A few months ago I wrote a post about birth control, where I tried to outline what it represents on a social and societal level. There is a central piece to that argument that I want to try and make clearer, if I can. In that entry, I said: "...while the hormone pills used for birth control are chemically acting on the woman's body alone and for the purpose of preventing ovulation, that's just not the point. The point is about broader social consequences of not providing people with the tools they need to plan their families carefully, safely and responsibly."
I was recently reading this article about Sandra Fluke and representative Joe Walsh, and there was a quote from Mr. Walsh at the bottom that got me thinking about this argument all over again: "We’ve got parents in this country who are struggling to buy sneakers
that their kids can wear to school that just started," Walsh said.
"We’ve got parents up and down my district who are barely keeping their
house. And, and, and, we have to be confronted by a woman, the
Democratic Party this is what they stand for. They're going to put a
woman in front of us who is complaining that the country — you, me and
you — won’t pay the 9 dollars per month to pay for her contraceptives."
I want to revisit my original argument by breaking down Mr. Walsh's comments for you. In doing so, I hope to shed some light on why there is suddenly such heated debate about birth control among politicians lately.
There are many groups (Planned Parenthood, in particular) that have worked to bring the cost of birth control down for some time. But President Obama has made the issue a lot more public with his new legislation regarding health care and health insurance. Obama - along with what seems like the majority of the democratic party - believes that birth control should be widely available and as near to free as possible, at the very least, extremely affordable. I think this sudden popularization of the subject has brought up some deep rifts that weren't previously obvious - but why? It seems an innocuous subject, after all 99% of women of child-bearing age in the United States use birth control. It's not exactly a politically safe topic to oppose. But I think the issue of access - of tax dollars paying for it - brings to the surface some differences in the way people view birth control. In particular, there are two main paradigms that attempt to define just what birth control is, and what it means for women, for men and for families. I'd like to compare and contrast these two views.
The first is the view held by Mr. Walsh and others who - on average- tend to be on the far right end of the political spectrum. That is that birth control is medication for women. It enables a certain lifestyle for women (that is to say, the ability to be sexually active, possibly outside of the bounds of committed relationships, without the fear or concern of pregnancy). It is, in their minds, a women's issue. Birth control is women's business, and furthermore, there is some implication that it's frivolous to boot. It's a luxury - after all, you don't have to be sexually active. Abstinence is still an option. Because you have made a choice to be sexually active, then it only makes sense that you should pay for the luxuries that make this lifestyle possible out-of-pocket.
There is a certain aspect to this argument that brings the speaker's own opinions into play. I would personally describe a sexually active lifestyle as "modern," but many people view a modern lifestyle as luxurious. So I think this is a personal distinction that doesn't have any place in politics. It's not the place of politicians to push their beliefs on the populace (despite the fact that they do it regularly). But I digress, because I also find the heart of this paradigm - idea that birth control is only for the benefit of the woman - to be incorrect. To understand why, let's examine the other side.
What Mr. Obama, Ms. Fluke and others who share their ideology would rather discuss, as opposed to hormonal birth control for women, is the idea of family planning. This is more of a blanket concept that refers to the freedom to reproduce when, where, how, and with whom you choose. I like this part of the argument because it remembers to acknowledge that we are discussing nothing less than the ability to create life. Heavy stuff.
But the next step in this argument is notably more political. Because true, modern family planning necessitates a certain level of control over one's own biology, and this brings into the picture a host of resources developed by modern medicine that cost money. The assumption that people should simultaneously be able to live a modern (read: sexually active) lifestyle and still plan their families with a staggering level of control implies that a massive health infrastructure needs to be in place in order to bring those resources to the public. In this way, Obama's recent actions on this topic make sense. It's a logical consequence of his personal view on family planning.
This part of the second paradigm brings me back around to my original point. Hormonal birth control for women is simply one of a suite of tools in the family planning tool belt. It's the most powerful mechanism currently available for preventing pregnancy without necessitating abstinence. It happens to be used by the woman, but that's just the biological reality of the drug, and it doesn't change its broader social purpose. Men have the right to control over their reproductive activities, too. Which is why condoms are so cheap and commonly available; at present, it's the greatest tool a man has to protect himself against accidental pregnancy. But birth control is far more effective when used properly, and I think men have the same right to the peace of mind it provides as women do.
In closing, the two lenses through which people view hormonal birth control are as follows: it is either medication for women, or it is a social tool that, by necessity (because we cannot change biology) must be employed by women in order to work. These two views are obviously in direct conflict with one another, and tend to drive very different political actions with regard to birth control. It's probably obvious that I tend to align with Mr. Obama on this subject. But I don't blame people like Mr. Walsh for making this type of error. Birth control is a singular drug in that it has such strong social implications, and it can be difficult to see beyond the basic chemical mechanism to the larger role in people's lives and in society.
Now, if you're concerned that my attempt to paint hormonal birth control as a tool for the benefit of all people overlooks some very large feminist issues, you'd be right. And that's something I'd like to address in my next entry, which will be on the male birth control pill. I'll try to get it posted soon.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Why Feminism Empowers Men
A while ago, my boyfriend's brother posted this image on his tumblr:
I love it. I think it's spot-on. I just want to talk about this concept for a moment. And I want to start by posing the question: What even is feminism?
I think that, from a very young age, we receive subtle cues that tell us what our place is in society. By which I mean, it is implied that girls cannot achieve, while boys learn they have value simply because they are boys. In modern culture, there are growing pockets where this is less and less true, and I think that's wonderful, but overall this attitude persists.
Obviously it's damaging to women, but let's look for a brief moment at what this accomplishes in men. When you tell a young girl that she is not capable, what you are simultaneously and tacitly telling the boy sitting next to her is "This is how you achieve." And by telling boys that in order to excel, they must first put girls down, it communicates that they have no implicit value.
Feminism is the belief that people are equal, regardless of gender. That everyone can achieve and excel. Feminism rejects sexism in all forms, whether it puts down men OR women, and it encourages all people to fulfill their greatest potential and reject the notion that they must or are only capable of behaving in certain ways, which are defined by their gender.
Why, then, is it not called "equalism" or "genderism?" Because across human cultures, women are historically the oppressed sex. I honestly don't know why this is. Perhaps because women are overall physically weaker, or because pregnancy makes you vulnerable? But either way, if you told me there was a culture where a class of people that represented 50% of the population was put down and treated as second-class citizens, I would bet very, very safe money that that class is women.
Because of this, the biggest and most obvious step toward achieving gender equality is to first empower women. Once equality for women in all things has been achieved, then the other minor details should naturally fall into place, since they emerged from the patriarchy to begin with.
On a practical level, this also ends up being empowering for men. It means not victim-blaming in cases of rape, but also not telling men they are merely animals and not in control of their instincts. It means not pressuring men to be simultaneously rugged and clean, and women to be "sexy and chaste." It means not shoe-horning men into a dominant role in every relationship. It means telling men they are capable of being compassionate parents.
In the end, when you tell men that they are capable of treating women equally, in short, you're telling men that they are capable, period.
I love it. I think it's spot-on. I just want to talk about this concept for a moment. And I want to start by posing the question: What even is feminism?
I think that, from a very young age, we receive subtle cues that tell us what our place is in society. By which I mean, it is implied that girls cannot achieve, while boys learn they have value simply because they are boys. In modern culture, there are growing pockets where this is less and less true, and I think that's wonderful, but overall this attitude persists.
Obviously it's damaging to women, but let's look for a brief moment at what this accomplishes in men. When you tell a young girl that she is not capable, what you are simultaneously and tacitly telling the boy sitting next to her is "This is how you achieve." And by telling boys that in order to excel, they must first put girls down, it communicates that they have no implicit value.
Feminism is the belief that people are equal, regardless of gender. That everyone can achieve and excel. Feminism rejects sexism in all forms, whether it puts down men OR women, and it encourages all people to fulfill their greatest potential and reject the notion that they must or are only capable of behaving in certain ways, which are defined by their gender.
Why, then, is it not called "equalism" or "genderism?" Because across human cultures, women are historically the oppressed sex. I honestly don't know why this is. Perhaps because women are overall physically weaker, or because pregnancy makes you vulnerable? But either way, if you told me there was a culture where a class of people that represented 50% of the population was put down and treated as second-class citizens, I would bet very, very safe money that that class is women.
Because of this, the biggest and most obvious step toward achieving gender equality is to first empower women. Once equality for women in all things has been achieved, then the other minor details should naturally fall into place, since they emerged from the patriarchy to begin with.
On a practical level, this also ends up being empowering for men. It means not victim-blaming in cases of rape, but also not telling men they are merely animals and not in control of their instincts. It means not pressuring men to be simultaneously rugged and clean, and women to be "sexy and chaste." It means not shoe-horning men into a dominant role in every relationship. It means telling men they are capable of being compassionate parents.
In the end, when you tell men that they are capable of treating women equally, in short, you're telling men that they are capable, period.
Monday, August 20, 2012
On Rape Apologetics
Okay, Mr. Obama. I get it. Every time you say "Rape is rape," the vote fairy smiles down on you and sprinkles votes in your morning breakfast cereal. And the Republicans really handed you a free-bee this week, so you just couldn't pass it up.
Golf clap.
But can we please slow down for a second? Disgusting apologetics like "rape-rape" and "legitimate rape" have been around for a while and will continue to be used for the foreseeable future. So can we focus instead on the horrific lies and fake "science" being touted by Mr. Akin in his recent comments?
Can anyone with a microphone on cable TV please take the time this week to point out that women who are raped actually have a HIGHER chance of pregnancy?
Anyone?
Please?
Golf clap.
But can we please slow down for a second? Disgusting apologetics like "rape-rape" and "legitimate rape" have been around for a while and will continue to be used for the foreseeable future. So can we focus instead on the horrific lies and fake "science" being touted by Mr. Akin in his recent comments?
Can anyone with a microphone on cable TV please take the time this week to point out that women who are raped actually have a HIGHER chance of pregnancy?
Anyone?
Please?
Monday, August 13, 2012
Catching Up
I apologize for the inappropriately lengthy hiatus. I submitted, presented and got accepted my thesis proposal, so I am now officially a master's candidate in my program. And then many other fun and awesome personal things happened that kept me busy and away from the blogosphere. But now I'm here to catch up and tell you about all the interesting articles I've been reading lately.
Firstly, I did an interview with Courtney Hilden at Under the Microscope, a blog by the Feminist Press about women in science. It was a fun experience, and Courtney drew my attention to something I hadn't really given a lot of thought: although I meant this to be primarily a science blog, I end up writing about gender issues quite a bit. It just happens to be a topic that interests me, and was in no way intentional. But anyway, cool! Check out the interview if you want to learn a little more about my Masters research.
Speaking of mitochondrial research, there was also an exciting article about the possible applications of cybridization in IVF (in-vitro fertilization) techniques, as a therapy for mitochondrially inherited diseases. This technology is much further along than I had originally realized, and it's a very exciting prospect for IVF technologies. The snag is that it creates a potential for babies with three parents, which is a major ethical issue. It's not as severe as it sounds, and if there's an interest, I can go deeper into the specifics of this topic in another post. But in any case it's a fascinating article and definitely worth a read.
As for gender issues, my attention was brought to an article written by Dr. Ben Barres, a prof at Stanford with whom I've had some limited contact. Dr. Barres studies glial cells, and when I originally got my bachelor's degree, I contacted him about joining his lab, should I be accepted to Stanford. His research is fascinating, but the article is more about his professional presence in the field. You see, Dr. Barres used to be a woman. And as a transgendered individual, he's had a chance to see the sciences from both sides of the gender fence. As such, he's been able to shed a lot of light on gender discrimination in the sciences. It's a super cool article and I highly recommend it, especially if you work in the sciences.
I'm still reading up on women's issues quite a bit, and as contraception has been kind of a big deal in politics lately, I've been trying to keep up on any new and interesting news in that area. I found out from this fascinating article on the history of the IUD that I had fallen victim to some very common misconceptions about how IUDs work, and under what circumstances they're used in the United States (as opposed to the circumstances under which they would be the most impactful). As it turns out, the IUD is mainly recommended for women who already have children only in the United States, but it is honestly a better first choice for teenagers and young women who: 1) plan on not having children for years at a time and 2) are more likely to forget their pills or otherwise not use conventional birth control correctly. But this technology is not marketed toward that group in the US at all, for purely circumstantial reasons.
And this one's just for funsies. Turns out, in a stroke of pure poetry on the part of the universe, Barack Obama might be descended from the first American slave. It's not 100%, but the people who did the research used solid techniques and the study seems to check out with professional genealogists. If it's true, it makes a tidy and beautiful story about the perseverance of the African American community.
Alright, that's it for now. I've got a few blog posts brewing in my brain. I'll try to check back regularly. Thanks for your patience. ^_^
Firstly, I did an interview with Courtney Hilden at Under the Microscope, a blog by the Feminist Press about women in science. It was a fun experience, and Courtney drew my attention to something I hadn't really given a lot of thought: although I meant this to be primarily a science blog, I end up writing about gender issues quite a bit. It just happens to be a topic that interests me, and was in no way intentional. But anyway, cool! Check out the interview if you want to learn a little more about my Masters research.
Speaking of mitochondrial research, there was also an exciting article about the possible applications of cybridization in IVF (in-vitro fertilization) techniques, as a therapy for mitochondrially inherited diseases. This technology is much further along than I had originally realized, and it's a very exciting prospect for IVF technologies. The snag is that it creates a potential for babies with three parents, which is a major ethical issue. It's not as severe as it sounds, and if there's an interest, I can go deeper into the specifics of this topic in another post. But in any case it's a fascinating article and definitely worth a read.
As for gender issues, my attention was brought to an article written by Dr. Ben Barres, a prof at Stanford with whom I've had some limited contact. Dr. Barres studies glial cells, and when I originally got my bachelor's degree, I contacted him about joining his lab, should I be accepted to Stanford. His research is fascinating, but the article is more about his professional presence in the field. You see, Dr. Barres used to be a woman. And as a transgendered individual, he's had a chance to see the sciences from both sides of the gender fence. As such, he's been able to shed a lot of light on gender discrimination in the sciences. It's a super cool article and I highly recommend it, especially if you work in the sciences.
I'm still reading up on women's issues quite a bit, and as contraception has been kind of a big deal in politics lately, I've been trying to keep up on any new and interesting news in that area. I found out from this fascinating article on the history of the IUD that I had fallen victim to some very common misconceptions about how IUDs work, and under what circumstances they're used in the United States (as opposed to the circumstances under which they would be the most impactful). As it turns out, the IUD is mainly recommended for women who already have children only in the United States, but it is honestly a better first choice for teenagers and young women who: 1) plan on not having children for years at a time and 2) are more likely to forget their pills or otherwise not use conventional birth control correctly. But this technology is not marketed toward that group in the US at all, for purely circumstantial reasons.
And this one's just for funsies. Turns out, in a stroke of pure poetry on the part of the universe, Barack Obama might be descended from the first American slave. It's not 100%, but the people who did the research used solid techniques and the study seems to check out with professional genealogists. If it's true, it makes a tidy and beautiful story about the perseverance of the African American community.
Alright, that's it for now. I've got a few blog posts brewing in my brain. I'll try to check back regularly. Thanks for your patience. ^_^
Thursday, May 31, 2012
On Photoshopping, Beauty Standards, and Anatomy
People have gone on at great length about the part that photo-editing plays in shaping our cultural definition of beauty, and I imagine they will continue to do so for some time. This subject recently had a new surge of popularity, when a young girl organized a protest against Seventeen magazine asking them to include non-edited photos of average girls. This protest has been covered to death, and the girl is every bit as inspirational as she sounds, but she's not what I want to talk about.
Something I picked up from my dad when I was a kid is the art of hyperbole. In conversation with him, everything becomes either The Very Best or The Very Worst. It's a silly habit, but I find it can also be a valuable skill, in rare circumstances. I think the discourse on photo-editing is one of those circumstances. I've heard over and over again that this practice sets "unrealistic standards" and creates an "unattainable ideal," but I honestly don't think these arguments go far enough. So far, I've only seen one argument that gets it right.
Greta Christina wrote a phenomenal piece on the pressures our culture puts on men. She focuses on how utterly absurd some of the standards to which we hold men are, and how many of these ideas actually conflict with one another. For example, just as we pressure women to be simultaneously "sexy and chaste," we also expect men to both be rugged and clean. But she doesn't leave it there, she wants you to know just how unreal these expectations are. She explains that the world isn't asking you to be prettier, fitter, thinner, what-have-you. The world is asking you to "turn yourself into a unicorn and start shitting diamonds." And that's where I want to pick this conversation up.
Because Greta Christina is right. Look closely at the images below. As a photo-editor, it's so easy just to move a little line because it creates a shape that's more "pleasing," but when the image being manipulated is of a person, this can have drastic implications. This isn't just fat that's being erased, bone structure is being changed, organs shifted or removed entirely.
In this photo, Faith Hill's entire posture is changed. Her jawline is reshaped, her nose is narrowed, The curvature of her shoulder and back have been completely remolded. The amount of surgery this kind of photoshopping represents is not only drastic, it's dangerous and pointless.
I find this type of skeletal changes to be the most drastic in the area of the ribcage. Magazines always want to show slim, smooth waistlines, but when they remove mass in this area, it represents a fundamental change in the torso; look at the changes made in this Ann Taylor model's waistline. Where exactly are her lungs supposed to go? How does she breath?
Lungs, heart and stomach are all condensed or removed when this line is shifted. The architecture of the ribcage changes drastically. In essence, the photo on the right is no longer a human.
And this is the hyperbole I've been coming to: These photoshopped images are no longer pictures of humans. No person can look like this, not even the person in the photo. The bottom line is, we need lungs to live.
What's even more interesting is that if the same model took another photo from a different angle, they would photoshop her differently, possibly creating a shape that is not physically compatible with the first. This means that, depending on what angle a person views you from, depending on the lighting conditions and your attire, you would need to shape-shift constantly in order to maintain a continued "pleasing" shape at all times. Not all of these shapes would be compatible with sustained life, and god forbid two people view you from two different angles simultaneously. How, then, would you please everyone?
So essentially, these popular magazines have left the realm of reality and now are dabbling in obscure art. And while it was all well and good for Picasso to move body parts around in his paintings, this sort of photo-editing does real, tangible harm. If our cultural beauty standard is based on a fictional alien race of non-humans, then we'll all keep harming and killing ourselves to achieve something pointless, vapid and imaginary.
If I could change the dialog about beauty, I would challenge people to view the images they see in magazines and advertising as those of an alien race. Those people don't exist, not in the real world. And we shouldn't allow ourselves to be influenced by them. This mindset serves to lift a massive filter that hangs over all of us; you start seeing the images in beauty magazines for the forgeries they are.
This philosophy can at times feel forced. But after a few years of ignoring this beauty-culture entirely, I started leafing through the magazines at the grocery store again to see if things had changed (they hadn't.) When I looked at them, the only question that was left hanging in my mind was this: Is it really hyperbole if it's true?
Saturday, May 12, 2012
The Roeper School and Thoughts on Educational Theory
This week, an important figure in my family's life passed away. Her name was Annemarie Roeper. She was 92 years old, and she was cofounder of the phenomenal private school that my brother Max attended from 2nd through 12th grade. News of her passing quickly filled up my Facebook news feed (as I have a handful of my brother's school friends on there) and it gave me some pause. I found myself reading up on the Roeper Philosophy and reflecting on the part it played in my upbringing, despite my never having attended the school. I thought I'd take this as an opportunity to share some of my thoughts on child psychology and education, as I am beginning to suspect many of them were more heavily influenced by this remarkable woman than I ever realized.
For your reference, here is her obituary on the Roeper school website, here is a rather lengthy piece detailing the Roeper Philosophy, and here is something Max's friend Dan wrote up in his sociology blog on her passing(Dan also attended Roeper). They're all worthwhile reads, and will inform what I'm about to go on about.
The Roeper experience; the culture, the community, the philosophy and the educational structure all remained something of a mystery to me for several years. I was young at the time, and I only interacted with it in minimal, brief ways. But over time, the holes began to fill in and I started to see why this school played such a central role in my brother's life and upbringing.
There are a lot of noteworthy, fascinating and unique features to the Roeper Philosophy, but there's one in particular that I'd like to focus on. It's something that, in recent years, I've begun to praise my parents for; they have the ability to be simply, plainly honest with a young child. So many parents think that children require sugarcoating, metaphor, and little-white-lies in order to digest what we consider to be "adult" or "difficult" concepts. But, at the end of the day, children can comprehend far more advanced ideas than we tend to give them credit for. When I was young, if I asked a question and the answer was "maybe," then my parents said "maybe." they didn't force a "yes/no" dichotomy into a naturally grey situation. When parents do this, it breaks down trust, as the answer may later turn out to be false, and the child feels lied to. There is a certain confidence that you instill in a child when you give them the full truth, no matter how difficult you may perceive it to be.
This was always a central element in Max's experience at Roeper. Students at that school are given more control over their education than children who attend public school. I don't remember Max ever telling me that an authority figure had given him a "because I said so" or "because those are the rules" answer, even when he asked particularly challenging questions. Some of the pieces fell in place for me when I read Annemarie's obituary and saw that her mother studied with Sigmund Freud. Freud was the first major psychologist to suggest that experiences during childhood have any weight on adult development. It may sound obvious now, but at the time it was a radical and new idea that challenged everything people knew about parenting.
Plain honesty was one of the primary elements that smoothed the transition in my family during my parents' divorce. My parents never lied to me about the situation, and knowing that I could trust my parents to give me the truth gave me a solid grounding; something to hang onto when everything else was scary. Not only did this create a sense of confidence and control in me, but it reinforced my relationship with my parents - something that is desperately necessary during a divorce.
I also think this idea has begun to inform children's fiction, which is an exciting trend. One of the reasons I fell so head-over-heels in love with the Harry Potter series (along with the rest of the planet) was that it never lied to the reader. (spoilers!) Yes, in book 6, Dumbledore dies, but why? Because your parents won't be around to protect you forever. Yes, at times, evil triumphs, but why? Because life is often unfair and you can't control everything. I think that laying out difficult universal truths for children in a safe context like fiction is a healthy way to expose them to harsh ideas without frightening them. It's all part of preparing children for the real world - which, oddly enough, is another central feature of the Roeper Philosophy. A part, I think, born out of Annemarie's experiences in WWII. Terrible things happen. Lying to our children about it won't protect them.
Annemarie Roeper was obviously an extraordinary woman who had a profound effect on not only the community at her school, but on educational philosophy worldwide. I count myself very lucky to have felt the influence of her philosophy in my life. I'm sure I will continue to discover other elements of that culture that have crept their way into my personal thinking, and I will happily carry those lessons into my adulthood and eventual parenting experiences.
For your reference, here is her obituary on the Roeper school website, here is a rather lengthy piece detailing the Roeper Philosophy, and here is something Max's friend Dan wrote up in his sociology blog on her passing(Dan also attended Roeper). They're all worthwhile reads, and will inform what I'm about to go on about.
The Roeper experience; the culture, the community, the philosophy and the educational structure all remained something of a mystery to me for several years. I was young at the time, and I only interacted with it in minimal, brief ways. But over time, the holes began to fill in and I started to see why this school played such a central role in my brother's life and upbringing.
There are a lot of noteworthy, fascinating and unique features to the Roeper Philosophy, but there's one in particular that I'd like to focus on. It's something that, in recent years, I've begun to praise my parents for; they have the ability to be simply, plainly honest with a young child. So many parents think that children require sugarcoating, metaphor, and little-white-lies in order to digest what we consider to be "adult" or "difficult" concepts. But, at the end of the day, children can comprehend far more advanced ideas than we tend to give them credit for. When I was young, if I asked a question and the answer was "maybe," then my parents said "maybe." they didn't force a "yes/no" dichotomy into a naturally grey situation. When parents do this, it breaks down trust, as the answer may later turn out to be false, and the child feels lied to. There is a certain confidence that you instill in a child when you give them the full truth, no matter how difficult you may perceive it to be.
This was always a central element in Max's experience at Roeper. Students at that school are given more control over their education than children who attend public school. I don't remember Max ever telling me that an authority figure had given him a "because I said so" or "because those are the rules" answer, even when he asked particularly challenging questions. Some of the pieces fell in place for me when I read Annemarie's obituary and saw that her mother studied with Sigmund Freud. Freud was the first major psychologist to suggest that experiences during childhood have any weight on adult development. It may sound obvious now, but at the time it was a radical and new idea that challenged everything people knew about parenting.
Plain honesty was one of the primary elements that smoothed the transition in my family during my parents' divorce. My parents never lied to me about the situation, and knowing that I could trust my parents to give me the truth gave me a solid grounding; something to hang onto when everything else was scary. Not only did this create a sense of confidence and control in me, but it reinforced my relationship with my parents - something that is desperately necessary during a divorce.
I also think this idea has begun to inform children's fiction, which is an exciting trend. One of the reasons I fell so head-over-heels in love with the Harry Potter series (along with the rest of the planet) was that it never lied to the reader. (spoilers!) Yes, in book 6, Dumbledore dies, but why? Because your parents won't be around to protect you forever. Yes, at times, evil triumphs, but why? Because life is often unfair and you can't control everything. I think that laying out difficult universal truths for children in a safe context like fiction is a healthy way to expose them to harsh ideas without frightening them. It's all part of preparing children for the real world - which, oddly enough, is another central feature of the Roeper Philosophy. A part, I think, born out of Annemarie's experiences in WWII. Terrible things happen. Lying to our children about it won't protect them.
Annemarie Roeper was obviously an extraordinary woman who had a profound effect on not only the community at her school, but on educational philosophy worldwide. I count myself very lucky to have felt the influence of her philosophy in my life. I'm sure I will continue to discover other elements of that culture that have crept their way into my personal thinking, and I will happily carry those lessons into my adulthood and eventual parenting experiences.
Monday, April 30, 2012
On Gender Roles
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)