy inside me. Despite being able to physically control how I look, and though I can change how I see myself, I cannot change how others perceive and look at me. This isn’t where I wanted to take this exactly.
When people look at me, (mainly when a man) there are primarily two things that go through my head. How this person is seeing me in regards to my appearance (how I’m dressed, hair, makeup etc.) the other factor that I believe gets less notice, is how I instinctively react to their proximity, or what I do to protect myself, or how I either become more masculine or more feminine. This isn’t really where I wanted to go either. …
What I’m saying is, there is body image and body fear, and both are intrinsically related. Yesterday we watched The Line, and in it the the woman was talking about how great it was that her body was considered sacred. Indeed every body’s body should be sacred, but not in physical terms of appearance directly affecting our honor. Paranoia would not be present without all that body stigma. Meaning all the thoughts about honor and self worth comes from your body, and the paranoia is a reality, and comes from the fact that you are being judged on sight.
Everything can be rationalized… thoughts on when both parties are drunk or incapacitated… then consent is a much deeper discussion about ingrained behavior. I don’t know about how drinking changes base character and thoughts.
I would assume we would all agree that an enthusiastic yes is a good way to consent and to talk during sex and knowing exactly what’s going to happen is potentially very sexy and at least a good thing. But in the mainstream world people have ways of behaving in a prescribed way that they think is appropriate. And for sure people have ways of rationalizing their behavior, and either purposefully or because of cultural standards they misinterpret behaviors to suit their needs, which leads into talk about self awareness.
I am slightly perturbed by statements such as “Just because I’m a feminist doesn’t mean I can’t {wear a miniskirt and make-up/shave all my body-hair off/love doing ‘girly’ things}”. Again, it presents itself as an incredibly liberal phrase at first, and I want to make clear very quickly that it is not the statement itself I take issue with but the thought (this is possibly where it gets confusing) behind it. Of course you can be a feminist and wear a miniskirt etc! Of course it’s about the choice, your choice!
But what choice do we have? Go back a hundred or two hundred years (or a lot less in most places) and the overwhelming honest response from womankind (at least in most western society) to stepping outside of their assigned cooking/cleaning/mothering roles would be a negative one. Even if they were to agree with the notion of a choice in the matter, they would choose to remain in those positions that we would judge as subservient and exploitative. It’s easy for us to look back, and down, on them.. but a lot harder to look at, and in, ourselves for the exact same opposition to change. We are in a different time, with different challenges. A number of extremely brave people have moved the battle (forward, some might say) - but to declare it over would be to undo their work.
In a privilege dynamic, it is always easy to conform to whatever standards are expected from you, whatever side of the lines you reside in, regardless of whether you mentally disagree. Simply playing your part reinforces those standards society-wide and in your own mind, increases the pressure on others to accept the status-quo, used as an excuse to force the same indoctrination on the next generation, and becomes a subsidy of the counter-attack against anyone who dares defy it. Resisting oppression is revolutionary. Conforming with oppression is not. Not even if you like it, especially not if you like it. On the one hand, none are free until all are, and on the other: do you really like it?
An example. You shave your body-hair off. Why? “Not for a man, I’m a feminist. I just don’t like it.” Yet where has this very common idea come from? It is a very recent idea too.. Consider the mountains and mountains of both blatant and subtle contemporary propaganda telling you practically every single day that body hair is obscene for a woman and desirable for a man. Now consider the possibility that the patriarchy has taken feminism, viciously tore a chunk out of it, and is now selling it back to us as a brand of sexism ‘now with added superiority to those pitiful women who serve men for men and not serve men for themselves! Because your own desires, as a woman, can’t be sexist.. can they?’
None of us are capable of making objective and completely individual decisions. Not me, not you. To declare yourself immune from the collective consciousness of the society which moulded you from birth is arrogance and insanity. We are brought up by an incredibly sexist/racist/etc society, and to not initially accept this upbringing in us and others robs us of our only chance of opposing it.
Fighting our conditioning is a constant and eternal process. Just because you identify yourself as ‘a feminist’ does not mean that you cannot act in ways which reinforce gender oppression. You will never be free except when you are consciously struggling; thinking that you are magically free of sexist influence is a trojan horse of defeat, albeit tempting - especially for those of us who have been struggling the hardest/longest/most painfully.
These are pretty big and incomplete/flawed ideas so I would be incredibly appreciative of any feedback whatsoever, whomever you are, and I apologise in advance the the inevitable miscommunication.
-Eris :)
”To declare yourself immune from the collective consciousness of the society which moulded you from birth is arrogance and insanity.”
I love it <3 Perfectly said. How is it empowering to hate you body so much that you even get it surgically altered?
Answering Sami: On: Re: Am I culpable in my contraceptive marriage?
The Church herself has never oppressed women. This is a fallacy. In fact, the most important and perfect creature (Jesus is God, begotten not made, mind you) is Mary, Jesus’ mother. She is the Ark of the new covenant, the First Christian and everything that we should all aspire to be as a creature. Women play a vital role in the Church and in our lives in general. Women and men are equal but our natures are different - our roles are different. Failure to recognize this is failing to recognize who you or I are.
This is so wrong it’s laughable. That’s like the KKK saying it’s never promoted racism. Are you actually telling me the church believes that men and women are equals? C’mon. In the OT, if a man accuses his wife of not being a virgin, and her father can’t prove she was, she gets put to death. If it’s ruled that she was falsely accused, does he get put to death? Nope. If a man RAPES a woman, she should marry him so she’s not, what, a slut? Because it was her fault, so now she has to be married to her rapist. And I don’t want to hear about “oh Jesus came and voided those laws and everything is happy times now!” because I went to mass for 12 years, there was a reading out of the old testament every day. Obviously the book is still relevant.
I edited this down to the most important point: this person believes the church has never oppressed women. All the gods are male, and women can’t be ordained in a Catholic church, and woman is responsible for original sin, and every religion in the history of ever has treated women as inferior in some way, but whoa, Jesus had a mom! It’s all good!
*Looks the the left “Oh look, ‘When Women Were Priests: Women’s Leadership in the Early Church & the Scandal of their Subordination in the Rise of Christianity’ the same book I was planning on quoting about today.”
“The Vatican’s 1976 Declaration on the Question of Admitting Women to the Priesthood justifies its exclusion of women from the priesthood on the grounds that the female body does not resemble the male body of Christ. It is therefore impossible for a woman to perform the sacramental functions of a priest. Here again, sexuality enters the picture. A woman, unlike a man, is perceived to be inseparable from her sexual nature, and as a priest she would bring sexuality into the realm of the sacred. … If God is thought of as male, people tend to equate power with maleness. Thus, if females were to represent God, then femaleness would be equated with power. … Thus the issue of women’s religious leadership is embedded in a larger context - that of cultural beliefs about gender, those of contemporary American society and those of ancient Greco-Roman cultures. … The public-versus-private convention was in turn supported by a system of cultural values that associated men with honor and women with shame. The quest for honor and precedence associated with public office was viewed as an exclusively masculine enterprise. In contrast, a woman’s honor was her shame, that is, her reputation for chastity. A woman exercising public authority could be accused of projecting a masculine personality; but, even worse, she could be called unchaste.” —-Karen Jo Torjesen
