Riding the fence is a bit annoying. I myself grow irritated with people that won’t take sides, if at the very least for “important things,” but I am now in that awkward spot. That uncomfortable position of “Tim said [insert meany Tim saying here], how could you not take my side!?”
>But Tim and I are bro’s too! Can’t take sides.
Yet, they don’t care. You’re still just as irritating as that mean ‘ole Tim.
However, it’s not because I don’t want to get involved in some petty spat. It’s a case of both sides being a little right and a little wrong. This is the case with Mulan. Mulan doesn’t only break down gender rules. Mulan doesn’t strictly re-enforce them either.
A] Mulan breaks gender roles in different ways.
1] Mulan expresses, with clear dialog [despite her singing] that she doesn’t feel as though she fits into her appointed role. “Look at me- I will never pass for a perfect bride- Or a perfect daughter- Can it be- I'm not meant to play this part?-…Who is that girl I see- Staring straight- Back at me?- Why is my reflection someone- I don't know?- Somehow I cannot hide- Who I am- Though I've tried.” In this Mulan isn’t suffering from Princess Jasmine syndrome. She doesn’t necessarily feel “put upon” by her “role.” Wherein Jasmine was running because she didn’t like her responsibilities, Mulan was instead fighting to embrace it. In this Mulan is saying “I am not this model of woman nor can I be.” It’s not often said so blatantly, if at all, in Disney female characters.
2] Mulan makes it a point to take on the role of a man. Not only does she dress and attempt to act as the opposite gender she fully takes it on and advances in it. Nor does she allow negativity to push her away from it. It even seems as though she grows to enjoy herself. It could be argued that her mental strength grows with her bodily strength.
3] There’s humour that follows a lot of the male’s perception of women and what women they “want.” Mulan: “How 'bout a girl who's got a brain- Who always speaks her mind?” Men- “Nah!// My manly ways and turn of phrase are sure to thrill her- He thinks he's such a lady-killer.”
If we don’t giggle at this, and other parts of the song as well, I think we aren’t “not getting it.” That men are shallow was supposed to be an amusing jab at stereotypes.
B] However, 1] That is a stereo type, and there are others as well. When ever the men act effeminate it’s as the mercy of ridicule and for the sake of humour. Such as when the “consultant” is mocked for being feminine, then proceeds to really “squeal like a girl.” It was funny, however his masculinity was at stake and being scoffed at.
2] Not only this, but what a man is supposed to be is expressed in the song “I’ll Make a Man Out of You.” and pushed on to Mulan, despite her being eager to master the presented challenge. It goes on about how “sad” and “spineless” Mulan’s troop of men are. The general consensus is about men having abnormal amounts of “inner fire” and mega awesome “focus”; that is, being a man is based entirely around mental and physical “strength” as defined by someone obviously far more macho.
3] Mulan has to “dress up” and “play a man” just to be accepted into this mold.
So, while I think Mulan does a good job of breaking a lot of gender rules I believe there are still some moments of reinforcing them.
I suppose we can’t have everything.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
A little bit of everything
I want to do all 3 prompts briefly, as I feel they’re all important and this is one of our last ones.
----
I am inspired to read A Single Man and Little Children.
A Single Man struck a cord with me because of the nature of it. The bleakness of it was very appealing and it’s close examination of humans. Not just about gender either.
Little Children seemed interesting because of it’s somewhat ironic tone about not necessarily gender but identity. How we feel we’re supposed to be and the comparisons we create and standards we build simply on aesthetics.
-
I’m a watcher. Those creepy people that just stare at others type. I enjoy learning about humans and things they do and reasons if I’m lucky. I love humans. The blog, though I grumbled about it at the beginning, was fantastic in that I got to really know all my peers. I didn’t have to sit in the back of the room like some shady mo-fo to understand all of you. I just had to sit down and go through your blogs.
I know I’ve been a bit hard on some people at times but it’s really not out of malice or anger of some sort. I wanted everyone to grow and develop their thoughts better. Not to say they weren’t fine, but why not be as perfect as possible? I learned a bit of tolerance as well. Knowing what was saying too much or too little and how to formulate ideas without coming across as a douche. I’m not sure if I succeeded in that, but I tried.
I think all of you are wonderful in your own thoughts and have developed fantastic voices as the semester has progressed.
-
I want to be able to say that I would continue blogging. I did enjoy it. Despite my initial turn off it grew on me. It was the easiest way I had to write brief papers thus far and I didn’t have to stand in front of you to read them. I didn’t have to open my mouth for every idea that popped in to my head or censor my ideas. I could just sit down and write. It’s relieving really, especially seeing I can easily say my physical presence is very sub-par, if not complete shit, as opposed to that of my literary one.
However, blogging also makes me feel contrite. Contrite because I always feel as though I’m not only pushing my opinion on others, sometimes their mere presence is too much, but also because it makes me feel inflated and self-indulgent. This feeling of pretentiousness is what stopped me from blogging a long time ago. I’m not so smart, clever or good at anything that anyone should take anything I say to heart nor be forced to read it -speaking of which, my apologies for all the ramblings you guys have put up with. You’ve been good sports- I’m not so anything that I deserve any sort of attention for my thoughts, no matter how strongly I feel. There’s never so strong an injustice in my life that I feel I have a right to be heard.
Perhaps ‘self’ is something I need to re-evaluate before I pick up blogging again.
----
I am inspired to read A Single Man and Little Children.
A Single Man struck a cord with me because of the nature of it. The bleakness of it was very appealing and it’s close examination of humans. Not just about gender either.
Little Children seemed interesting because of it’s somewhat ironic tone about not necessarily gender but identity. How we feel we’re supposed to be and the comparisons we create and standards we build simply on aesthetics.
-
I’m a watcher. Those creepy people that just stare at others type. I enjoy learning about humans and things they do and reasons if I’m lucky. I love humans. The blog, though I grumbled about it at the beginning, was fantastic in that I got to really know all my peers. I didn’t have to sit in the back of the room like some shady mo-fo to understand all of you. I just had to sit down and go through your blogs.
I know I’ve been a bit hard on some people at times but it’s really not out of malice or anger of some sort. I wanted everyone to grow and develop their thoughts better. Not to say they weren’t fine, but why not be as perfect as possible? I learned a bit of tolerance as well. Knowing what was saying too much or too little and how to formulate ideas without coming across as a douche. I’m not sure if I succeeded in that, but I tried.
I think all of you are wonderful in your own thoughts and have developed fantastic voices as the semester has progressed.
-
I want to be able to say that I would continue blogging. I did enjoy it. Despite my initial turn off it grew on me. It was the easiest way I had to write brief papers thus far and I didn’t have to stand in front of you to read them. I didn’t have to open my mouth for every idea that popped in to my head or censor my ideas. I could just sit down and write. It’s relieving really, especially seeing I can easily say my physical presence is very sub-par, if not complete shit, as opposed to that of my literary one.
However, blogging also makes me feel contrite. Contrite because I always feel as though I’m not only pushing my opinion on others, sometimes their mere presence is too much, but also because it makes me feel inflated and self-indulgent. This feeling of pretentiousness is what stopped me from blogging a long time ago. I’m not so smart, clever or good at anything that anyone should take anything I say to heart nor be forced to read it -speaking of which, my apologies for all the ramblings you guys have put up with. You’ve been good sports- I’m not so anything that I deserve any sort of attention for my thoughts, no matter how strongly I feel. There’s never so strong an injustice in my life that I feel I have a right to be heard.
Perhaps ‘self’ is something I need to re-evaluate before I pick up blogging again.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Ares and Aphrodite?
It is true that men and women use different parts of the brain more than others. Whether or not that study is wide enough or completely true is debatable as I’ve no time or patience to look in to it as extensively as I should, as of right now I will take the word of these Doctors studying it. At least for the time being.
Regardless, these findings are deeply concerning in several ways. The first being this: With these discovering and their implications having become “increasingly obvious,” why are our school systems -pardon me- still pieces of shit?
This information should have long since urge a massive change in educational content, if not to completely change it then to at least alter it appropriately. Even if it’s simply bumping down the content a grade [or more] lower.
So many people, too many to count it seems, are always raving about how smart their children are. If so many are, is that not saying something about children? We are underestimating children at young ages and therefore gimping them for the rest of their life. We expect too little and don’t push them hard enough to reach their full learning potential. That is not to say I’m in any way trying to lessen the importance of someone’s oh-so-smart child’s intelligence. That is not my intent at all. I am however implying that a lot of children are smart, a lot smarter than they are credited, and the potential to be so is in many other children. Our school systems are not set up for advanced children, because most children, in fact, are highly intelligent for their age.
But is it because they’re smarter than normal for their age or do we expect most children to be much dumber simply because they are children?
With that said, the differences in learning could also raise some problems. The standard for general education is excruciatingly low for our youth, then painstakingly high at University levels [which most newly graduates are extremely unprepared for]. If at elementary level and up were to adjust the way in which they taught according to sex, discrimination could still exist.
If a boy and girl were to learn in ways in which the other supposedly “learns best,” they could still remain un-accommodated. Or those that could be mixtures could be refused one or the other way in which they need. Even so, if either need accommodation from the other they may not be offered it because “studies have shown” that boy and girls learn entirely separately. This study does not appear to offer elasticity: it is always “the differences,” and offer no relativity.
Also, there raises the problem that already exists. If men “excel” in these skills and women “excel” in others, there’s leaving little room for either sexes to move into the other realm and puts all the more pressure on women [and men, depending] to perform. Especially, still, in the realm of mathematics. This should only be utilized as a tool to help more children reach their potential and more, and not as a way to force them to excel within a restricted area and no way to push out of it.
Regardless, these findings are deeply concerning in several ways. The first being this: With these discovering and their implications having become “increasingly obvious,” why are our school systems -pardon me- still pieces of shit?
This information should have long since urge a massive change in educational content, if not to completely change it then to at least alter it appropriately. Even if it’s simply bumping down the content a grade [or more] lower.
So many people, too many to count it seems, are always raving about how smart their children are. If so many are, is that not saying something about children? We are underestimating children at young ages and therefore gimping them for the rest of their life. We expect too little and don’t push them hard enough to reach their full learning potential. That is not to say I’m in any way trying to lessen the importance of someone’s oh-so-smart child’s intelligence. That is not my intent at all. I am however implying that a lot of children are smart, a lot smarter than they are credited, and the potential to be so is in many other children. Our school systems are not set up for advanced children, because most children, in fact, are highly intelligent for their age.
But is it because they’re smarter than normal for their age or do we expect most children to be much dumber simply because they are children?
With that said, the differences in learning could also raise some problems. The standard for general education is excruciatingly low for our youth, then painstakingly high at University levels [which most newly graduates are extremely unprepared for]. If at elementary level and up were to adjust the way in which they taught according to sex, discrimination could still exist.
If a boy and girl were to learn in ways in which the other supposedly “learns best,” they could still remain un-accommodated. Or those that could be mixtures could be refused one or the other way in which they need. Even so, if either need accommodation from the other they may not be offered it because “studies have shown” that boy and girls learn entirely separately. This study does not appear to offer elasticity: it is always “the differences,” and offer no relativity.
Also, there raises the problem that already exists. If men “excel” in these skills and women “excel” in others, there’s leaving little room for either sexes to move into the other realm and puts all the more pressure on women [and men, depending] to perform. Especially, still, in the realm of mathematics. This should only be utilized as a tool to help more children reach their potential and more, and not as a way to force them to excel within a restricted area and no way to push out of it.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Projection is not sexy
As human being we project too often. Perhaps it had not always been that way. Maybe back in Jesus’s time young men didn’t blame their mothers because they can’t control themselves when they hit their wives. Maybe when Virginia Woolf lived people were not so quick to place the blame of their short comings on others. Maybe people were different than what we once were, or perhaps we’ve not changed at all and only time has.
However, when people place the blame on those that are in the limelight for the problems of our generation and children, we have a problem. Though in a way it’s a bit of everyone’s fault if we’re really going to start point fingers. Everyone and everything influences or affects us in some way or another. Everyone.
As an example, we cannot fully ignore a stranger in the room. We cannot ignore the person walking in our exact path if we don’t want to collide. We cannot forget trauma. Our brains must go to snapping extents to do so if one is too shaken. People develop severe memory loss, Dissociative Identity Disorder, Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome, and the list goes on. When things jar us or change us negatively we cannot neglect the presence of it of the lasting affects. However, all of these could be blamed on what someone else has done. What things outside ourselves has made us in to.
We much carry this idea with Celebrities or modern heroes. They do what they feel they must, what they know they can and what they can bare. What they want. Perhaps they wanted to be famous, perhaps they wanted to be seen or heard or understood. Whatever the reason, people do not often asked to be placed somewhere as an example of what people should aspire to. In the sense that people should do something with themselves. Strive for happiness. Make a living doing something they love and are good at. They do not enter into their profession hoping people see them as people and want to be just like them. At least no one rational and self-aware.
We’re all good people. We’re all bad people. Children should be taught this and should be cared for. Children need good examples in their parents, their siblings and should seek good peers because of their upbringing or know when it’s time to let bad one’s go because of good communication and trust in their parents.
This is not the job of people that happen to have lights shined into every aspect of their carriers and lives. Raising children to be wholesome people does not fall on the shoulders of other men and women. Perhaps they should not indulge their own musings publicly. Maybe there shouldn’t be degrading images of women plastered everywhere and characters that make men look like meat heads, charmless nerds or morons.
But it happens. If a parent is inadequate and children turn to images in media and their peers the responsibility still lies in the parents. If children have no proper parents it’s the job of other loving authority figures to be morally upright. Whoever is raising the child is at fault for any garbage that enters a child’s mind via television.
We cannot rationally or fairly blame people for being what ever they feel is themselves, necessary or wanted. We cannot frown on them and say that it’s their fault parents yank out their hair and teens are fucked and children are getting worse.
Role models are only role models when parents are not enough. When teachers are not enough. When peers fail and significant others fuck up again. We look to others for something better because we look to others for someone to blame. Perhaps if parents taught their children what they feel is truly moral or upright, to look to themselves and to take responsibility we’d find less disappointments and horrors molding our children.
-
I want to stress this point. Miley Cyrus is not responsible if your daughter grows up into a rebel. It's not a dancers fault if your daughter grows up to be a stripper. It is not the fault of a fireman with financial problems fault if your children looked up to him and now are in debt. Nor is it a novelty rapper's fault if your son or daughter shoot someone.
It is not the responsibility of others to raise people's children. The question is not whether they have an image they want to uphold or even who they are targeting. Image is their own standard and audience can shift. It is not image itself in question and whether or not they choose to uphold it. They have no obligation to uphold any image, imagined or otherwise. What is being questioned is whether or not they should hold themselves above faults and weaknesses for the sake of everyone else, especially children.
No. Your children are not other people's responsibility, no matter how much publicity they have. It's yours.
However, when people place the blame on those that are in the limelight for the problems of our generation and children, we have a problem. Though in a way it’s a bit of everyone’s fault if we’re really going to start point fingers. Everyone and everything influences or affects us in some way or another. Everyone.
As an example, we cannot fully ignore a stranger in the room. We cannot ignore the person walking in our exact path if we don’t want to collide. We cannot forget trauma. Our brains must go to snapping extents to do so if one is too shaken. People develop severe memory loss, Dissociative Identity Disorder, Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome, and the list goes on. When things jar us or change us negatively we cannot neglect the presence of it of the lasting affects. However, all of these could be blamed on what someone else has done. What things outside ourselves has made us in to.
We much carry this idea with Celebrities or modern heroes. They do what they feel they must, what they know they can and what they can bare. What they want. Perhaps they wanted to be famous, perhaps they wanted to be seen or heard or understood. Whatever the reason, people do not often asked to be placed somewhere as an example of what people should aspire to. In the sense that people should do something with themselves. Strive for happiness. Make a living doing something they love and are good at. They do not enter into their profession hoping people see them as people and want to be just like them. At least no one rational and self-aware.
We’re all good people. We’re all bad people. Children should be taught this and should be cared for. Children need good examples in their parents, their siblings and should seek good peers because of their upbringing or know when it’s time to let bad one’s go because of good communication and trust in their parents.
This is not the job of people that happen to have lights shined into every aspect of their carriers and lives. Raising children to be wholesome people does not fall on the shoulders of other men and women. Perhaps they should not indulge their own musings publicly. Maybe there shouldn’t be degrading images of women plastered everywhere and characters that make men look like meat heads, charmless nerds or morons.
But it happens. If a parent is inadequate and children turn to images in media and their peers the responsibility still lies in the parents. If children have no proper parents it’s the job of other loving authority figures to be morally upright. Whoever is raising the child is at fault for any garbage that enters a child’s mind via television.
We cannot rationally or fairly blame people for being what ever they feel is themselves, necessary or wanted. We cannot frown on them and say that it’s their fault parents yank out their hair and teens are fucked and children are getting worse.
Role models are only role models when parents are not enough. When teachers are not enough. When peers fail and significant others fuck up again. We look to others for something better because we look to others for someone to blame. Perhaps if parents taught their children what they feel is truly moral or upright, to look to themselves and to take responsibility we’d find less disappointments and horrors molding our children.
-
I want to stress this point. Miley Cyrus is not responsible if your daughter grows up into a rebel. It's not a dancers fault if your daughter grows up to be a stripper. It is not the fault of a fireman with financial problems fault if your children looked up to him and now are in debt. Nor is it a novelty rapper's fault if your son or daughter shoot someone.
It is not the responsibility of others to raise people's children. The question is not whether they have an image they want to uphold or even who they are targeting. Image is their own standard and audience can shift. It is not image itself in question and whether or not they choose to uphold it. They have no obligation to uphold any image, imagined or otherwise. What is being questioned is whether or not they should hold themselves above faults and weaknesses for the sake of everyone else, especially children.
No. Your children are not other people's responsibility, no matter how much publicity they have. It's yours.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Give it to me baby
"You get what you want; you want what you get."
Oh how right you are graphically and musically out dated mini-movie-doc-type-thing. How right you are.
Being appalled at images in the media is common. We all have something we don’t want to see. Don’t want to hear. Could live without reading or every knowing because it repulses something within us. For me it’s negative things relating to children. Hatred against religion because it’s religion. Denying atheists and homosexuals the right to adopt because of biases.
However, I’ve grown loath in acknowledging movie gender stereotypes in things I enjoy. Not because I’m callused or don’t care. It’s just grown all the more annoying to want to sit down and enjoy my couch and snacks when some random image of some woman’s breasts come on screen; the relation to the comedy, horror or romance is little to none. When breasts are just there to be breasts is when it really gets under my skin. Which is usually 95% of the time.
That is not to say I have objections to the female. By all means, support that it is beautiful. Be proud of what you have, curves or not. I myself happen to be of the female sex and I have no qualms what so ever wit my anatomy except maybe a few extra pounds it wouldn’t hurt to shed.
However, when the female body is paraded as a type of sexual object. Female nudity is never there because it’s “unavoidable” or “necessary” as it would be in documentaries [there’s that sliver of 5%]. When there is female nudity it is always to objectify the woman to the male audience in some way, hence it’s presence in male oriented movies.
Not sure if any of you noticed, but full/breast and rear nudity isn’t ever in movies geared to women. Or “chick flicks.” We get to see ourselves everyday and homosexuality isn’t taken into account during production. Pardon my digression.
All this to say that despite me being repulsed by such things and being forced to completely ignore otherwise good movies or look away, I am but one person. One person in what’s possibly a very small minority.
Minority? Oh yes. Movies keep getting pumped out that have such lewd images because the minority is but a small handful of sand amongst a mile long shore of otherwise pleased viewers. While I may be apposed I am but one.
Relativity sets in also and works against me! That unfaithful tempest that it is. I also am sure I enjoy things that others will likely be turned off by.
Jenifer mentioned she hates horror films. I’m loath to admit I startle easy but I love them. I love seeing what people they attract, how the writer and producers, actors and directors, staff and all of the above decided to try and spook me this time. However, she also mentioned something else: where is the line?
When do I go from Saw to snuff? From getting a chuckle out of an absurd zombie killing spree to being aroused by inhumane torture of human beings?
Regardless of the extremes, I’m being fed something I want. I search it out and it’s there, waiting to take me with both hands [or bloody stubs] and embrace me. The same goes for the gender stereotypes and the objectifying of a person with emotions and feelings. When did she go from kick ass heroine to a sex kitten? When did her clothes go from being tight because that’s what necessary to being tight because she’s a busty female? However unappealing these images are to me they exist because they appeal to people.
We get what we want. Things exist because we eat it up, gorge ourselves in it like dry earth eagerly soaks up rain with is parched, gaping lips. If people didn’t want to objectify women, regardless of cause of reason, the images wouldn’t be there. If people wanted to see men as anything but strong and commanding or stupid, we would.
To be fair, mental stereotyping is necessary. It’s a helpful tool the mind uses to create shortcuts and thusly helps with memory and such. However, when those stereotype become damaging to how we view other human beings and how we group them, especially an entire sex, we must as a society be willing to change our views; We need to be aware of what we’re feeding ourselves and what we’re allowing to be conditioned into us.
Oh how right you are graphically and musically out dated mini-movie-doc-type-thing. How right you are.
Being appalled at images in the media is common. We all have something we don’t want to see. Don’t want to hear. Could live without reading or every knowing because it repulses something within us. For me it’s negative things relating to children. Hatred against religion because it’s religion. Denying atheists and homosexuals the right to adopt because of biases.
However, I’ve grown loath in acknowledging movie gender stereotypes in things I enjoy. Not because I’m callused or don’t care. It’s just grown all the more annoying to want to sit down and enjoy my couch and snacks when some random image of some woman’s breasts come on screen; the relation to the comedy, horror or romance is little to none. When breasts are just there to be breasts is when it really gets under my skin. Which is usually 95% of the time.
That is not to say I have objections to the female. By all means, support that it is beautiful. Be proud of what you have, curves or not. I myself happen to be of the female sex and I have no qualms what so ever wit my anatomy except maybe a few extra pounds it wouldn’t hurt to shed.
However, when the female body is paraded as a type of sexual object. Female nudity is never there because it’s “unavoidable” or “necessary” as it would be in documentaries [there’s that sliver of 5%]. When there is female nudity it is always to objectify the woman to the male audience in some way, hence it’s presence in male oriented movies.
Not sure if any of you noticed, but full/breast and rear nudity isn’t ever in movies geared to women. Or “chick flicks.” We get to see ourselves everyday and homosexuality isn’t taken into account during production. Pardon my digression.
All this to say that despite me being repulsed by such things and being forced to completely ignore otherwise good movies or look away, I am but one person. One person in what’s possibly a very small minority.
Minority? Oh yes. Movies keep getting pumped out that have such lewd images because the minority is but a small handful of sand amongst a mile long shore of otherwise pleased viewers. While I may be apposed I am but one.
Relativity sets in also and works against me! That unfaithful tempest that it is. I also am sure I enjoy things that others will likely be turned off by.
Jenifer mentioned she hates horror films. I’m loath to admit I startle easy but I love them. I love seeing what people they attract, how the writer and producers, actors and directors, staff and all of the above decided to try and spook me this time. However, she also mentioned something else: where is the line?
When do I go from Saw to snuff? From getting a chuckle out of an absurd zombie killing spree to being aroused by inhumane torture of human beings?
Regardless of the extremes, I’m being fed something I want. I search it out and it’s there, waiting to take me with both hands [or bloody stubs] and embrace me. The same goes for the gender stereotypes and the objectifying of a person with emotions and feelings. When did she go from kick ass heroine to a sex kitten? When did her clothes go from being tight because that’s what necessary to being tight because she’s a busty female? However unappealing these images are to me they exist because they appeal to people.
We get what we want. Things exist because we eat it up, gorge ourselves in it like dry earth eagerly soaks up rain with is parched, gaping lips. If people didn’t want to objectify women, regardless of cause of reason, the images wouldn’t be there. If people wanted to see men as anything but strong and commanding or stupid, we would.
To be fair, mental stereotyping is necessary. It’s a helpful tool the mind uses to create shortcuts and thusly helps with memory and such. However, when those stereotype become damaging to how we view other human beings and how we group them, especially an entire sex, we must as a society be willing to change our views; We need to be aware of what we’re feeding ourselves and what we’re allowing to be conditioned into us.
Friday, November 5, 2010
It's all an illusion.
"…even though most reviewers agree that the narrator is female, the only evidence that they marshal is highly contestable and merely exposes the often stereotypical and hetero-normative biases in their own reading practices."
Whether a clever rouse or some masterfully worked through with deep purpose, this truth holds strong amongst reviewers and even readers of the less critical nature. It appears as though many have not taken well to the tactic of a gender anonymous narrator for reasons that are simply irrational. Instead of supporting that all conceptions of gender are only those perceived by a reader, I’d instead like to inquire “why?”.
Why does it matter what the sex of the narrator is? How does it change the things that happened -though what has happened can be a bit skewed, as we’ve come to know the narrator themselves is unreliable- between the narrator and Louise? Why and to what end would it change the reader? It is irrelevant.
What would sex have to do with the worship of Louise’s body? The narrator is so very careful to take in everything he or she can take in. He or she use’s their very eye lashes as they memorize every scar and tissue that covers Louise. The memory of their hands will be unrivaled as he or she takes in every inch of flesh that he or she is able to touch. It is said that memory of scent is the strongest, and the narrator devours even the dark, erotic scents of Louise and is over-come with maddening desire because of it; As much as the narrator is driven to bliss by Louise’s taste. He or she takes in everything, consuming and being consumed by white hot passion that destroys and rebuilds.
Once more, why does it matter what their gender is?
The narrator is poetic and philosophic at best. Are only women drawn to romanticism? A decent portion of the most well acclaimed love poets were male. Are only men drawn to thinking/knowledge, and love thought as opposed to emotion? That the narrator is the product of a female mind is proof enough against that.
The narrator is griefed long after their separation. Does mourning require a sex? Did the disciples of Jesus have to be woman to weep when He was crucified? Are mothers more heart broken because a miscarriage was their baby boy and not their baby girl?
Assumptions can be found left and right, and while most agree it is female -though that is primarily due to their critical eye being turned upon Winterson- some conclusions have lead to men: “he [the narrator] broadcasts his current affairs without hesitation, even to near-strangers; it’s difficult to imagine that such love is not heterosexual.”
…What?
In short, only men ever discuss their sexual conquests and one cannot possibly fathom a woman ever doing such a thing. How absurd would that be?
How quick we are to push our own social conditioning between the lines when there is no space there that exists for it.
People cling to this even until the very end. After break up and potential death, still it is fought that the narrator must either be man or woman. Are we not dismissive of most break-ups and the second party’s [newly ex boyfriend or girlfriend] because of their sex? We use phrases like -pardon any skewing or staged sensations. It’s all rubbish, I know- “sounds like she was just another crazy bitch,” or “that’s totally something a guy would do, how insensitive!” As if to imply that women are bats hit mad with emotion and all men are drawn to being callus assholes.
Does it matter how they take in their parting and their reunion? Not in the least.
I ask again, what does it matter what their gender is?
Whether a clever rouse or some masterfully worked through with deep purpose, this truth holds strong amongst reviewers and even readers of the less critical nature. It appears as though many have not taken well to the tactic of a gender anonymous narrator for reasons that are simply irrational. Instead of supporting that all conceptions of gender are only those perceived by a reader, I’d instead like to inquire “why?”.
Why does it matter what the sex of the narrator is? How does it change the things that happened -though what has happened can be a bit skewed, as we’ve come to know the narrator themselves is unreliable- between the narrator and Louise? Why and to what end would it change the reader? It is irrelevant.
What would sex have to do with the worship of Louise’s body? The narrator is so very careful to take in everything he or she can take in. He or she use’s their very eye lashes as they memorize every scar and tissue that covers Louise. The memory of their hands will be unrivaled as he or she takes in every inch of flesh that he or she is able to touch. It is said that memory of scent is the strongest, and the narrator devours even the dark, erotic scents of Louise and is over-come with maddening desire because of it; As much as the narrator is driven to bliss by Louise’s taste. He or she takes in everything, consuming and being consumed by white hot passion that destroys and rebuilds.
Once more, why does it matter what their gender is?
The narrator is poetic and philosophic at best. Are only women drawn to romanticism? A decent portion of the most well acclaimed love poets were male. Are only men drawn to thinking/knowledge, and love thought as opposed to emotion? That the narrator is the product of a female mind is proof enough against that.
The narrator is griefed long after their separation. Does mourning require a sex? Did the disciples of Jesus have to be woman to weep when He was crucified? Are mothers more heart broken because a miscarriage was their baby boy and not their baby girl?
Assumptions can be found left and right, and while most agree it is female -though that is primarily due to their critical eye being turned upon Winterson- some conclusions have lead to men: “he [the narrator] broadcasts his current affairs without hesitation, even to near-strangers; it’s difficult to imagine that such love is not heterosexual.”
…What?
In short, only men ever discuss their sexual conquests and one cannot possibly fathom a woman ever doing such a thing. How absurd would that be?
How quick we are to push our own social conditioning between the lines when there is no space there that exists for it.
People cling to this even until the very end. After break up and potential death, still it is fought that the narrator must either be man or woman. Are we not dismissive of most break-ups and the second party’s [newly ex boyfriend or girlfriend] because of their sex? We use phrases like -pardon any skewing or staged sensations. It’s all rubbish, I know- “sounds like she was just another crazy bitch,” or “that’s totally something a guy would do, how insensitive!” As if to imply that women are bats hit mad with emotion and all men are drawn to being callus assholes.
Does it matter how they take in their parting and their reunion? Not in the least.
I ask again, what does it matter what their gender is?
Friday, October 29, 2010
Assumptions at their finest
Critics and readers alike will take in their own views and apply it, along with who the author is, to an authors work. In actuality, dissecting a writers work as a parallel to their own life has only recently been on the rise. T. S. Eliot would all at once violently refuse and enforce that he is in no way involved in his work if he could see the comparison made today. Yet, evidences of his disconnect with his own wife in The Wasteland are being conjured. Can see Joyce’s views on the church, society and often on gender throughout Ulysses. Rebecca West, an acclaimed feminist and journalist, dots her work with role reversal, yet involved Evadne with a male, her husband, in Indissoluble Matrimony as she herself had a fiery, long lasting affair with H. G. Wells around the time of it’s publication. At least Virginia Wolff had the gall to admit to her presence in her writing.
This scorning is a bit ironic in that a writer is a writer, an idea is an idea. In the end, neither have anything to do with sex.
It is amusing at best though, the way in which critics have plucked apart Written on the Body to be a lesbian novel. That the central focus of the narrators passion happens to be a woman is irrelevant to the feelings themselves. As are any of the obvious neglects of gender for the narrator. If there are hints to gender, they are ambiguous at best or shifting to frequently one couldn’t possibly grab a-hold of any one thread and claim it to be evidence of a man or a woman.
These roles in fact -clues if you will- are only one’s conjured up by the readers themselves. All “references” or “implications” to gender not only do not exist, but are completely fabricated by whomever is choosing to see them. Any claims to the narrator being bashed with images or literal wording of “penetration,” or the instance in which a past lovers snake startles the narrator because of its blatant crotch-length-in-height stature. Likely, the idea of a male, for some obscure reason, also gets doubted throughout the reading of the novel.
Regardless of whether or not the narrator is male or female, one also gets the sense of Louise being the submissive woman, as both figures [her husband and the narrator] make large decisions in her life. Jenifer asked us at one point during our discussions if Louise had been Luis, would it have changed the believability. The resounding “yes” only proved that as readers all markers of “gender” have all come from that exactly. The reader is the one to pre-suppose gender.
This is something Winterson seemed to be focusing a critical lens upon. Readers would not get the sensation of Luis being as reasonable because obviously Louise is exhibiting obvious “female” traits, is she not? What, with allowing the “dominant” figures in her life “rule” her. Quick to jump the gun, are we not? Quick to assume that no man could ever exhibit such levels of submissiveness, especially when it comes to the control of their relationships and bodies. Quick to forget that is was Louise who took on the male role of “perusing” to allow herself to become close to the narrator, was the one to ask if they were to have an affair, the one to call. The one to lead.
Self examination of how “open” one really is to the uselessness of gender and love should be conducted before and after reading Written on the Body. It will change how one sees gender and it’s irrelevance to blistering passion.
This scorning is a bit ironic in that a writer is a writer, an idea is an idea. In the end, neither have anything to do with sex.
It is amusing at best though, the way in which critics have plucked apart Written on the Body to be a lesbian novel. That the central focus of the narrators passion happens to be a woman is irrelevant to the feelings themselves. As are any of the obvious neglects of gender for the narrator. If there are hints to gender, they are ambiguous at best or shifting to frequently one couldn’t possibly grab a-hold of any one thread and claim it to be evidence of a man or a woman.
These roles in fact -clues if you will- are only one’s conjured up by the readers themselves. All “references” or “implications” to gender not only do not exist, but are completely fabricated by whomever is choosing to see them. Any claims to the narrator being bashed with images or literal wording of “penetration,” or the instance in which a past lovers snake startles the narrator because of its blatant crotch-length-in-height stature. Likely, the idea of a male, for some obscure reason, also gets doubted throughout the reading of the novel.
Regardless of whether or not the narrator is male or female, one also gets the sense of Louise being the submissive woman, as both figures [her husband and the narrator] make large decisions in her life. Jenifer asked us at one point during our discussions if Louise had been Luis, would it have changed the believability. The resounding “yes” only proved that as readers all markers of “gender” have all come from that exactly. The reader is the one to pre-suppose gender.
This is something Winterson seemed to be focusing a critical lens upon. Readers would not get the sensation of Luis being as reasonable because obviously Louise is exhibiting obvious “female” traits, is she not? What, with allowing the “dominant” figures in her life “rule” her. Quick to jump the gun, are we not? Quick to assume that no man could ever exhibit such levels of submissiveness, especially when it comes to the control of their relationships and bodies. Quick to forget that is was Louise who took on the male role of “perusing” to allow herself to become close to the narrator, was the one to ask if they were to have an affair, the one to call. The one to lead.
Self examination of how “open” one really is to the uselessness of gender and love should be conducted before and after reading Written on the Body. It will change how one sees gender and it’s irrelevance to blistering passion.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Ergo
The brain is infinitely complex, to say the least:
I felt that necessary for my point. There is constant motion and workings within the brain. Psychology also having many branches, one being Cognitive psychology, a “branch of psychology that investigates internal mental processes such as: problem solving, memory, and language.”
We are capable of thinking about thinking; thinking while we think. We have a vast storage of information we have accumulated and processed over the years. Our short term memory [that which is capable of recalling long term memory] varies from person-to-person, however, has a capacity. We can only recall/think of so much information at any given moment, but we have the ability to store so much more.
So, to say that the possibility of seeing the rich, boundless depth of a person’s life over the span of 24 hours is not only possible, but it can be shown and written. The way in which we think, scattered as some notions or perceptions may feel at times, still has a strict system which can be described with words, as difficult as it may be.
Perhaps we won’t be able to see every element of someone’s past in vivid detail. No encyclopedia exists equipped with grueling detail and vibrant pictures to describe any one person’s thoughts every day of their life. Biographies are available, but they can only describe so many thoughts and what major events took place.
Yet, when one delves into the consciousness of a human, so much more can be seen. How every day moments change them, if only for a single moment. We constantly recall past experiences, if not directly, thinking of some distant event that happened long ago, then there are others. Such as the memory of life’s complications and their effects. We carry them: ideas, intentions, presuppositions; how we filter as well. We see things by how we have changed. We speak according to what we have seen and done. We speak how we already know to. We take in information about the world around us mad work them into memories and knowledge we had prior to their intake. Even if we are learning for the first time, experience or by idea, we could have already had knowledge of some sort that was affiliated to it prior.
It is beyond possible to see the complexity of a human’s life in one day. We do it every single waking moment on our own. Perhaps we will not live out the excitement of our very best moments in a single day, or many days, but we have memory. Because of our constant cognition we thrive and can be condensed into any waking moment in which we continue to be aware that we exist.
Cogito ergo sum.
~I think, therefore I am.
A neuron (also known as a neurone or nerve cell) is an excitable cell in the nervous system that processes and transmits information by electrochemical signalling. Neurons are the core components of the brain, the vertebrate spinal cord, the invertebrate ventral nerve cord, and the peripheral nerves. A number of specialized types of neurons exist: sensory neurons respond to touch, sound, light and numerous other stimuli affecting cells of the sensory organs that then send signals to the spinal cord and brain. Motor neurons receive signals from the brain and spinal cord and cause muscle contractions and affect glands. Interneurons connect neurons to other neurons within the brain and spinal cord. Neurons respond to stimuli, and communicate the presence of stimuli to the central nervous system, which processes that information and sends responses to other parts of the body for action. Neurons do not go through mitosis, and usually cannot be replaced after being destroyed,[dubious – discuss] although astrocytes have been observed to turn into neurons as they are sometimes pluripotent.
I felt that necessary for my point. There is constant motion and workings within the brain. Psychology also having many branches, one being Cognitive psychology, a “branch of psychology that investigates internal mental processes such as: problem solving, memory, and language.”
We are capable of thinking about thinking; thinking while we think. We have a vast storage of information we have accumulated and processed over the years. Our short term memory [that which is capable of recalling long term memory] varies from person-to-person, however, has a capacity. We can only recall/think of so much information at any given moment, but we have the ability to store so much more.
So, to say that the possibility of seeing the rich, boundless depth of a person’s life over the span of 24 hours is not only possible, but it can be shown and written. The way in which we think, scattered as some notions or perceptions may feel at times, still has a strict system which can be described with words, as difficult as it may be.
Perhaps we won’t be able to see every element of someone’s past in vivid detail. No encyclopedia exists equipped with grueling detail and vibrant pictures to describe any one person’s thoughts every day of their life. Biographies are available, but they can only describe so many thoughts and what major events took place.
Yet, when one delves into the consciousness of a human, so much more can be seen. How every day moments change them, if only for a single moment. We constantly recall past experiences, if not directly, thinking of some distant event that happened long ago, then there are others. Such as the memory of life’s complications and their effects. We carry them: ideas, intentions, presuppositions; how we filter as well. We see things by how we have changed. We speak according to what we have seen and done. We speak how we already know to. We take in information about the world around us mad work them into memories and knowledge we had prior to their intake. Even if we are learning for the first time, experience or by idea, we could have already had knowledge of some sort that was affiliated to it prior.
It is beyond possible to see the complexity of a human’s life in one day. We do it every single waking moment on our own. Perhaps we will not live out the excitement of our very best moments in a single day, or many days, but we have memory. Because of our constant cognition we thrive and can be condensed into any waking moment in which we continue to be aware that we exist.
Cogito ergo sum.
~I think, therefore I am.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Let the record state that: homosexuality =/= the evilest of sexual sin.
On the case of homosexuality, if people find themselves offended, pride will swell within my breasts in such bounty I just might burst.
Exploding bosom aside, I’d like to tackle two topics. Let’s start out with homosexual hatred from religious puffery.
This is the most heinous misuses of Biblical literature to “fight” homosexuality. The notion that it was because the fight to rape the angels, that they were “homosexual,” was the main -if not usually used as the only- reason God sent said angels to destroy the city. As if to say homosexuality will rain down fire and brimstone as the form of the wrath of God, forever and ever, amen, if one is to partake in it. However, later on in the Bible, there is a grievous distinction between that conclusion and what is said.
Oh, how quick we are to exclude refutation.
The sin of Sodom? They had forgotten the poor. Gluttons that neglected their fellow mankind. Throughout the bible, more-so than some faulty, biased grounds for homosexual hatred, is the repulsion of God at those who do not love their fellow man. Frequently God speaks on kindness and love, on the good treatment of men, and Jesus himself shows immeasurable condescension and affection by not only coming to earth, but through his miracles and crucifixion.
In a quest of a Christians life to become more Christ-like, what clicks on in their mind to have anti-homosexual protest? Which in itself seems like a blatant denial of Christ-like virtue. Figures. They’re not hating the supposed “sin” of loving someone of the same sex. They outright hate the people and treat them like they’re subhuman. Hating sexuality is one thing, hating a human because of it is another.
Which leads me to homosexuality in the media. The rationale of offense by homosexuality in wide-spread media is laughable, at best. I cannot even begin to support the idea of it being acceptable without laughing heartily because the Christian logic is often so faulty.
I’ll leave that idea with this: Why not be offended by alls sexuality? No, no. Not just turned your head away when a couple kisses too long in a movie. Or avoiding it in magazines and films, television and games. Why are you not OFFENDED by it? Not just set on avoiding it because your genitals and hormones cannot help you strive towards holiness when you see heterosexual love?
----
This was probably not my best work, so if you have questions that you feel I need to elaborate on, fire away.
Exploding bosom aside, I’d like to tackle two topics. Let’s start out with homosexual hatred from religious puffery.
Genesis 18:16-19:29ish:
Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them."
But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof."
But they said, "Stand aside." Furthermore, they said, "This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them." So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door.
But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. And they struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves trying to find the doorway.
Then the men said to Lot, "Whom else have you here? A son-in-law, and your sons, and your daughters, and whomever you have in the city, bring them out of the place; for we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the Lord that the Lord has sent us to destroy it."
This is the most heinous misuses of Biblical literature to “fight” homosexuality. The notion that it was because the fight to rape the angels, that they were “homosexual,” was the main -if not usually used as the only- reason God sent said angels to destroy the city. As if to say homosexuality will rain down fire and brimstone as the form of the wrath of God, forever and ever, amen, if one is to partake in it. However, later on in the Bible, there is a grievous distinction between that conclusion and what is said.
Ezekiel 16:49-50 states:
Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
Oh, how quick we are to exclude refutation.
The sin of Sodom? They had forgotten the poor. Gluttons that neglected their fellow mankind. Throughout the bible, more-so than some faulty, biased grounds for homosexual hatred, is the repulsion of God at those who do not love their fellow man. Frequently God speaks on kindness and love, on the good treatment of men, and Jesus himself shows immeasurable condescension and affection by not only coming to earth, but through his miracles and crucifixion.
In a quest of a Christians life to become more Christ-like, what clicks on in their mind to have anti-homosexual protest? Which in itself seems like a blatant denial of Christ-like virtue. Figures. They’re not hating the supposed “sin” of loving someone of the same sex. They outright hate the people and treat them like they’re subhuman. Hating sexuality is one thing, hating a human because of it is another.
Which leads me to homosexuality in the media. The rationale of offense by homosexuality in wide-spread media is laughable, at best. I cannot even begin to support the idea of it being acceptable without laughing heartily because the Christian logic is often so faulty.
I’ll leave that idea with this: Why not be offended by alls sexuality? No, no. Not just turned your head away when a couple kisses too long in a movie. Or avoiding it in magazines and films, television and games. Why are you not OFFENDED by it? Not just set on avoiding it because your genitals and hormones cannot help you strive towards holiness when you see heterosexual love?
----
This was probably not my best work, so if you have questions that you feel I need to elaborate on, fire away.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Their rights as fe----Males
I will attempt to properly tackle two subject matters. If I become confusing, I offer my apologies as the fault will be mine. Bare with me.
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case of women, how gender roles are still tight, one would be most inclined to argue this: Women are still expect to be the home-maker, to be meek, take up as little space as possible, and to be of a gentle nature. Wherein restriction upon the female sex was all encompassing, body, soul and mind, now is to the latter. By which I mean, their literal [physical] and mental capabilities.
Women are now able to participate in all manual labor if they can reach the minimum requirements for their job. They can use their mental skills to progress in a corporate, scientific, or the rich literary and artistic world. Their roles, the inner most confines of a woman that lead her to be the “proper caretaker,” however, is still prevalent.
There is a misconception that women are more empathetic. As if to say, that because they possess ovaries that they feel more than man, and consequentially are less prone to control these feelings. While the latter statement is so, it has to do with breeding, and nothing whatsoever with internal sexual organs. Wherein also plays in the double standards. Where women are expected to be the gentler, more compassionate sex and are raised to be so, so as to rear children, they are expected to accomplish that of what a man can. That is, in short, be a hard worker, albeit physical or mental, and to excel while still being the matronly figure.
In this, society has become far more prone to be sever on the male sex. The double standard for men is that they are expected to be many things: the bread winner, the muscle of the house, the one that fixes the busted pipes and puts together the furniture [and neglect all instructions, of course]. Then, when all that is said and done, to be “sensitive” and more “compassionate.”
However, when a man cries, is he not a sissy? When a father wants to stay at home and raise his children, because his wife makes more money and has better benefits but they crave to have a solid, always-present-parent, is he not considered effeminate? The word itself, effeminate, is so derogatory that the slightest whisper of it while placed with the male sex that it has become a societal taboo.
The greatest shame of feminism is the fight to be equal to men, yet the threads have not woven around the counterpart of the very statement of "equal." Men are not allowed to be equal to a women. Even when women fought tooth and nail for equality, the men that put forth so many efforts to liberate women are often forgotten in the movement for women’s rights.
Is it not the compassion and open mind of men that had to move, to change, to allow the “weaker sex,” their beloved counterparts, a movement at all? Was not the fight against slavery in the hands of everyone but the slaves? Did it not rest on those who were moved so deeply by the inhumane treatment of, not another race, but their fellow man that fought against it? Was it not those in the higher power that had to listen to give a voice to those oppressed?
It seems we, as a society, are quick to forget the compassion of those that fought oppression and ill-treatment along side, if not in a way, for the less fortunate.
Women and men are no different. Our motherly fathers are ridiculed and looked down on, considered gay, un-masculine, without work, or “whipped.” If a man cries openly, he’s laughed at, women will avoid him [because then of course, he’s too sensitive. Right?], and he losses his place within social structure of being powerful. Of being a man.
On an ending note: Transvestites. The psychological definition is that of a man that dresses in women’s clothing for sexual pleasure. A common misconception is that these men, drag queens and all, are homosexual, when in fact few are. On the note of sexual gratification: Perhaps it’s because women’s clothes are doused with lace and silks, and heels sexy and demanding. How would that differ from a fetish from leather? On the side of social gratification -as transvestites often dress as women in private to hide it from their wives, girlfriends and so on- there is this: If gender restriction for male dress code was not so strict [as women can ware male clothing and not be spared a second glance], would the term Transvestite exist, as the idea and action of it would be of no consequence and not infected with abnormality?
~
I beg pardon for my articulation if I have left you confounded at any point.
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case of women, how gender roles are still tight, one would be most inclined to argue this: Women are still expect to be the home-maker, to be meek, take up as little space as possible, and to be of a gentle nature. Wherein restriction upon the female sex was all encompassing, body, soul and mind, now is to the latter. By which I mean, their literal [physical] and mental capabilities.
Women are now able to participate in all manual labor if they can reach the minimum requirements for their job. They can use their mental skills to progress in a corporate, scientific, or the rich literary and artistic world. Their roles, the inner most confines of a woman that lead her to be the “proper caretaker,” however, is still prevalent.
There is a misconception that women are more empathetic. As if to say, that because they possess ovaries that they feel more than man, and consequentially are less prone to control these feelings. While the latter statement is so, it has to do with breeding, and nothing whatsoever with internal sexual organs. Wherein also plays in the double standards. Where women are expected to be the gentler, more compassionate sex and are raised to be so, so as to rear children, they are expected to accomplish that of what a man can. That is, in short, be a hard worker, albeit physical or mental, and to excel while still being the matronly figure.
In this, society has become far more prone to be sever on the male sex. The double standard for men is that they are expected to be many things: the bread winner, the muscle of the house, the one that fixes the busted pipes and puts together the furniture [and neglect all instructions, of course]. Then, when all that is said and done, to be “sensitive” and more “compassionate.”
However, when a man cries, is he not a sissy? When a father wants to stay at home and raise his children, because his wife makes more money and has better benefits but they crave to have a solid, always-present-parent, is he not considered effeminate? The word itself, effeminate, is so derogatory that the slightest whisper of it while placed with the male sex that it has become a societal taboo.
The greatest shame of feminism is the fight to be equal to men, yet the threads have not woven around the counterpart of the very statement of "equal." Men are not allowed to be equal to a women. Even when women fought tooth and nail for equality, the men that put forth so many efforts to liberate women are often forgotten in the movement for women’s rights.
Is it not the compassion and open mind of men that had to move, to change, to allow the “weaker sex,” their beloved counterparts, a movement at all? Was not the fight against slavery in the hands of everyone but the slaves? Did it not rest on those who were moved so deeply by the inhumane treatment of, not another race, but their fellow man that fought against it? Was it not those in the higher power that had to listen to give a voice to those oppressed?
It seems we, as a society, are quick to forget the compassion of those that fought oppression and ill-treatment along side, if not in a way, for the less fortunate.
Women and men are no different. Our motherly fathers are ridiculed and looked down on, considered gay, un-masculine, without work, or “whipped.” If a man cries openly, he’s laughed at, women will avoid him [because then of course, he’s too sensitive. Right?], and he losses his place within social structure of being powerful. Of being a man.
On an ending note: Transvestites. The psychological definition is that of a man that dresses in women’s clothing for sexual pleasure. A common misconception is that these men, drag queens and all, are homosexual, when in fact few are. On the note of sexual gratification: Perhaps it’s because women’s clothes are doused with lace and silks, and heels sexy and demanding. How would that differ from a fetish from leather? On the side of social gratification -as transvestites often dress as women in private to hide it from their wives, girlfriends and so on- there is this: If gender restriction for male dress code was not so strict [as women can ware male clothing and not be spared a second glance], would the term Transvestite exist, as the idea and action of it would be of no consequence and not infected with abnormality?
~
I beg pardon for my articulation if I have left you confounded at any point.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
The Envy of Societal Phallus
One of the most profound moments for myself, because of it’s blatancy and word for word, unweaving vigor is this piece from Jane Eyre:
Women are supposed to be very calm generally: but women feel just as men feel; they need exercise for their faculties, and a field for their efforts as much as their brothers do; they suffer from too rigid a restraint, too absolute a stagnation, precisely as men would suffer; and it is narrow-minded in their more privileged fellow-creatures to say that they ought to confine themselves to making puddings and knitting stockings, to playing on the piano and embroidering bags. It is thoughtless to condemn them, or laugh at them, if they seek to do more or learn more than custom has pronounced necessary for their sex.
Perhaps some would argue that this isn’t a “scene” at all, but more a simple internal dialog by Jane and may not be unimportant -On the contrary. All internalizations by Jane are more important than what she describes happening, as she is not some godhead of the story and can thus narrate the intent of other’s actions- but lack the actions of dialog or interaction with another character.
I’d like to first refute those thoughts. To deny the profound action Jane takes in this thought would be ludicrous. Is it not our freedom of thought that we hold most dear to us? It’s the one freedom we can cling to, regardless of situation or members involved. It is one thing that cannot be silence with power, social standing, money, abuse, and so on. It drives us, even when we are mute. Even Jane’s first major steps came from her thoughts. Her outbreak against her cousin’s abuse. Despite her fear she held to her own mind, and could take comfort in her own rationale despite unbeknownst to her in her terror. It lead her to lash out and strike her cousin in which ever unexplained way she did, and it was a massive turning point.
This freedom, however, does need at outlet. But that Jane takes the step to say this is bold, and for the writter to have written this even more-so. Though I’ve not looked into it, I’m sure Charlotte Bronte was so beyond revolutionary and opened many doors for other great feminist writers, such as Virginia Woolf and Rebecca West, to move literature so profoundly. Also, the misogyny that existed within the time was a rampant as ever, though women were not perhaps stoned in public as they once were, but it was still evident in their contemporary social structure. Perhaps I’m preaching to the choir with this, though.
In short, this entry progressed and showed the revolutionary mindset of such an individual for her time. When repulsion for women was so pungent and saturated into society Jane -and Bronte- spoke up. They defied the norm and shook a fist at their breeding. Despite all odds that worked to brainwash, to stifle and repress, they speak out. They think, feel, and believe their ideas. Their internal voices broke through the veil of submission and rebelled against crushing resistance, and perhaps a change was not immediate in her time, but the idea held and carried. Feminism didn’t just change men, but it changed women as well. No longer are the docile and meek seen in the same light to their stronger, more vocal counterparts. Even Rebecca West and others have ridiculed Virginia Woolf for not being radical enough.
Before I move on I’d also like to first clarify some things: The idea of feminism and women’s liberation. Feminism is not massive parades where women bunch together in some sort of anti-men driven propaganda where they burn their bra’s. Not at all. It’s not the idea that women should bulk themselves to generate the mass and strength of a man, nor should they be pushed into it for their Feministic ideas. Nor is it the notion that women are superior to the male sex. Feminism is the idea women have the right to vote, to work. That women should be able to make money for themselves, to save it, and not have her earnings be untouchable, go to the family, and then be left destitute when her father dies or dependent upon some “merciful” male. It is the idea that women should be in-discriminated against because her genitals don’t hang between her legs and her breasts and girded with fat. It is the right to feel as one wishes and to, not only be liberated in freedom of mind, but to be able to support that freedom with action.
Feminism is that women are equal. Women are human beings that feel as men, think as men, and therefore, deserve to be treated with as much respect and value as men.
Societal phallus is what was to be envied. Not the literal one that dangles between the thighs of men.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Somewhere in the between
Due to my notes being a mess of paraphrased scribbles I’ll only be citing the ideas of the Multiple Genders video. Maybe.
And I am no way am apologizing for any language for forceful ideas I will portray. This is simply a fair warning.
-
“But what would be the psychological consequences of taking the alternative road-- raising children as unabashed intersexuals?…What, for example, would happen to the intersexual child amid the unrelenting cruelty of the school yard? When the time came to shower in gym class, what horrors and humiliations would await the intersexual as his/her anatomy was displayed in all its nontraditional glory? In whose gym class would s/he register to begin with? What bathroom would s/he use? And how on earth would Mom and Dad help shepherd him/her through the mine field of puberty?”
Fausto-Sterling, as objective as she seems to be yet all at once in support of allowing intersexuals to remain as such, describes the mounting terror and ever present innate obligatory, self-inflated necessity to fix these humans with such simple questions [and that’s not even the half of them] that seem to have no answer but “snip and sew.”
She also goes on to say how there have been extensive studies before the time of surgery and none proved to be suicidal or have dreadful mental disorders that seem to be over-exaggeratedly rampant in our current times.
With that said, though I’ve not over-analyzed the above quote for you -I think that’s for you to think of and explain to yourself, though I can, however, give you my oh-so-important opinion [harrharr]- I will say one thing: Not only is it wrong morally for someone, even a “well-to-do-parent,” to choose someone’s sex for them [and it‘s not just sex they‘re choosing, but more “gender“], but it has been an accepted propaganda for bodily mutilation for far too long. Would we not frown on and fight against someone doing this to an adult without their consent? How is it different for a child? Because they cannot “choose” for themselves? I will return to these questions, as some objections may already be bubbling to the forefront of your mind.
To stress the point of mutilation, I’ll place under the magnifying glass of my far-too-socially-critical blubbering circumcision. Males are forced to undergo this procedure at birth, but honestly, to what end? It’s a religious practice, particularly Judeo-Christian one [and how many of the mass of people that have this done are practicing?], and has nothing to do with any sort of mental wellbeing or physical health. That it is “unhealthy” is a bullshit synonym for saying “it’s unsanitary.” Any male that doesn’t properly clean himself is filthy [as are women. Don’t frown or pout at me. You and I both know we have to clean ourselves just as well, too] regardless. They’re no more susceptible or hard to upkeep than a circumcised male [the bacteria it can specifically develop is called “smegma,” by the way]. As a matter of fact, circumcised men are said to have less sexual sensation due to desensitization of the penis.
Yeah. Desensitized.
That rant aside, people with their genitals altered are also susceptible to nerve damage, as they were not meant to be changed. They were born that way.
So I come back to my question. Because they can’t choose they should have their bodies mutilated? No. It is not the job of the “rational” mind to force upon the under-developed its social agenda. Would we submit a child for scientific studies with medicine for health problems they did not have? The only thing wrong with transexual people is the proliferated agenda that there is.
There was once [and sometimes still is] a gross mistreatment of other genetic malformations. Such as people that are born retarded. They were often placed in “homes” away from their families with others where they were ill cared for and abused. Or placed in basements, hidden from the rest of the world. Perhaps it is a genetic disconformities, but that does not excuse us from destroying their existence with ideas of bigotry and fear.
Children born intersexuals simply need the same amount, a different type, or care and sensitivity. Because when I read, “And how on earth would Mom and Dad help shepherd him/her through the mine field of puberty?” All I see is “waaah waaaaaah this is harder for em to figure out as a parent.”
Grow up and be quiet. Any and all children with physical or emotional stunts, such as: An abnormally sized male [big or small], and under developed girl, someone born plain, that developed before other children [Myself, including several other girls developed large breasts at a young age. Apparently, that’s “our fault,” and we’re whores for it]. In short, child are relentlessly cruel to all “abnormal” people, no matter the abnormality. Every parent has the capacity to be a crap parent to any child if they’re not sensitive to their children’s needs. Reaffirmed affection and constant communication would help both child and parent grow under transexual circumstances. If and when the occasion rises that the individual says “I would like to do this to my body because it was what I feel I am,” then it is their choice and they’ve been given the opportunity to grow and learn on their own.
Not to snivel: I’ve suffered from feeling unrelated to my gender my entire life. I cannot possibly imagine what it would feel like for someone to not only feel disjointed with their social “role,” but to then be stuck in that body?
How would you feel growing up knowing someone unfairly made that choice for you?
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Our Second Son
As unintentional as it was on their behalf, I’ve been a bit begrudging and sour towards my parents and their conventional views on gender due to the amount of pressure they’ve placed on me to fit into mine. As a female, they see me as the home maker, though encourage me to be the “breadwinner.” The latter, of course, would be ceased whilst becoming implanted with foreign DNA and hence forth homing and nurturing a mutating leech [Prego].
I know a fair amount of girls might say that they wanted to rough house and play with the boys growing up and made grand efforts to do so. This was not the case for me. I made strong efforts to play with my own sex when I was younger, despite a sense of detachment. I played with dolls at the indirect encouragement [buying me Barbie’s without me having to ask], and made an effort to become less assertive and douse my aggressive habits at school [As I used to get suspended frequently for beating on boys].
Carrying on into my childhood, an increase in distaste for dresses and “pretty” clothing began to develop, along with alienation from my female peers. My parents again made strong efforts to push me into feminine social circles, but to no avail. I wanted to play sports, but due to new found religious propaganda my parents grew all the more fervent in trying to keep me away from my tom-boy nature and more towards what they considered proper for a young girl. Especially that I was atomically developing quickly and curvaceously. To this day I have little to no female friends. While one or two remain close, I inadvertently surrounded myself with male friends.
“Girls” have a hard time relating to me. Apparently.
I have never been able to identify with my gender and it was distressing at a younger age when I was unaccepted due to some unseen force that stopped me from molding myself properly to fit in. I don’t take comfort in typical “girl” habits, such as shopping, in-depth talks about feelings and attachments, males, and so on [I know I’m stereo typing, but cut me some slack].
Even significant others have taken note of my masculinity. As much as I still dislike frills and dresses, all boyfriends have encouraged me to look pretty. Perhaps not in dresses and high heels, but appropriately feminine. My hair is naturally curly. Most people have not seen or would have known that due to tangled mop of my hair to be tamed for the sake of attraction and femininity.
On that note: to my parents great dismay, I frequently cut my hair short. Very short. The most I’ve done left me with less than an inch, and my poor mother was near tears she was so frustrated. But I had reached the end of my rope when I had reached the decision to remove so much. Society put so much weight on being beautiful [not to say that I am beautiful. Just go with it!] in a conventional way that I’d grown sick of it, and sick of myself for conforming for the majority of my life.
So, off with the hair and more assertion. I continue to buy gender elusive clothing and it still irritates my parents to no end that I don’t “take care of myself.” I.e, I would rather wake up forty minutes early than wake up to do my hair, pick out clothes, and fix my make-up. I like pants and t-shirts that don’t hug my curves. I yell at the television, enjoy rough-housing, play video games, and enjoy my mane of wild curls [when they exist].
As hard as it is to be seen with fistfuls of males and be constantly berated about my lack of femininity, I feel much more myself when I resist cramming myself into our societal norm for women.
At least my hair has grown out some and I’m not referred to as “the other son” anymore.
I know a fair amount of girls might say that they wanted to rough house and play with the boys growing up and made grand efforts to do so. This was not the case for me. I made strong efforts to play with my own sex when I was younger, despite a sense of detachment. I played with dolls at the indirect encouragement [buying me Barbie’s without me having to ask], and made an effort to become less assertive and douse my aggressive habits at school [As I used to get suspended frequently for beating on boys].
Carrying on into my childhood, an increase in distaste for dresses and “pretty” clothing began to develop, along with alienation from my female peers. My parents again made strong efforts to push me into feminine social circles, but to no avail. I wanted to play sports, but due to new found religious propaganda my parents grew all the more fervent in trying to keep me away from my tom-boy nature and more towards what they considered proper for a young girl. Especially that I was atomically developing quickly and curvaceously. To this day I have little to no female friends. While one or two remain close, I inadvertently surrounded myself with male friends.
“Girls” have a hard time relating to me. Apparently.
I have never been able to identify with my gender and it was distressing at a younger age when I was unaccepted due to some unseen force that stopped me from molding myself properly to fit in. I don’t take comfort in typical “girl” habits, such as shopping, in-depth talks about feelings and attachments, males, and so on [I know I’m stereo typing, but cut me some slack].
Even significant others have taken note of my masculinity. As much as I still dislike frills and dresses, all boyfriends have encouraged me to look pretty. Perhaps not in dresses and high heels, but appropriately feminine. My hair is naturally curly. Most people have not seen or would have known that due to tangled mop of my hair to be tamed for the sake of attraction and femininity.
On that note: to my parents great dismay, I frequently cut my hair short. Very short. The most I’ve done left me with less than an inch, and my poor mother was near tears she was so frustrated. But I had reached the end of my rope when I had reached the decision to remove so much. Society put so much weight on being beautiful [not to say that I am beautiful. Just go with it!] in a conventional way that I’d grown sick of it, and sick of myself for conforming for the majority of my life.
So, off with the hair and more assertion. I continue to buy gender elusive clothing and it still irritates my parents to no end that I don’t “take care of myself.” I.e, I would rather wake up forty minutes early than wake up to do my hair, pick out clothes, and fix my make-up. I like pants and t-shirts that don’t hug my curves. I yell at the television, enjoy rough-housing, play video games, and enjoy my mane of wild curls [when they exist].
As hard as it is to be seen with fistfuls of males and be constantly berated about my lack of femininity, I feel much more myself when I resist cramming myself into our societal norm for women.
At least my hair has grown out some and I’m not referred to as “the other son” anymore.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
On Gender
To myself, gender identity means exactly what it is. The gender with which one identifies themselves with. Or in the case of gender: The characteristics with which society has instilled and reinforces to appropriate and distinguish between sexes. I feel as though my own gender is impossible to be ambiguous due to how I’ve physically developed, it however, has not stopped me from digressing and never being able to identify with dominant societies gender for the female sex. Of course it is impossible to avoid them all, seeing as I was raised in a home where gender roles are well reinforced and encouraged, but I’ve always felt I’ve related to masculine expectations with greater ease.
The absurdity of some gender roles and the reactions to reversals are ludicrous though. Such as the example of fathers taking care of their children. Men should neither be discouraged, as they commonly are, nor encouraged. The latter because the necessity of having to is, well, stupid. Why should a father rearing children be something odd? Or out of the norm so much that society feels the need to pat him on the back? There are adequately rational reasons for men to rear children, especially if one wants to think of social upbringing. Men are just as capable as women at everything a woman can do. Not to say we should ignore their efforts; That we must show a support for a rational norm-rebellion is absurdity. That it is rebellion at all is also incongruity. A man shouldn’t be labeled as effeminate or “un-macho” for wanting to raise his children.
Even women in working situations are sometime ridiculed unfairly. Unfair because it has nothing to do with their capabilities or competence, but their sex. A woman is still generally expected to be a house wife, soft spoken and passive. When she asserts herself and shows signs of dominance society is disturbed and calls her a “bitch.” A man with any necessarily qualities for high-end, well paying jobs is “determined” and so on. Women have and are recognized for equally qualities so long as their profession protrudes femininity as lack of dominance and extroverted drive. There is a double standard for both sexes and despite changes remains irrational and irritating.
The article itself well informative, but only enforced my current understanding of what gender means to individuals and society. However, when Lorber speaks about gender being a process -which leaves it open for change- the sun broke the thick clouds of societal doom and leaves bright shining rays of hope in place of the once dark, irrevocable force of culture.
I hope to leave this course with not only a better knowledge of gender in our culture, but to be more aware of it so as to catch it. Lorber is on spot when she states that “everyone ‘does gender’ without thinking about it.”(1) That we notice stay at home fathers and strong cooperate women as being abnormal is a prime example of “doing gender” without realizing it. Hopefully progression this semester will sharpen our senses and open our eyes to things we should reject as “standards” and spread doors for more open minds and unified society. I’d like to believe I’m already open minded, but one can never be too expansive. I look forward to putting my mental elasticity to use.
The absurdity of some gender roles and the reactions to reversals are ludicrous though. Such as the example of fathers taking care of their children. Men should neither be discouraged, as they commonly are, nor encouraged. The latter because the necessity of having to is, well, stupid. Why should a father rearing children be something odd? Or out of the norm so much that society feels the need to pat him on the back? There are adequately rational reasons for men to rear children, especially if one wants to think of social upbringing. Men are just as capable as women at everything a woman can do. Not to say we should ignore their efforts; That we must show a support for a rational norm-rebellion is absurdity. That it is rebellion at all is also incongruity. A man shouldn’t be labeled as effeminate or “un-macho” for wanting to raise his children.
Even women in working situations are sometime ridiculed unfairly. Unfair because it has nothing to do with their capabilities or competence, but their sex. A woman is still generally expected to be a house wife, soft spoken and passive. When she asserts herself and shows signs of dominance society is disturbed and calls her a “bitch.” A man with any necessarily qualities for high-end, well paying jobs is “determined” and so on. Women have and are recognized for equally qualities so long as their profession protrudes femininity as lack of dominance and extroverted drive. There is a double standard for both sexes and despite changes remains irrational and irritating.
The article itself well informative, but only enforced my current understanding of what gender means to individuals and society. However, when Lorber speaks about gender being a process -which leaves it open for change- the sun broke the thick clouds of societal doom and leaves bright shining rays of hope in place of the once dark, irrevocable force of culture.
I hope to leave this course with not only a better knowledge of gender in our culture, but to be more aware of it so as to catch it. Lorber is on spot when she states that “everyone ‘does gender’ without thinking about it.”(1) That we notice stay at home fathers and strong cooperate women as being abnormal is a prime example of “doing gender” without realizing it. Hopefully progression this semester will sharpen our senses and open our eyes to things we should reject as “standards” and spread doors for more open minds and unified society. I’d like to believe I’m already open minded, but one can never be too expansive. I look forward to putting my mental elasticity to use.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)