Wow, okay, loaded title there. Deep breaths. I think the discussion in class was really riveting, especially when someone (I'm sorry I forgot who you are, brilliant person) brought up how we have to devalue women's lives to make the life of a fetus more valuable. I'd never really thought of it that way, but looking at anti-abortion campaigns, that's true across the board.
What's always baffled me in the abortion debate is that there's no way to have two full individuals in one body without infringing on one of their rights. And to me, the obvious choice for whose rights to protect is the fully developed adult woman. From a developmental perspective, it's almost insulting to compare the life of a fetus or young embryo to that of a fully developed adult.
It's just one of those conflicts that I can't wrap my mind around. The answer seems so obvious to me, and yet there's still such a nasty debate on the matter.
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Women and Politics
EDIT: Just found a bunch of more-or-less finished entries in my drafts. Please excuse the sudden influx of
The presentation last Thursday on First Ladies was interesting, but I think that choosing to discuss only First Ladies in class devoted to women and politics is inherently flawed. Women who marry politicians are the only women in politics who are neither elected nor appointed to their position; they have married into it. I don't want to understate the role of the First Lady, and I know that they have an important role to play in keeping their husbands approval ratings up, and possibly getting them elected in the first place. But doesn't it seem a little skeevy to discuss women in politics by focusing on the only women who didn't get there by there own merits? Women who are, by definition, shoe-horned for four years into the extremely gendered role of "wife"?
In Tuesday's election, there were so many brilliant women elected to the senate, and I think it's a real shame we haven't mentioned any of them. Tammy Baldwin, for instance, is the first openly gay woman to serve in the Senate. Tammy Duckworth is the first disabled U.S. Congresswoman, and an Iraq War veteran. Tulsi Gabbard, the Congresswoman-elect from Hawaii, is the first Hindu congressperson, and also a combat veteran.
In a year where we've had a handful of elected women become groundbreaking firsts, I think it's a pity not to pay homage to them.
The presentation last Thursday on First Ladies was interesting, but I think that choosing to discuss only First Ladies in class devoted to women and politics is inherently flawed. Women who marry politicians are the only women in politics who are neither elected nor appointed to their position; they have married into it. I don't want to understate the role of the First Lady, and I know that they have an important role to play in keeping their husbands approval ratings up, and possibly getting them elected in the first place. But doesn't it seem a little skeevy to discuss women in politics by focusing on the only women who didn't get there by there own merits? Women who are, by definition, shoe-horned for four years into the extremely gendered role of "wife"?
In Tuesday's election, there were so many brilliant women elected to the senate, and I think it's a real shame we haven't mentioned any of them. Tammy Baldwin, for instance, is the first openly gay woman to serve in the Senate. Tammy Duckworth is the first disabled U.S. Congresswoman, and an Iraq War veteran. Tulsi Gabbard, the Congresswoman-elect from Hawaii, is the first Hindu congressperson, and also a combat veteran.
In a year where we've had a handful of elected women become groundbreaking firsts, I think it's a pity not to pay homage to them.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Sexual response and consent
Before I get into any serious topics, I just want to say that the discussion this past Thursday exceeded all my expectations. Thanks to everyone in the class for participating as we dealt with such a difficult issue. You folks are awesome.
That said, towards the end of class it seemed there was a bit of confusion on the difference between physiological sexual response and consent. It was put forward that you could medically "tell" if penetrative intercourse was consensual or not do to the conditions of the victim's body, and this simply isn't the case.
There are certain physiological responses that are typically associated with arousal in females--and before I delve into those, I think it's important to point out that physical arousal in no way indicates consent. Moving along. Sexual arousal in females is often accompanied by erection of the nipples, clitoris, and labia, expansion of the vagina, and the production of vaginal lubrication. While it was never stated outright, it seemed to me that the train of thought present in class on Thursday was "if a woman is wet, she wasn't raped", which, for many reasons, is totally bogus.
First of all, the physiological response described above does not occur only in response to consensual sexual arousal. Studies have shown that the physiological responses above are present in many female-bodied people in response to a variety of sexual stimuli (even intercourse by non-human primates). Does this mean that females are consenting to sex at the slightest hint of sexual stimuli? Hell no! It's just the way many bodies work. These physiological changes are often seen in cases of rape--sometimes victims even acheive orgasm--and it's thought this might be because our bodies evolved this response so that our genitals wouldn't be damaged in case of unwanted sexual contact. The more you know!
It's also important to point out that the vagina isn't exactly the Gobe dessert when the person running the show isn't sexually aroused. The vagina is a moist environment: it needs to be to maintain the microbes that live inside of it. The vagina is also self cleaning, which means it produces fluids to clean itself other than those that serve the purpose of easing the way for penetrative sex. There's also a huge amount of variation in vaginal lubrication produced during arousal--they sell lube for a reason, right?
So basically: the vagina of someone who has been raped may respond in a very similar way to those of someone having consensual sex. Just looking at someone's genitals is no strong indicator of whether or not they just had consensual sex or were raped.
Monday, October 22, 2012
The Problem with Strong Female Characters (with an emphasis Moffat)
To preface: in the following argument, I am not attacking any of the characters mentioned for being a "bad character" or a "bad female character". I'm attacking the idea that only a very narrow range of characters fits into the category of "strong female characters"
In geek culture, at least, Joss Whedon and Steven Moffat are often used as great examples of guys who write strong female characters. Possibly because they spend a lot of time patting themselves on the back and bragging about how they write such strong female characters, but that's another bone to pick entirely, and can basically be summed up as, if you're a dude, don't run around claiming you're the savoir of women's representation in geek culture. But I digress...
Since I'm not super familiar with Whedon's work (I've watched a bit of Buffy, a lot of Dollhouse and Firefly, and the Avengers, but I don't think I have enough grasp on his writing to really comment), I'm going to focus here on Moffat, though I think it's safe to say Whedon falls into many of the same pitfalls. Steven Moffat's written a lot of badass ladies in recent years, as you can see in Doctor Who with River Song, Amy Pond, and the not-yet-fleshed-out Clara Oswin, and in the recent BBC Sherlock Holmes reboot of Irene Adler. I'm fond of all of these characters in one way or another--the actresses who play them are all talented and captivating people, and many of the storylines they feature in are engrossing and well written.
But the problem with all of Moffat's badass ladies is that, when you boil it all down, they're all incredibly similar. All are clever, sassy, sexy, flirtatious, and badass--they all embody the "strong female character." And that's fine--when done once or twice. However, once you get past the shock of "Wow! A cool, powerful woman!" you realize that Moffat is rehashing the same cool, powerful woman again and again. They banter with the men they're with. They use their sexuality to their advantage. With disturbing frequency, they claim some sort of bisexuality (or in the case of Moffat's Adler, homosexuality), but in the end, they always, always fall for the leading man, which is all kinds of problematic.
There are slight differences in their characters, but the overall framework is the same. Moffat doesn't have a range of strong female characters, but variations on the theme of the "strong female character". Because in its modern connotations, "strong female characters" aren't any well-rounded, believable portrayal of a woman in media, but a very specific character type, sexy and clever and fearless. And that's not okay. That's only a step up from having armies of docile Lucie Manettes.
Here's the solution: rather than holding up one character type as what a "strong female character" is, we need to strive for diversity by recognizing any well-written, well-rounded, realistic woman in fiction as a strong female character, whether she's smart or not, bold or shy, sexy or prudish or anywhere in between. We need to break away from hailing the "strong female character" as the savior of women in geek culture, and usher in an era of diverse female characters who are all strong, despite their differences in character.
In geek culture, at least, Joss Whedon and Steven Moffat are often used as great examples of guys who write strong female characters. Possibly because they spend a lot of time patting themselves on the back and bragging about how they write such strong female characters, but that's another bone to pick entirely, and can basically be summed up as, if you're a dude, don't run around claiming you're the savoir of women's representation in geek culture. But I digress...
Since I'm not super familiar with Whedon's work (I've watched a bit of Buffy, a lot of Dollhouse and Firefly, and the Avengers, but I don't think I have enough grasp on his writing to really comment), I'm going to focus here on Moffat, though I think it's safe to say Whedon falls into many of the same pitfalls. Steven Moffat's written a lot of badass ladies in recent years, as you can see in Doctor Who with River Song, Amy Pond, and the not-yet-fleshed-out Clara Oswin, and in the recent BBC Sherlock Holmes reboot of Irene Adler. I'm fond of all of these characters in one way or another--the actresses who play them are all talented and captivating people, and many of the storylines they feature in are engrossing and well written.
But the problem with all of Moffat's badass ladies is that, when you boil it all down, they're all incredibly similar. All are clever, sassy, sexy, flirtatious, and badass--they all embody the "strong female character." And that's fine--when done once or twice. However, once you get past the shock of "Wow! A cool, powerful woman!" you realize that Moffat is rehashing the same cool, powerful woman again and again. They banter with the men they're with. They use their sexuality to their advantage. With disturbing frequency, they claim some sort of bisexuality (or in the case of Moffat's Adler, homosexuality), but in the end, they always, always fall for the leading man, which is all kinds of problematic.
There are slight differences in their characters, but the overall framework is the same. Moffat doesn't have a range of strong female characters, but variations on the theme of the "strong female character". Because in its modern connotations, "strong female characters" aren't any well-rounded, believable portrayal of a woman in media, but a very specific character type, sexy and clever and fearless. And that's not okay. That's only a step up from having armies of docile Lucie Manettes.
Here's the solution: rather than holding up one character type as what a "strong female character" is, we need to strive for diversity by recognizing any well-written, well-rounded, realistic woman in fiction as a strong female character, whether she's smart or not, bold or shy, sexy or prudish or anywhere in between. We need to break away from hailing the "strong female character" as the savior of women in geek culture, and usher in an era of diverse female characters who are all strong, despite their differences in character.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Hopefully I am posting this in my actual blog this time and not in the main blog, but they have the same name, and I'm not far beyond making the same mistake twice.
Tense day in class today, right? I like the idea of ouch cards, but how exactly do we implement them? Maybe we should tie bells to them and throw them on the ground. Or instead we could get those little poppers that everyone uses on the fourth of July, and throw them around instead. Basically, I'm just hoping we can incorporate some arm work-out into the healing process whenever we're offended.
As tense as things were, I'm glad to see everyone's so invested in the discussions we're having. But I wish we had a little more procedure as to what happens when someone is offended. What happens after "Ouch"? Obviously, we should respect the injured party's right to be offended, and we should stay the hell away from any tone arguments, but we should also provide a space where we can talk out and work out the knots of the conversation, so we don't end up punching each other's teeth out over misunderstandings.
On the topic of what we discussed today in class: I'll be up front about it, talking about masculinity in a class on gender immediately puts me on edge. In the past, in any sort of gender discussion I've had, bringing up masculinity has unfailingly been tied with ideas of "reverse sexism", which, like the age old question "But why isn't there a white history month?", makes my tripes clench.
The initial cringe-worthy pun of "Tough Guise" put me even more on edge, but honestly, I was blown away by how rational and well-researched the arguments in the movie were (save the discussion on depression, which erased entirely the social stigma people of all genders deal with when confronting a mental illness). Ditto today's discussion in class. There were no cries for "masculinism", just a discussion of facts and men's experience with gender roles. I've been proven wrong. There is a place for masculinity in discussions for gender equality, and it can be done in a smart, coherent way.
Tense day in class today, right? I like the idea of ouch cards, but how exactly do we implement them? Maybe we should tie bells to them and throw them on the ground. Or instead we could get those little poppers that everyone uses on the fourth of July, and throw them around instead. Basically, I'm just hoping we can incorporate some arm work-out into the healing process whenever we're offended.
As tense as things were, I'm glad to see everyone's so invested in the discussions we're having. But I wish we had a little more procedure as to what happens when someone is offended. What happens after "Ouch"? Obviously, we should respect the injured party's right to be offended, and we should stay the hell away from any tone arguments, but we should also provide a space where we can talk out and work out the knots of the conversation, so we don't end up punching each other's teeth out over misunderstandings.
On the topic of what we discussed today in class: I'll be up front about it, talking about masculinity in a class on gender immediately puts me on edge. In the past, in any sort of gender discussion I've had, bringing up masculinity has unfailingly been tied with ideas of "reverse sexism", which, like the age old question "But why isn't there a white history month?", makes my tripes clench.
The initial cringe-worthy pun of "Tough Guise" put me even more on edge, but honestly, I was blown away by how rational and well-researched the arguments in the movie were (save the discussion on depression, which erased entirely the social stigma people of all genders deal with when confronting a mental illness). Ditto today's discussion in class. There were no cries for "masculinism", just a discussion of facts and men's experience with gender roles. I've been proven wrong. There is a place for masculinity in discussions for gender equality, and it can be done in a smart, coherent way.
EDIT: Oops. Clearly I need a refresher course in just how to use blogger. This was supposed to be over on my personal blog and not up here. Sorry folks! I'll move that over now
All this talk about the different waves and movements of feminism has pinpointed for me one of the few things I genuinely dislike, and that's the fact that so much feminist theorizing is done in a way that makes it completely inaccessible to those people it could most help.
I think the critique Tong presented on postmodern feminism was largely valid. I agree that some of what makes it confusing is that people aren't used to thinking outside the gender binary, but there's more confusing language here than just "cis" or "trans". A large part of the rhetoric of postmodern feminism along with other movements is a language that means little or nothing to the average person. New words are used, or old words are used in strange new ways. I'm not saying this is entirely a bad thing; sometimes it's downright necessary. To describe a new concept, a new ideology, obviously some new language is going to come into play, but it seems to me that at times, feminist writers are over-complicating their language simply to look smart.
And maybe that does make them look kinda smart, but to me, it also makes them look like assholes, and more than that, it makes them look like they don't really care about the people who feminism could most help.
I'm not saying there's no place at all for this kind of purely academical feminism, but I think feminism could do a lot more good if it made itself more accessible to the masses. The fact of the matter is, many people haven't had college-level gender studies courses, or any college education at all, and for them, feminist theories may be even more crucial than to those of us sitting around, arguing gender politics in a classroom. And to make feminism an open, accessible resource for people who want to change the system they live in, the language of feminism must be as close to the language that people speak day-in, day-out as possible.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
The talk about brain differences in the sexes earlier this week was interesting. I was hoping for a bit of professor vs. professor debate (or all out biology vs. social construction cage match), but it was still very informative to hear about the differences between the brains in the sexes of many species.
What I really wondered, coming away from that lecture, was whether or not any of this had practical implications. If, on average, women have more connective tissue between the left and right sides of their brain than men, does that have any meaning in the real world? Even when it comes down to slight differences in the way men and women think, are there any ramifications of that in the world at large? Is the difference enough to change the way we think about the sexes?
I also wondered how these purported brain differences manifested in intersex individuals, or in individuals who didn't identify as the gender they were assigned at birth. It was mentioned in class that sexuality had some affect on regions of the brain. What of gender identity? I would imagine that would have a bigger impact still, but that comes from the point of view of a complete and utter layperson.
I without a doubt align myself with the social constructionist camp, but the biology of sex differences in the brain is still fascinating, and I'd be interested in learning more about it. What I question, though, is whether these brain differences are meaningful or not, and if they are, if that meaning is large enough to have any application in day to day life.
What I really wondered, coming away from that lecture, was whether or not any of this had practical implications. If, on average, women have more connective tissue between the left and right sides of their brain than men, does that have any meaning in the real world? Even when it comes down to slight differences in the way men and women think, are there any ramifications of that in the world at large? Is the difference enough to change the way we think about the sexes?
I also wondered how these purported brain differences manifested in intersex individuals, or in individuals who didn't identify as the gender they were assigned at birth. It was mentioned in class that sexuality had some affect on regions of the brain. What of gender identity? I would imagine that would have a bigger impact still, but that comes from the point of view of a complete and utter layperson.
I without a doubt align myself with the social constructionist camp, but the biology of sex differences in the brain is still fascinating, and I'd be interested in learning more about it. What I question, though, is whether these brain differences are meaningful or not, and if they are, if that meaning is large enough to have any application in day to day life.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Gender, lineage, and surnames
I've neglected the blog for far too long, I know. It's hard for me to think of clever things to write about, sometimes. Or even not-entirely-stupid things to write about. So let me stop writing about writing and start writing about gender.
In the Basow reading we had for Tuesday, the author discussed a connection between the rise of an Agrarian society and the decline of the rights of women. As advances in agriculture led to personal wealth, not just living from meal to meal, the importance of ensuring family ties grew and grew. And rather than doing this matrilineally--logically--, most cultures developed a system where wealth was passed from father to son.
Because this all occurred long before the advent of Jerry Springer and the paternity test, there was no sure way to know who fathered a certain child. The only positive proof of parenthood was the fact that the mother had given birth to the child. However, this still didn't lead to wealth being passed form a mother to her children, even though it was only possible to completely, 100% ensure who the female parent of any child was. Instead, men still passed on their wealth, and to be as sure as they could that a child was theirs, they imposed harsh restrictions on women's sexuality.
If a woman was only having sex with one man, then her children would be his. Of course, this is hardly a foolproof method, but it's still the method that's prevailed the world over since the advent of private property. It's a system that essentially turns women themselves into property, and it's still prevalent today, with estimates of misattributed paternity between one and three percent.
And yet our heritage is still taken through the paternal line. Children are given their father's name, and women take their husband's name at marriage. In Czech names, female surnames are possessive adjectives, their father's or husband's name with an added "ova" to change the part of speech. It's such a prevalent, necessary system in that language that the names of women from other countries are altered in the news, so that "Michelle Obama" becomes "Michelle Obamova."
It's a bizarre system when you consider maternal lineage is the only lineage that can be proven at birth. Hopefully as we progress, society will break from this strict adherence to patronyms. Women aren't property, and our system of naming shouldn't function as if we are.
In the Basow reading we had for Tuesday, the author discussed a connection between the rise of an Agrarian society and the decline of the rights of women. As advances in agriculture led to personal wealth, not just living from meal to meal, the importance of ensuring family ties grew and grew. And rather than doing this matrilineally--logically--, most cultures developed a system where wealth was passed from father to son.
Because this all occurred long before the advent of Jerry Springer and the paternity test, there was no sure way to know who fathered a certain child. The only positive proof of parenthood was the fact that the mother had given birth to the child. However, this still didn't lead to wealth being passed form a mother to her children, even though it was only possible to completely, 100% ensure who the female parent of any child was. Instead, men still passed on their wealth, and to be as sure as they could that a child was theirs, they imposed harsh restrictions on women's sexuality.
If a woman was only having sex with one man, then her children would be his. Of course, this is hardly a foolproof method, but it's still the method that's prevailed the world over since the advent of private property. It's a system that essentially turns women themselves into property, and it's still prevalent today, with estimates of misattributed paternity between one and three percent.
And yet our heritage is still taken through the paternal line. Children are given their father's name, and women take their husband's name at marriage. In Czech names, female surnames are possessive adjectives, their father's or husband's name with an added "ova" to change the part of speech. It's such a prevalent, necessary system in that language that the names of women from other countries are altered in the news, so that "Michelle Obama" becomes "Michelle Obamova."
It's a bizarre system when you consider maternal lineage is the only lineage that can be proven at birth. Hopefully as we progress, society will break from this strict adherence to patronyms. Women aren't property, and our system of naming shouldn't function as if we are.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
My beef with the term "female circumcision"
Before we get this started, I wanted to clear a few things up. First and foremost, this blog entry isn't about male circumcision. Yes, I'll be bringing up male circumcision, but only as an (awful) anatomical analogy for female genital mutilation (FGM, from now on). I'm not going to expound on my views on male circumcision--I'll say up front that I'm an "intactivist" (and what a clever term that is!), but I'm not going to go in depth into why, because this entry isn't about male circumcision. By discussing the extreme bodily harm caused by FGM, I'm not in any way trying to diminish or erase the harm done to some by male circumcision--I know that it can result in a variety of complications, up to and including some reported cases of death. I also acknowledge that there are huge consent issues with cutting the genitals of a child of any gender.
I'm not trying to deny any of that because, as I've said, I'm not really talking about male circumcision. What I want to talk about is FGM, and why "female circumcision" is a dangerous misnomer. Be warned: there will probably be diagrams (a la health class), but I'll put them all as links so you can click through (or not) as you wish.
In the US, at the very least (and I'd hazard a guess to say that the same is true for most of the world), the word "circumcision", unqualified, immediately brings to mind male circumcision, the removal of (part of or all of) the foreskin from the penis. By labeling FGM as "female circumcision", we normalize the term and equate it with a common practice that is not nearly so drastic or damaging to sexual health as FGM is.
Calling FGM "female circumcision" makes the act seem strongly analogous to male circumcision, when on a purely anatomical level, it isn't. The clitoris and the penis are homologous structures, both developing from the genital tubercle of the embryo. It follows, then, that the clitoral hood (see this diagram) is homologous to the foreskin found in male genitalia. "Female circumcision" would therefore imply simply the cutting away of the clitoral hood, and in some variations, this is the case. However, this is rarely true. Far more common in this is a full clitoridectomy, and/or mutilation of the inner or outer labia.
But the real horror of FGM is not simply the drastic mutilation, but the after affects there of. Along with a long list of possible complications, in some variations of FGM where all external genitalia are removed, the girl's legs are bound together for over a month to cause the wound to seal together. This covers both the urethral opening and the entrance to the vagina, and a small hole is left to allow the passage of urine and menstrual blood. The vulva can later be cut open to allow for sexual intercourse and childbirth. Because of the drastic nature of the surgery, FGM almost certainly takes away a woman's ability to reach orgasm, whether alone or with a partner--in fact, this is often the goal of the surgery itself. And more than that, it takes away a woman's sovereignty over her own body from an early age, and that may well be the most drastic and horrifying repercussion of FGM.
By calling FGM "female circumcision", we take away the impact of this dangerous and disgusting procedure. We normalize it, and we allow ourselves to look past what FGM does to a woman's sexual health and her control over her own body. "Female circumcision" doesn't show FGM to be what it really is--mutilation, and as such, I hope the term will fade out of use.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
One of the most interesting points of the reading we did for this Tuesday was the discussion of women's quality of life as part of the progress towards equal rights. Some major things that affect quality of life seem obvious: nourishment, shelter, education, equal opportunities for work and other institutions, but what comes up less often is the topic of leisure time. As women have gained a larger presence in the work force and a greater right to work outside of the home in Western society, this has been seen as a striking blow for the cause of feminism. And I wouldn't contest that point: women joining men in the work force has given us a way to support ourselves and has led to greater dependence as a whole. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's improved our quality of life across the board, especially when it comes to having leisure time outside of the job.
When we discussed the idealized roles for men and women in society, we discussed briefly the idea of the "second shift", and what this means for women. The basis behind this concept, as I see it, is that, as women with families join the workforce, though their workload outside the home has increased, their workload inside the home remains the same. Women who once would have been housewives now have careers and do everything a housewife would have done when it comes to child rearing, keeping a tidy home, and providing food for the family. We've gained more gender balance outside of the home, but this balance has been slower to come in the family environment. This has left women with very little leisure time, and though it's not something often thought of, that definitely decreases quality of life.
While legal measures can be taken to bring gender balance to the work place, the government can't legislate the family dynamic.* In this way, it makes sense that balance has been slower to come for women at home. This has important repercussions on quality of life and should be more widely addressed.
*With some notable exceptions, especially as regards gay marriage and adoption by gay parents, but as far as gender balance goes, I think the point stands.
ETA: I realize I have left absolutely no links scattered throughout this post, so to make up for it, here's a video of some tiger cubs at a zoo in Seattle to brighten your day.
When we discussed the idealized roles for men and women in society, we discussed briefly the idea of the "second shift", and what this means for women. The basis behind this concept, as I see it, is that, as women with families join the workforce, though their workload outside the home has increased, their workload inside the home remains the same. Women who once would have been housewives now have careers and do everything a housewife would have done when it comes to child rearing, keeping a tidy home, and providing food for the family. We've gained more gender balance outside of the home, but this balance has been slower to come in the family environment. This has left women with very little leisure time, and though it's not something often thought of, that definitely decreases quality of life.
While legal measures can be taken to bring gender balance to the work place, the government can't legislate the family dynamic.* In this way, it makes sense that balance has been slower to come for women at home. This has important repercussions on quality of life and should be more widely addressed.
*With some notable exceptions, especially as regards gay marriage and adoption by gay parents, but as far as gender balance goes, I think the point stands.
ETA: I realize I have left absolutely no links scattered throughout this post, so to make up for it, here's a video of some tiger cubs at a zoo in Seattle to brighten your day.
Monday, September 3, 2012
Advertising Gendered Objects
Today* in class we talked about gendered objects, and a bit about how gendered objects are advertised. It seems to me that the way objects targeted towards women are advertised is, put simply, in the most embarrassing way possible. And after way too much time browsing Youtube for commercials for gendered objects, I'm pretty sure this has always been the case.
Prepare for a lot of links, and quite possibly a lot of secondhand embarrassment.
The year is 1978. Women have had the right to vote in the US for over fifty years, but no permanent solution has yet come to eradicate the most menacing problem facing women since the dawn of humanity: That Not So Fresh Feeling. Luckily, Massengill was there to help. Massengill was a pioneer in the area of awkward advertising of feminine products. Their advertisements for douches (now widely regarded by the medical community to be dangerous for women's health) are downright cringe worthy, and introduce a common trope in women's advertising: discussing a product as if it's a normal part of a conversation. Take this commercial. Two women at work in their design studio discuss the hassle of douching as if this is an entirely normal conversation. Don't get me wrong: we definitely talk about stuff like this some time, but not at all in this fashion. The conversation is stilted and outlandish. Why, for instance, does one woman have a douche sitting on her desk at work? Turning a day-to-day conversation into a sales pitch simply doesn't work. Time after time, this trope comes off as entirely artificial and embarrassingly awkward.
Thirty years later, and not much has changed. The conversation-as-sales-pitch is still all too common (and all too awkward) in advertising targeting women. Like this commercial for birth control. This commercial starts out alright, but it quickly spirals downhill as one of the characters in the pitch bursts into a list of possible side effects of Yaz like its a normal topic in any conversation. This could only be a realistic portrayal of someone's nightmare: when you're out at the club and that friend of yours with PMDD and that other friend with a medical degree start geeking out way too hard about women's health, and you're left sitting there, wondering how much alcohol you'll need to consume to make this stuff seem interesting. Despite the graceless handling of the conversation in the ad and the downright disingenous way this trope plays out, it's still incredibly prevalent in advertisements targeted at women.
It's also interesting to note that neither the commercials for douching nor the Yaz commercial directly discuss the main issues they address. This might not be so surprising for the Massengill commercials (I'm pretty certain vaginal odors weren't a topic widely discussed on television in the 1970s), but the Yaz commercial comes from the late 2000s. It is called a 'birth control pill' and it is mentioned that it doesn't prevent HIV or STDs, but never once is its effectiveness for preventing pregnancy mentioned. You're not going to see a commercial where women are out at the club and say "Wow, I'm glad I'm on the Pill so I can get laid tonight and not worry about getting pregnant!" No, instead we hear about how effective these pills are at regulating menstruation or treating PMDD or acne. That's not to say women don't go on the Pill for those reasons, but it's called a birth control pill for a reason.
There are many, many more issues with advertising targeted at women, but these are two of the biggest offenders as far as I'm concerned: disingenuous, stilted set ups and a refusal to actually come out and say what the products are actually for. I could go on for pages about this (and I may very well do just that in the future), but in the meantime, I can only urge consumers to look critically at what's being advertised to them, and for advertisers to reassess the group that they're advertising to.
*I picked at this over a couple of days, so there's a bit of a date discrepancy.
Thirty years later, and not much has changed. The conversation-as-sales-pitch is still all too common (and all too awkward) in advertising targeting women. Like this commercial for birth control. This commercial starts out alright, but it quickly spirals downhill as one of the characters in the pitch bursts into a list of possible side effects of Yaz like its a normal topic in any conversation. This could only be a realistic portrayal of someone's nightmare: when you're out at the club and that friend of yours with PMDD and that other friend with a medical degree start geeking out way too hard about women's health, and you're left sitting there, wondering how much alcohol you'll need to consume to make this stuff seem interesting. Despite the graceless handling of the conversation in the ad and the downright disingenous way this trope plays out, it's still incredibly prevalent in advertisements targeted at women.
It's also interesting to note that neither the commercials for douching nor the Yaz commercial directly discuss the main issues they address. This might not be so surprising for the Massengill commercials (I'm pretty certain vaginal odors weren't a topic widely discussed on television in the 1970s), but the Yaz commercial comes from the late 2000s. It is called a 'birth control pill' and it is mentioned that it doesn't prevent HIV or STDs, but never once is its effectiveness for preventing pregnancy mentioned. You're not going to see a commercial where women are out at the club and say "Wow, I'm glad I'm on the Pill so I can get laid tonight and not worry about getting pregnant!" No, instead we hear about how effective these pills are at regulating menstruation or treating PMDD or acne. That's not to say women don't go on the Pill for those reasons, but it's called a birth control pill for a reason.
There are many, many more issues with advertising targeted at women, but these are two of the biggest offenders as far as I'm concerned: disingenuous, stilted set ups and a refusal to actually come out and say what the products are actually for. I could go on for pages about this (and I may very well do just that in the future), but in the meantime, I can only urge consumers to look critically at what's being advertised to them, and for advertisers to reassess the group that they're advertising to.
*I picked at this over a couple of days, so there's a bit of a date discrepancy.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
I've been trying to think of one clear, defined topic for this first journal, and it's been startling hard. There was just so much information jammed into those readings, and to make things more difficult to myself, I kinda read them out of order and so spent a lot of time going "But what is essentialism?!" while tearing out my hair. Things are a bit better now that I've read that explanation, but even with that and a day of processing, I don't really know where to start. There's a lot of stuff to unpack from there! And, not to be rude, but y'all talk funny. I've been involved in a good deal of gender politics debates (or, in some cases, grudge matches) and it's something that's important to me, and I have still never heard a lot of these words in my entire life. (Hegemony, I'm looking at you!)
All of this is just to say that this entry might not be the most coherent. Rather than waste more time trying to cobble together some big, overarching meaning I've extracted from the readings and class, I'll spend a few words talking about some things that popped out at me. I hope that once I've spent a little more time with the ideas in this class, I'll be able to make some super real good sensical pro-blogger blog entries, but until then, please bear with me.
In Glenn's "The Social Construction and Institutionalization of Gender and Race", there were many concepts that she seemed to phrase near-perfectly, the sort of stuff that's crucial to gender discussions but can be ridiculously hard to parse. The first was the importance of intersectionality (which Google Chrome is helpfully telling me isn't a real word). Sometimes topics of equality that are not based on gender lines come up in feminist debates, and there's often the question of why issues of class, race, orientation, etc. are relevant there. As Glenn says when discussing women of color, "These women did not experience race and gender as separate or additive, but as simultaneous and linked." So if you're a woman of color, or a queer woman of color, or a queer trans woman of color, you've got to deal with all the shit that entails as a member of Western society at once, not in little, compartmentalized packets. In fighting for women's rights, if you're not fighting the class/race/orientation/etc. battle as well, you're leaving a huge number of the people you hope to help in the dust.
Glenn also explained privilege quite well. Privilege is one of the trickiest things I've ever tried to explain. It was a hard concept for me to grasp at first, too. It's an unpleasant concept to think about as a member of a privileged group, but it's also extremely important when dealing with social issues. As Glenn puts it "a White person in the United States enjoys privileges and a higher standard of living by virtue of the subordination and lower standard of living of people of color, even if she or he is not personally exploiting or taking advantage of any persons of color." It's not something privileged people have to feel guilty over, but it's something we have to address and be aware of. It's also important to state that privilege isn't a golden ticket to a good life. I've had plenty of people tell me "Well, I'm a white dude, and I've had to overcome hardships." The notion of privilege isn't trying to undermine certain people's personal experiences. You can be born with a basket full of privilege, and you can still have an awful life. But it's less likely to be awful in certain respects if you're a man or white or straight. It's not a definitive but a probability.
The longer I spend on this the more it seems I'm rambling, so I'm going to cut it here for the night. With a little more practice at this gender and conflict blogging stuff, this will all take a turn for the better, fingers crossed. More on class and the other readings in the next day or two!
All of this is just to say that this entry might not be the most coherent. Rather than waste more time trying to cobble together some big, overarching meaning I've extracted from the readings and class, I'll spend a few words talking about some things that popped out at me. I hope that once I've spent a little more time with the ideas in this class, I'll be able to make some super real good sensical pro-blogger blog entries, but until then, please bear with me.
In Glenn's "The Social Construction and Institutionalization of Gender and Race", there were many concepts that she seemed to phrase near-perfectly, the sort of stuff that's crucial to gender discussions but can be ridiculously hard to parse. The first was the importance of intersectionality (which Google Chrome is helpfully telling me isn't a real word). Sometimes topics of equality that are not based on gender lines come up in feminist debates, and there's often the question of why issues of class, race, orientation, etc. are relevant there. As Glenn says when discussing women of color, "These women did not experience race and gender as separate or additive, but as simultaneous and linked." So if you're a woman of color, or a queer woman of color, or a queer trans woman of color, you've got to deal with all the shit that entails as a member of Western society at once, not in little, compartmentalized packets. In fighting for women's rights, if you're not fighting the class/race/orientation/etc. battle as well, you're leaving a huge number of the people you hope to help in the dust.
Glenn also explained privilege quite well. Privilege is one of the trickiest things I've ever tried to explain. It was a hard concept for me to grasp at first, too. It's an unpleasant concept to think about as a member of a privileged group, but it's also extremely important when dealing with social issues. As Glenn puts it "a White person in the United States enjoys privileges and a higher standard of living by virtue of the subordination and lower standard of living of people of color, even if she or he is not personally exploiting or taking advantage of any persons of color." It's not something privileged people have to feel guilty over, but it's something we have to address and be aware of. It's also important to state that privilege isn't a golden ticket to a good life. I've had plenty of people tell me "Well, I'm a white dude, and I've had to overcome hardships." The notion of privilege isn't trying to undermine certain people's personal experiences. You can be born with a basket full of privilege, and you can still have an awful life. But it's less likely to be awful in certain respects if you're a man or white or straight. It's not a definitive but a probability.
The longer I spend on this the more it seems I'm rambling, so I'm going to cut it here for the night. With a little more practice at this gender and conflict blogging stuff, this will all take a turn for the better, fingers crossed. More on class and the other readings in the next day or two!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)