90's-tastic!

In Tuesday's class we spent time watching clips that depict conflict among women.  It was interesting to look at the movies that many of us watching growing up, in a new way.  In our discussion we brought up the notion that the Queen was depicted beautiful woman yet she is lacking many feminine characteristics- we can't see her hair or her curves.  Despite a lack of feminine qualities she still has the ability to manipulate the henchman that she sends after Snow White.  If she illustrated as a mix of masculine and feminine, how does it make sense for her to use her femininity as a tool for manipulation and violence?

Masculinity in a Box

From a PACS perspective today's class was interesting on more than one level.  The topic of the discussion about masculinity and what that means in society was intriguing.  It was fascinating to think about how intense the norms are regarding masculinity and how that impacts the actions of men living within this societal structure.  I agree with Lydia that it brought up points that I don't often think about but that made a lot of sense once I heard them.  

On another level I think it is important to recognize how tough this discussion was to have.  In that way it was interesting because we were able to see how a mediator might act in a real life discussion where emotions run really high.  It was a great way to see how the techniques learned about in other PACS classes were enacted by a third party.

Importance of Language!

One particularly fascinating discussion in the film was that of the language used to talk about gender and violence and what gets said or doesn't get said.  Word association shows that when we hear the terms race, sexual orientation, or gender the dominant group (white, heterosexual, men) is often left out of the discussion and in this way they remained unexamined which enable to continuation of violence.  Following this vein of thinking the film talked about the missing rhetoric in the media.  For example, the media claims that "women were assaulted" or "women were raped" but the media never says that "men raped" or "men assaulted".  This was explained as a result of common knowledge- everyone knows that men did it so it doesn't need to be said.  The opposite is true in fact, it does need to be mentioned.  By not mentioning it early on, the unmentioned groups go unnoticed and unexamined in future discussions.  This seems like a glaring problem yet one that is incredibly challenging to counteract.  How can we change word associations?  How can we change media portrayals when media portrayals are based on sales figures?

Multicultural Feminism

Today's discussion of multicultural feminism was particularly compelling.  I liked that there was a recognition that even if injustices based on gender are overcome by society at the surface there are often underlying areas of oppression that still cause gender disparities.  Along the same vein it was interesting to think about the notion that as long as there is one form of oppression all peoples are oppressed.  It's a notion that we don't often hear.  I wonder if that is because it is so overwhelming.  If all forms of oppression must be eradicated simultaneously, where does a group begin to address it?  I wonder if there are organizations that aim to eradicate all forms of oppression in the manner that seems to be called for here.  If so, what is their success level?  Is there a way to hybridize current methodologies for ending oppression in a way that would address all oppression successfully?  Is there work being done to achieve this goal?

Dr. David Widman

It was interesting to hear Dr. Widman's perspective on gender and how it is influenced by biology.  He seemed to make the claim that there is a major aspect of gender that is inherent in each individual and that individuals have a tendency towards being male of female that is then fostered by their environment.  While he seemed to think that biology played a huge role in shaping an individual's gender expression I think the role it plays is much smaller.  In listening to his discussion I realized that I believe the culture and socialization that an individual experiences better explains why an individual expresses gender in the way he/she does.  Dr. Widman presented some fascinating information and I wish we could have heard more because it challenged me to think more deeply about the ways in which biology and society affect gender expression.

Men as "Gendered Beings"

It was interesting to read Men as "Gendered Beings" by Kimmel and Messner because it provided a new way of thinking about gender's prominence in our society.  I hadn't before thought of all of the places in which gender has a significant role.  I certainly hadn't thought about it as a factor as crucial as race or ethnicity in determining the distribution of power and resources.  It plays a central role in determining how we live our lives and as a result needs to be taken more seriously by the general public who seem to just dismiss gender as "the way things are".  How frustrating! 

Valenti's Pop Culture Discussion

The focus of Valenti's article seemed to be on how society and our pop culture influence gender and the expectations we have for females.  Valenti makes the claim that mass media portray women as overly sexual, slutty, or as non-sexual beings.  She goes one step further to say that it is a lose-lose situation for women and that the only thing to do is to exist within this system in an educated manner.  In her discussion though she seems to nearly entirely leave out the role that mass media plays in defining the expectations our culture sets for males.  She mentions that women often act in ways with the sole purpose of pleasing men but otherwise the topic is left nearly untouched.  Is this because the media doesn't have any dictates in regards to men?  Or is it because Valenti doesn't find these dictates significant to our society's narratives about gender?