http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/intimatepartnerviolence/index.html
Frankly, I'm down right intrigued by the fact that the center for disease control talks about violence at all let alone has it's own separate section for intimate partner violence. However, I think their defining intimate partner violence as disease is a step in the right direction to understanding it. During our class discussion it seemed that we kept getting hung up on the fact that people stay in relationships after an incident of intimate partner violence. To me, the problem is that we we're not viewing the situation from the right angle. If people in abusive relationships could help themselves, they would. I like viewing intimate partner violence as a disease because it redefines it as something that both contagious and that is not a choice. Several people during the discussion mentioned how they themselves had been a victim of intimate partner violence and the reason they could not get away from the relationship is that they were addicted to it. To me, this reinforces the idea that being in an abusive relationship runs much deeper than we typically assume. I also like the idea of intimate partner violence as something contagious. Often times we talk about being a bystander to injustice or oppression as opposed to openly disagreeing with the Discourse and how this reinforces the discourse. By being a passive bystander to IPV you're allowing it to spread among our collective ideas as a culture. People aren't going to change overnight and they certainly will not change on their own because they're pretty happy with how they act. However, if we person by person can start re-framing the discourse on IPV we can spread this new positive idea throughout our cultural conscious. While the spread of the idea does not mean people will adhere to it, it does mean that we tried. The world change often seems impossible to change, and frankly at times is. However, if we don't attempt to overcome the discourse it will never change on it's own.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Agency or lack there of
The above pictures, to me at least, illustrate the two biggest problems facing women today. The first picture is perhaps the most disturbing rhetorical device of our generation: female submission achieved under the guise of female empowerment. The first picture is taken from Dove's Dove girl ad campaign. The campaign is centered around the idea of showing women that do not like supermodels and showing how truly "sexy" they are. The ad propagates the idea that these "real" women every bit as attractive as supermodels. However, this ad still focuses on the wrong thing, the women's physical beauty. If we are truly trying to combat the idea of women as nothing more than objects that gain worth through a man's desire (empowerment), then why does this ad say that these women are every bit as desirable as supermodels? All this ad does is say "Oh big girls... don't worry they're just as desirable as skinny girls. Because that's how we define a woman, by how many guys want to have sex with her... because really that's all a woman needs in a life, a man's acceptance." Nothing about his picture is empowering. Rather than focusing on what makes these women productive members of society it turns them into sex objects. The second ad showcases what I think is the 2nd biggest problem women face: they can never be a truly untied front. The second ad implies that even as a man is beating the shit out of you, it's still important to look pretty and have nice hair. While the image and message are disturbing enough, the most troubling fact is that a woman willingly posed for this picture. No matter how hard certain members of the women's movement try to redefine what a woman's place in modern society is, there will always be someone who's willing to pose with a black eye and sadly that black eye reaches a much wider audience than any feminist manifesto does. Because women cannot form a unified consensus, they are doomed to be undermined from within to the point that the movement will never truly gain large scale traction.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Why women can't be men.
http://www.lemondrop.com/2010/10/07/karen-owen-duke-sex-list-powerpoint/
During the reading this week we discussed the story of Rebecca. Rebecca was the female basketball player who had adopted a masculine persona and was by all accounts perceived as a masculine figure throughout the school. this makes me wonder, what does it take for a women to be perceived as masculine. There's a recent trend of women attempting to "own" their sexuality in an attempt to redefine what it means for a woman to be sexually active. However, I feel this very short sighted and ultimately wrong. The above link shares the story of Karen Owens. Karen made a powerpoint detailing all of the sexual exploits she had with athletes while she was a student at Duke university. Karen intended for the power point to be distributed to 3 very close friends. However, one of her friends shared the power point and shortly there after the powerpoint went viral thrusting Karen into the spotlight. In the ensuing media firestorm Karen disappeared from public life and deleted all of her social media accounts. Pro-feminist came to Karen's defense saying that there's nothing wrong with a female being sexually active and that Karen was simply doing boys had been doing for years. This in turn they argued was empowering. 1) If Karen was empowered she would not have disappeared off the face of the Earth. 2) If you read Karen's powerpoint you come to realize that several of the Men in the powerpoint outright used her for sex and she rationalized it by saying that's what she wanted. 3) Regardless of your intention, being used by others because they only value you for your body is never something to be proud of, not saying your a slut, just saying your priorities are immature. Karen's problem and resulting shame is that doing "masculine" things does not making you masculine. As a society we cannot accept the idea of a feminine body doing masculine things. I mean body in the most literal sense, what separates Rebecca and Karen is that Rebecca masculinized her body. In the book Pascoe mentions how by referring to herself as a pimp talked about playing girls, Rebecca had mascunlinized her body. I think it's very important that she said body instead of words, view, or actions. To me, this means masculinity has look, and you know it when you see it. When those students looked at Rebecca they saw a masculine persona, and we as a society look at Karen we see a feminine persona. To be masculine is to be masculine. By that I mean, acting masculine doesn't make you masculine, and nothing really can. When you're masculine, you simply are it will shine through. Whether you're a man or a woman it will shine through. I consider he case of our guest speaker AJ. It took some time but AJ's masculinity eventually came out. Even now, AJ is a very small man with a vagina who used to be a woman. But AJ had a presence, something you couldn't define as masculine but you knew that it was.
During the reading this week we discussed the story of Rebecca. Rebecca was the female basketball player who had adopted a masculine persona and was by all accounts perceived as a masculine figure throughout the school. this makes me wonder, what does it take for a women to be perceived as masculine. There's a recent trend of women attempting to "own" their sexuality in an attempt to redefine what it means for a woman to be sexually active. However, I feel this very short sighted and ultimately wrong. The above link shares the story of Karen Owens. Karen made a powerpoint detailing all of the sexual exploits she had with athletes while she was a student at Duke university. Karen intended for the power point to be distributed to 3 very close friends. However, one of her friends shared the power point and shortly there after the powerpoint went viral thrusting Karen into the spotlight. In the ensuing media firestorm Karen disappeared from public life and deleted all of her social media accounts. Pro-feminist came to Karen's defense saying that there's nothing wrong with a female being sexually active and that Karen was simply doing boys had been doing for years. This in turn they argued was empowering. 1) If Karen was empowered she would not have disappeared off the face of the Earth. 2) If you read Karen's powerpoint you come to realize that several of the Men in the powerpoint outright used her for sex and she rationalized it by saying that's what she wanted. 3) Regardless of your intention, being used by others because they only value you for your body is never something to be proud of, not saying your a slut, just saying your priorities are immature. Karen's problem and resulting shame is that doing "masculine" things does not making you masculine. As a society we cannot accept the idea of a feminine body doing masculine things. I mean body in the most literal sense, what separates Rebecca and Karen is that Rebecca masculinized her body. In the book Pascoe mentions how by referring to herself as a pimp talked about playing girls, Rebecca had mascunlinized her body. I think it's very important that she said body instead of words, view, or actions. To me, this means masculinity has look, and you know it when you see it. When those students looked at Rebecca they saw a masculine persona, and we as a society look at Karen we see a feminine persona. To be masculine is to be masculine. By that I mean, acting masculine doesn't make you masculine, and nothing really can. When you're masculine, you simply are it will shine through. Whether you're a man or a woman it will shine through. I consider he case of our guest speaker AJ. It took some time but AJ's masculinity eventually came out. Even now, AJ is a very small man with a vagina who used to be a woman. But AJ had a presence, something you couldn't define as masculine but you knew that it was.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
ADHD? Well duh, I am a boy after all
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/data.html
The above link redirects to the CDC's (center for disease control) webpage with statistics on ADHD. The two statistics that jump out most to me are that "Boys (13.2%) were more likely than girls (5.6%) to have ever been diagnosed with ADHD" and " boys are 2.8 times more likely to take medication than girls". These statistics are scary because an alarmingly high number of boys are being diagnosed with this disease and most of them are being put on medication. While ADHD medication helps people focus, like most medicines designed to improve a persons cognitive abilities there are reports of patients feeling less than normal while on the drug. While ADHD medication is truly helpful to most, there is a segment of the ADHD population that have decided that the negative effects of the drug outweighed the positive and have chosen not to use it. So given the seriousness of the drug, shouldn't we examine why so many boys are prescribed it? For me I believe this is a case of traditional gender roles creating a problem that is then exacerbated in our school system.
We typically treat boys with a sense of caution. That is, we as a society don't trust men and whats a boy but a little man. Male children are not coddled so much as they are watched over. Due to the boys will be boys mentality we generally assume that boys spend most of their day trying to get into mischief. As a result parents take a much more controlling and discipline approach with male children than they do female children. Also, boys are taught very early on the importance of strength and defiance while female children are taught the importance of submission and consensus. Also I am of the opinion that due to their biological make up (boys have testosterone) boys are at the very least more likely to be naturally aggressive than females. So you have an individual who is more likely to be aggressive, brought up with strict discipline, and taught that to achieve importance he must be strong and defiant. We then send this individual off to school. However, suddenly the individual is no longer in a disciplined environment, and they are no longer being watched over constantly, they are just another face in the crowd. For many boys the school classroom is their first real taste of freedom. However, unlike girls who we train to be part of a collective whole and mind their place, a boys upbringing classes with this much freedom. Boys are not taught to behave in this much space. Once you factor in that new age teaching methods typically focus on nurturing the child, and that boys now have an audience of other boys who they must now show dominance over it is easy to see why so many boys are labeled as having behavioral problems and put on ADHD medications. For some they simply cannot deal with the lack of complete and total attention they are used to receiving. For others, their disobedience is seen as an exercise of their masculine identity. However, simply because you are acting out does not mean that your are medically unable to pay attention.
Let be clear in saying that I believe ADHD is real. I believe that for many who suffer from it medication is perfectly acceptable and truly a blessing. However, I also find it troubling that so many boys are diagnosed and put on medication. For me, this is a result of how we raise boys and the inability of that raising to fit within the structure and order of school. Just because your hyper doesn't mean you can't pay attention.
The above link redirects to the CDC's (center for disease control) webpage with statistics on ADHD. The two statistics that jump out most to me are that "Boys (13.2%) were more likely than girls (5.6%) to have ever been diagnosed with ADHD" and " boys are 2.8 times more likely to take medication than girls". These statistics are scary because an alarmingly high number of boys are being diagnosed with this disease and most of them are being put on medication. While ADHD medication helps people focus, like most medicines designed to improve a persons cognitive abilities there are reports of patients feeling less than normal while on the drug. While ADHD medication is truly helpful to most, there is a segment of the ADHD population that have decided that the negative effects of the drug outweighed the positive and have chosen not to use it. So given the seriousness of the drug, shouldn't we examine why so many boys are prescribed it? For me I believe this is a case of traditional gender roles creating a problem that is then exacerbated in our school system.
We typically treat boys with a sense of caution. That is, we as a society don't trust men and whats a boy but a little man. Male children are not coddled so much as they are watched over. Due to the boys will be boys mentality we generally assume that boys spend most of their day trying to get into mischief. As a result parents take a much more controlling and discipline approach with male children than they do female children. Also, boys are taught very early on the importance of strength and defiance while female children are taught the importance of submission and consensus. Also I am of the opinion that due to their biological make up (boys have testosterone) boys are at the very least more likely to be naturally aggressive than females. So you have an individual who is more likely to be aggressive, brought up with strict discipline, and taught that to achieve importance he must be strong and defiant. We then send this individual off to school. However, suddenly the individual is no longer in a disciplined environment, and they are no longer being watched over constantly, they are just another face in the crowd. For many boys the school classroom is their first real taste of freedom. However, unlike girls who we train to be part of a collective whole and mind their place, a boys upbringing classes with this much freedom. Boys are not taught to behave in this much space. Once you factor in that new age teaching methods typically focus on nurturing the child, and that boys now have an audience of other boys who they must now show dominance over it is easy to see why so many boys are labeled as having behavioral problems and put on ADHD medications. For some they simply cannot deal with the lack of complete and total attention they are used to receiving. For others, their disobedience is seen as an exercise of their masculine identity. However, simply because you are acting out does not mean that your are medically unable to pay attention.
Let be clear in saying that I believe ADHD is real. I believe that for many who suffer from it medication is perfectly acceptable and truly a blessing. However, I also find it troubling that so many boys are diagnosed and put on medication. For me, this is a result of how we raise boys and the inability of that raising to fit within the structure and order of school. Just because your hyper doesn't mean you can't pay attention.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Touch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LboRuO3UMSI
The above video shows a clip from the popular 90's tv show Saved by the Bell the New Class. In the video you see a classic example of sexual harassment. While the situation in the video is quite obvious, it makes me wonder, how did we get here?That is, why does sexual harassment exist? I feel that as a people we do a really poor job of teaching people what exactly is acceptable touch. However, we make it very clear what bad touch is. To me it seems that people are always on the lookout for negative touch, we as a people have become overly touch sensitive. We instill in people that they should be wary of the opposite sex. Women are taught to fear men, because frankly they tend to rape. Men are taught to fear women because they're really after your money anyway. The animosity that we create between the sexes leads to this. Humans are the only animals on the planet that create social context, but what does social context really provide for us? Humans aren't allowed to decide for themselves anymore. From the day you're born you are bombarded with a set of unwritten rules that you're expected to follow. We punish those that challenge norms and social change often takes so long that the people who begin the fight are rarely around to finish it. Social construct works because it punishes critical thought. However, despite this I'm still encouraged. I'm encouraged mostly because I'm seeing change. Whenever our reading material describes atypical male or female behavior I love seeing how many people openly reject these ideas. Touch is not something that we can instill, it must be negotiated. The problems with the social norms of the past is that they're too rigid, there's no gray area. This lack of gray is what leads us to the sexes not knowing how to interact with each other. We must remove the pressure to follow our roles and allow for people to establish for themselves what positive touch is.
The above video shows a clip from the popular 90's tv show Saved by the Bell the New Class. In the video you see a classic example of sexual harassment. While the situation in the video is quite obvious, it makes me wonder, how did we get here?That is, why does sexual harassment exist? I feel that as a people we do a really poor job of teaching people what exactly is acceptable touch. However, we make it very clear what bad touch is. To me it seems that people are always on the lookout for negative touch, we as a people have become overly touch sensitive. We instill in people that they should be wary of the opposite sex. Women are taught to fear men, because frankly they tend to rape. Men are taught to fear women because they're really after your money anyway. The animosity that we create between the sexes leads to this. Humans are the only animals on the planet that create social context, but what does social context really provide for us? Humans aren't allowed to decide for themselves anymore. From the day you're born you are bombarded with a set of unwritten rules that you're expected to follow. We punish those that challenge norms and social change often takes so long that the people who begin the fight are rarely around to finish it. Social construct works because it punishes critical thought. However, despite this I'm still encouraged. I'm encouraged mostly because I'm seeing change. Whenever our reading material describes atypical male or female behavior I love seeing how many people openly reject these ideas. Touch is not something that we can instill, it must be negotiated. The problems with the social norms of the past is that they're too rigid, there's no gray area. This lack of gray is what leads us to the sexes not knowing how to interact with each other. We must remove the pressure to follow our roles and allow for people to establish for themselves what positive touch is.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Why I plan on not letting my son cry
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TeiGZVWnuJA#!
The above video is produced by Fathers 4 Justice. Fathers 4 Justice is a non profit organization from England who seeks to help end male oppression, and help fathers fight for their rights. In the video, you'll notice the man who dresses up like Superman and hangs a banner on his ex-wifes house that reads "Fatherhood is for life not just conception". Two things really bother me about this video. 1) This man had to go to such great lengths to have his voice heard, 2) most people who watch this video will not take it seriously. Over the course of class this week I noticed how few people took the issue of men's rights seriously. Even our guest speaker scoffed at the notion that a man could ever be oppressed(Side bar: His analogy about the football team being up by 100 points was shitty). So I ask myself why are people so uncomfortable with the idea of a man being oppressed? People have been taught for so long that a man is not a symbol of power, being a man is power. Apparently due to what's between my legs I'm some master of destiny who decides what happens in my life and I don't suffer hardship. For many people, a man has become a convenient whipping boy:oh if I only I were a man this would be better, oh if it weren't for men this would be different, well I lost out on that because of sexism etc. However, as the dominant social species in America (Educated white male), let me be the first to tell you that view from the top ain't all it's cracked up to be. And that, is what I feel makes so many people uncomfortable. Men have been built up to be these larger than life figures, and if they're suffering what hope do I have to ever be happy? The biggest oppression that men face today is that no one wants to hear to their voice. If they did, that man would have never been on that roof. In today's political climate if you scoff at feminism you're an asshole, and if you believe that men are facing oppression you are considered an even bigger asshole. This is why I refuse to let my son cry. I plan on raising the toughest, saltiest, he-man that ever walked God's green Earth. I don't want my son to cry because when his wife gets an abortion without his consent (legal in hte US btw) no one's gonna cry for him. I won't let my son cry because one day when he works a 40 + hour a week job to send half his paycheck to his ex-wife and her new husband to support his children he's not allowed to see no one's gonna cry for him. I won't let my son cry because when he's drafted and forced to fight in a war he doesn't believe in no one's gonna cry for him. I wont let my son cry because one day when his rights are being violated I don't want him to cry about it, I want him to stand on a roof and force people to listen.
The above video is produced by Fathers 4 Justice. Fathers 4 Justice is a non profit organization from England who seeks to help end male oppression, and help fathers fight for their rights. In the video, you'll notice the man who dresses up like Superman and hangs a banner on his ex-wifes house that reads "Fatherhood is for life not just conception". Two things really bother me about this video. 1) This man had to go to such great lengths to have his voice heard, 2) most people who watch this video will not take it seriously. Over the course of class this week I noticed how few people took the issue of men's rights seriously. Even our guest speaker scoffed at the notion that a man could ever be oppressed(Side bar: His analogy about the football team being up by 100 points was shitty). So I ask myself why are people so uncomfortable with the idea of a man being oppressed? People have been taught for so long that a man is not a symbol of power, being a man is power. Apparently due to what's between my legs I'm some master of destiny who decides what happens in my life and I don't suffer hardship. For many people, a man has become a convenient whipping boy:oh if I only I were a man this would be better, oh if it weren't for men this would be different, well I lost out on that because of sexism etc. However, as the dominant social species in America (Educated white male), let me be the first to tell you that view from the top ain't all it's cracked up to be. And that, is what I feel makes so many people uncomfortable. Men have been built up to be these larger than life figures, and if they're suffering what hope do I have to ever be happy? The biggest oppression that men face today is that no one wants to hear to their voice. If they did, that man would have never been on that roof. In today's political climate if you scoff at feminism you're an asshole, and if you believe that men are facing oppression you are considered an even bigger asshole. This is why I refuse to let my son cry. I plan on raising the toughest, saltiest, he-man that ever walked God's green Earth. I don't want my son to cry because when his wife gets an abortion without his consent (legal in hte US btw) no one's gonna cry for him. I won't let my son cry because one day when he works a 40 + hour a week job to send half his paycheck to his ex-wife and her new husband to support his children he's not allowed to see no one's gonna cry for him. I won't let my son cry because when he's drafted and forced to fight in a war he doesn't believe in no one's gonna cry for him. I wont let my son cry because one day when his rights are being violated I don't want him to cry about it, I want him to stand on a roof and force people to listen.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Why I'm not a feminist
After our class discussion with Shark-fu I realized that I am not now nor will I ever be a feminist. While I wholeheartedly support the idea of female equality I can never be feminist. During class, Cason mentioned to Shark-fu how he felt left out or attacked during her piece “ The Battle Hymn of an Dangerous Black Woman”. She responded by saying “This wasn't meant for you”. To me, this is why I cannot be a feminist, because it's not meant for me. Feminism is the idea that everyone is equal, however we do not currently live in an equal society. Therefore, it is my responsibility as the oppressed to fight for my rights and the rights of similar individuals. There's the rub, I'm not oppressed. My reality is that I'm an upper middle class heterosexual white male who believes in God and lives in Georgia. I'm about as far from oppressed as one person can be. Feminist are drawn to the cause because it gives the fight they've always been fighting a name. I however, have never had this fight, and I don't want to start it. I realize however this puts me in a moral gray area. Some would argue that I have the responsibility to actively fight injustice wherever it strikes because on some level I'm too connected to society to avoid it. However, I feel that this view is asking too much of the average person. Because once again, it isn't meant for me. There is nothing in feminism for me to identify with or hold on to. Sure I believe in the equal treatment of all people, but as someone who's standpoint is so far removed from the central themes I experience no sense of passion or attachment to the movement. I cannot be a feminist because I know nothing about it. Don't get me wrong, I support the movement. I certainly think it works towards a positive goal. However my support has a limit, and the front lines of battle are outside of that limit. For me, Feminism just another ism. I respect it, I admire it, but like many other isms I don't identify with it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)