Lately I've been thinking about gender identity quite a bit, and as a subset of that, gender roles. I've always found the mindset that there is a specific role for each gender in relationships to be confusing at best, harmful at worst. But it's a dominant theme in American culture, so it's something that is difficult to ignore.
I have a friend here in San Antonio who watches a lot of "chick flicks." I don't think I've actually sat down and watched a mainstream romantic comedy since I was a pre-teen, so the whole genre had really gone off my radar before I met her. But I watched a couple movies with her recently, and I was really surprised to find that the whole conversation about heterosexual relationships hadn't really budged since the 1990's (and probably earlier than that as well, but I couldn't speak to that, as I was in diapers at the time.) The predominant theme seems to be that men and women are completely different species, each operating based on a specific set of rules. Exceptions to these rules are never addressed, and the rules themselves make an awful lot of dangerous assumptions.
Probably one of the biggest issues with this paradigm is that it ignores the ability to communicate. Most of these films (and other pieces of pop culture, I'm sure beauty and fitness magazines play into this mentality a lot as well, but I don't read them so I can't be sure) insinuate that it is impossible for a man and a woman to simply sit down and talk to each other like equals. Instead, an elaborate courtship game plays out wherein they try to get close to each other, usually with only broad stereotypes about the opposite sex to guide them on their way.
Common themes include:
-Men always want sex. It's literally impossible for a man to not be in the mood.
-Women never want sex. But they always use it as a form of manipulation.
-Men are never emotional.
-Women are never rational.
-Women never say exactly what they want.
-Men can't say what they want, because what they want is sex, and if they say that, they'll get water thrown in their face.
Okay, so far I probably haven't told you anything new. But here's my question, and I'm asking it honestly because I don't know the answer:
Does anyone actually take this stuff seriously?
Again: I'm really asking. Is there anyone on the planet over the age of 15 who buys into this stuff? Are there really adults walking around, working at their jobs, paying their rent or mortgage, living their adult lives, and assuming that this is how relationships in the real world truly operate?
Normally, I would say "No way, that's not possible! That would represent a massive emotional handicap, no one can function that way and maintain a healthy social life." But then a friend of mine linked me this article, wherein a real, live woman spells out an increasingly ludicrous, sexist list of "Secrets Girls Don't Want Guys to Know." This list paints, in broad strokes, a cartoonish vision of the female stereotype depicted in the romantic comedies that I spent more than a decade avoiding.
She is insecure about herself, but confident in her ability to manipulate men. She is driven more by deception than by any kind of desire for a real connection. She has a love-hate relationship with mainstream beauty standards and an equally passionate love-hate relationship with compliments she gets from men. And, I think it goes without saying, she is pathetically shallow.
(I'll spare you the rant about how dangerous it is to insinuate that when women act offended, they're just being coy - for now. But I guarantee it will come up in a later post about consent culture.)
At first I thought, "Who would think it's ever safe or appropriate to speak on behalf of their entire gender? What sort of person would assume that their personal life experience is the epitome of womanhood itself?" because, to me, there is no logic in that action.
But then I thought back to those romantic comedies. And I realized, it's entirely possible that this woman has been conditioned, her entire life, to think that all women are the same. And that everything she reads or sees in popular culture should inform her sense of self, to the very core. It's possible that she has simply internalized the pop culture definitions of gender role so wholly that she cannot even conceive that they might not be true, or might not apply to everyone.
I suppose I've just answered my own question. Yes, some people do buy into this stuff. I guess the next question is: does it do tangible harm? And if so, how do we combat it?
To those, I have no answers. For now. But I suppose that, for now, all I wanted to do was get this off my chest.
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Monday, April 30, 2012
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Neuroscience and Free Will
A friend of mine from lab recently sent me this article, which I rather enjoyed and thought I'd talk about for a bit.
The article addresses a couple of recent neuroscience research projects that potentially have implications for the free will vs. determinism debate. The results of these studies speak to a relatively new phenomenon that has become something of a concern for philosophers engaging in this discussion: What if, with the assistance of an fMRI machine or other form of observation, we can more accurately predict a person's future behavior than they can? Does this automatically mean that we don't possess free will?
I liked this article because it broke down the finer points of the argument quite nicely, firstly pointing out the holes in the study being examined (which was able to show brain activity leading up to a 'decision-making' event up to 7 seconds before the subject reported making the decision), then by slowly revealing that the term 'free will' is irresponsibly vague.
In both philosophy and science, it is necessary to define terms with a certain level of concreteness, otherwise nothing can be determined for sure. If you can't agree on the variable to be measured, then you can't measure it, and you certainly can't draw conclusions about it. This is a big problem when addressing free will, because there are subconscious processes that take place in the brain, and they (apparently) can apply to decision-making.
If I subconsciously initiate a decision, then a few seconds later it floats into my conscious mind, and a few seconds after that, I engage in the behavior specified by that decision, then who made it? Who am "I?" Does the entity of "Amanda" encompass my subconscious mind, which is very much involved in my thoughts, emotions and decisions, but which I cannot openly detect? Or is my subconscious this puppet-master that I cannot deny or fight? And what if my conscious desires are in direct conflict with my subconscious desires? Do I have the ability to overturn decisions that I wasn't even aware I had already made?
The joke here is that a simple fMRI will never address these questions, and that is why neuroscientists and philosophers will always butt heads. But I'm confident that the struggle itself will yield answers, and in the meantime, we'll understand something more about brain behavior, which is always useful information.
For me, the free will vs. determinism debate is a futile one. I will never know what "me" is. Where do I sit? In my hippocampus? In my frontal lobe? In a delicate network spanning multiple systems in my central nervous system? Where do I end? And if determinism somehow turns out to be the true answer, who cares? I still feel the satisfaction of choice, even if it isn't real. I'm still happy with the circumstances of my life, so long as someone else doesn't take hold of it. I still know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that there is a "me," even if neuroscience eventually proves otherwise.
I think, therefore I am. Even if an fMRI can't find me.
The article addresses a couple of recent neuroscience research projects that potentially have implications for the free will vs. determinism debate. The results of these studies speak to a relatively new phenomenon that has become something of a concern for philosophers engaging in this discussion: What if, with the assistance of an fMRI machine or other form of observation, we can more accurately predict a person's future behavior than they can? Does this automatically mean that we don't possess free will?
I liked this article because it broke down the finer points of the argument quite nicely, firstly pointing out the holes in the study being examined (which was able to show brain activity leading up to a 'decision-making' event up to 7 seconds before the subject reported making the decision), then by slowly revealing that the term 'free will' is irresponsibly vague.
In both philosophy and science, it is necessary to define terms with a certain level of concreteness, otherwise nothing can be determined for sure. If you can't agree on the variable to be measured, then you can't measure it, and you certainly can't draw conclusions about it. This is a big problem when addressing free will, because there are subconscious processes that take place in the brain, and they (apparently) can apply to decision-making.
If I subconsciously initiate a decision, then a few seconds later it floats into my conscious mind, and a few seconds after that, I engage in the behavior specified by that decision, then who made it? Who am "I?" Does the entity of "Amanda" encompass my subconscious mind, which is very much involved in my thoughts, emotions and decisions, but which I cannot openly detect? Or is my subconscious this puppet-master that I cannot deny or fight? And what if my conscious desires are in direct conflict with my subconscious desires? Do I have the ability to overturn decisions that I wasn't even aware I had already made?
The joke here is that a simple fMRI will never address these questions, and that is why neuroscientists and philosophers will always butt heads. But I'm confident that the struggle itself will yield answers, and in the meantime, we'll understand something more about brain behavior, which is always useful information.
For me, the free will vs. determinism debate is a futile one. I will never know what "me" is. Where do I sit? In my hippocampus? In my frontal lobe? In a delicate network spanning multiple systems in my central nervous system? Where do I end? And if determinism somehow turns out to be the true answer, who cares? I still feel the satisfaction of choice, even if it isn't real. I'm still happy with the circumstances of my life, so long as someone else doesn't take hold of it. I still know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that there is a "me," even if neuroscience eventually proves otherwise.
I think, therefore I am. Even if an fMRI can't find me.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Reading List
I tend to be about a year or two behind on every important trend in literature and TV. It drives my friends insane, because they spend their time geeking out about the latest... whatever, and a year later I come along repeating everything they said.
Parties that I have joined embarrassingly late: Heroes, Battlestar Galactica, Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog, 30 Rock, Doctor Who and many, many more.
I should wise up and jump on these bandwagons sooner. But so far, that has yet to happen.
Which is why I'm just now watching Game of Thrones. It's every bit as amazing - and as terrifyingly violent - as I was warned it would be. And it has also bumped my reading list down a notch, as I insist on reading the book alongside the TV series.
This means two things for this blog: 1) I'll be somewhat intellectually absent while I'm watching the show, because I tend to get immersed when watching/reading fantasy or sci fi. and 2) my review of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks will have to wait. I know I hadn't promised anything yet, but it was next on my reading list, and I had planned on reviewing it here. I'm currently about halfway through it. I might be able to power through the second half before my copy of Game of Thrones arrives in the mail. We'll see.
In the meantime, consider this my personal recommendation that you buy a copy of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks because it's a worthwhile read. I'll review it when I do finish it, whenever that happens to be. But for now I just thought I'd give you a heads-up.
And if you can handle horrific violence, Game of Thrones (from what I understand and have seen thus far) is phenomenal as well. But this is a science blog, so I won't be reviewing it either way.
Parties that I have joined embarrassingly late: Heroes, Battlestar Galactica, Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog, 30 Rock, Doctor Who and many, many more.
I should wise up and jump on these bandwagons sooner. But so far, that has yet to happen.
Which is why I'm just now watching Game of Thrones. It's every bit as amazing - and as terrifyingly violent - as I was warned it would be. And it has also bumped my reading list down a notch, as I insist on reading the book alongside the TV series.
This means two things for this blog: 1) I'll be somewhat intellectually absent while I'm watching the show, because I tend to get immersed when watching/reading fantasy or sci fi. and 2) my review of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks will have to wait. I know I hadn't promised anything yet, but it was next on my reading list, and I had planned on reviewing it here. I'm currently about halfway through it. I might be able to power through the second half before my copy of Game of Thrones arrives in the mail. We'll see.
In the meantime, consider this my personal recommendation that you buy a copy of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks because it's a worthwhile read. I'll review it when I do finish it, whenever that happens to be. But for now I just thought I'd give you a heads-up.
And if you can handle horrific violence, Game of Thrones (from what I understand and have seen thus far) is phenomenal as well. But this is a science blog, so I won't be reviewing it either way.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Just for Fun
I know this is really old news, but I've just been in love with Symphony of Science and Ted Talks lately. Let me explain briefly why I think media like this is so worthwhile.
Symphony of Science, while a little geeky, takes a subject that is meant to be entirely intellectual and logical, and admits that which we never really dare to talk about: the evocative nature of science. Of course major scientific discoveries evoke strong emotions in us; they affect our understanding of ourselves, the nature of the universe and our connection to it. Gaining a fuller understanding of human nature, by definition, must strike a chord within us.
This project brings that aspect of scientific discovery to the forefront, while still keeping things light-hearted and fun. I enjoy listening to it when my experiments in lab aren't going quite as planned. When I'm stressed about school, Symphony of Science reminds me why I'm doing what I'm doing. My purpose as a grad student is so easy to lose track of in the minutiae of experimental details. I get frustrated easily, too, so this is a common occurrence for me. Although I gather that stress, exhaustion and self-doubt are status quo for most grad students, especially in the sciences. I might touch on that in another entry.
As for Ted Talks, I think they serve a couple purposes. Firstly, they take the newest, shiniest, most cutting-edge scientific and artistic discoveries and make them accessible to the layperson through the use of fun little informal, short lectures. It's really entertaining to hear about things in an entirely different field, or even to hear a new perspective on a technology I already understand.
Secondly, Ted Talks are highly social. They're not lectures. They always touch on the social impact of a technology or discovery, or the long-term implications of an event within the world of science. What is the ripple effect here? How will this change the day-to-day life of the layperson, even those who may never hear about it?
Thirdly, they're often emotional. I can't explain it, but apparently when you get a scientific expert up on a stage and tell them they can talk about whatever they want and be as informal as they please, they almost always end up crying. I find it refreshing to see that side of scientists - it's something you glimpse in Symphony of Science, too. You get to see that poetic side, that ecstatic little kid inside every scientist. I think that's an important aspect of the field for laypeople to see and understand. And this type of laid-back media is exactly the way to distribute that information.
Along those lines, I find the juxtaposition of Carl Sagan and Neil DeGrasse Tyson in Symphony of Science to be so entertaining. Carl Sagan is known for his sense of awe when discussing the cosmos, but he's so quiet and collected about it. Whereas Neil DeGrasse Tyson is sort of known for geeking out and getting overly excited. I love how they're expressing the same emotion, but with totally opposite reactions. I can relate to both.
So enjoy! My favorites on Symphony of Science right now are: "We are all Connected," "The Case for Mars," "Ode to the Brain," and "Children of Africa." As for Ted Talks, you could get lost on that website for hours. There's so much. But it's definitely worth a look.
Symphony of Science, while a little geeky, takes a subject that is meant to be entirely intellectual and logical, and admits that which we never really dare to talk about: the evocative nature of science. Of course major scientific discoveries evoke strong emotions in us; they affect our understanding of ourselves, the nature of the universe and our connection to it. Gaining a fuller understanding of human nature, by definition, must strike a chord within us.
This project brings that aspect of scientific discovery to the forefront, while still keeping things light-hearted and fun. I enjoy listening to it when my experiments in lab aren't going quite as planned. When I'm stressed about school, Symphony of Science reminds me why I'm doing what I'm doing. My purpose as a grad student is so easy to lose track of in the minutiae of experimental details. I get frustrated easily, too, so this is a common occurrence for me. Although I gather that stress, exhaustion and self-doubt are status quo for most grad students, especially in the sciences. I might touch on that in another entry.
As for Ted Talks, I think they serve a couple purposes. Firstly, they take the newest, shiniest, most cutting-edge scientific and artistic discoveries and make them accessible to the layperson through the use of fun little informal, short lectures. It's really entertaining to hear about things in an entirely different field, or even to hear a new perspective on a technology I already understand.
Secondly, Ted Talks are highly social. They're not lectures. They always touch on the social impact of a technology or discovery, or the long-term implications of an event within the world of science. What is the ripple effect here? How will this change the day-to-day life of the layperson, even those who may never hear about it?
Thirdly, they're often emotional. I can't explain it, but apparently when you get a scientific expert up on a stage and tell them they can talk about whatever they want and be as informal as they please, they almost always end up crying. I find it refreshing to see that side of scientists - it's something you glimpse in Symphony of Science, too. You get to see that poetic side, that ecstatic little kid inside every scientist. I think that's an important aspect of the field for laypeople to see and understand. And this type of laid-back media is exactly the way to distribute that information.
Along those lines, I find the juxtaposition of Carl Sagan and Neil DeGrasse Tyson in Symphony of Science to be so entertaining. Carl Sagan is known for his sense of awe when discussing the cosmos, but he's so quiet and collected about it. Whereas Neil DeGrasse Tyson is sort of known for geeking out and getting overly excited. I love how they're expressing the same emotion, but with totally opposite reactions. I can relate to both.
So enjoy! My favorites on Symphony of Science right now are: "We are all Connected," "The Case for Mars," "Ode to the Brain," and "Children of Africa." As for Ted Talks, you could get lost on that website for hours. There's so much. But it's definitely worth a look.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)