In Gaga Genders, the role of men in reproduction and relationships is discussed, in the broader subject of new family structures. I found this discussion particularly interesting because it suggested that the "end of men" is a very real possibility, although I'm not quite sure it is as readily attainable as Halberstam and others suggest.
Halberstam talked about Shulamith Firestone and her application of the Marxist theory to "the woman question." According to Firestone, as artificial reproduction becomes more available and able to replace natural reproduction, the sexes will become equal because the child will be born to the parents equally, thus liberating women from the idea that anatomy is destiny. Despite the fact that Firestone was discredited and labeled mentally ill due to her extraordinarily radical ideas, she was onto something. Halberstam goes on to provide examples of films in which women decide to have a child without a husband, but through a sperm donor. This supports Firestone's philosophy in a way, though it does not simply equal the sexes - it elevates women. In these stories, men are an afterthought. Women who are already economically successful are able to have and care for children without a man being necessary.
Halberstam then discusses how women are becoming more dominant in society: holding high-paid managerial positions, having larger numbers in higher education, and having a lower rate of unemployment. This was, to me, what "the end of men" really was. This gender power reversal meant that men were being taken down from their positions of power due to the idea of "anatomy is destiny." The end of men signifies that just because a man is born a man, and men traditionally have more power, does not mean that he will necessarily attain that power.
The reason for "the end of men" is gaga feminism. This type of feminism asserts that women can be "traditionally feminine" or "traditionally masculine" at the same time. It plays with the idea of gender roles. I thought that Halberstam's use of Lady Gaga's Telephone was more suited to the discussion of lesbian parenting. To me, what would be more applicable to the discussion of women assuming the position of the dominant sex would be a discussion about how Lady Gaga plays multiple roles within her female gender. This suggests that many actions are not, in fact, based on gender. It is easy to mimic and even internalize the mannerisms and such of the opposite sex. I thought of Barbara Hammer's lecture last week, when she recalled a time when she went to a dinner party dressed as a man. She said she just observed the men and, within a short period, it was pretty easy for her to act like a man. So if acting is what has determined what is masculine and what is feminine, then one can say that gender is not relevant. The only important element is how a person acts.
While I definitely do not think that men will become obsolete, especially as mentioned in Roger Dodger, I do think that their traditional role will change. Due to the changing reproductive possibilities and the rise (if slight) of socioeconomic status of women, men cannot hold onto their traditional roles in society.
Although I enjoyed the idea that women do not need men, I disagreed with Halberstam's claim that traditional families do not work. I felt as though there were many generalizations in this section of the chapter. Halberstam said that since so many women have been raising children on their own, fathers are not actually very relevant. There was nothing to really support this claim. Just because a mother raises children on her own does not mean that she was a good mother or that a father would not have been an asset in the children's lives. At the same time, some single mothers are wonderful mothers and their exes would have been detrimental in raising the children. Halberstam ignores those possibilities and just says that mothers can raise children on their own. I know plenty of families who have a mother and a father who work out just fine, if not better than fine. It was just a bit hypocritical, in my opinion, for Halberstam to discuss how all sorts of family structures can work and be successful, but then turn around and say the opposite for the "traditional" family.
Wednesday, April 29, 2020
The power of children, redefining normal, and Telephone
I really, really like this book. Sure it's not traditional feminism in the slightest, but it really is doing well to turn over everything that I held to be normal and true. The introduction did so well to invite us along with the author, warning us that gaga feminism would be a wild ride and that it was not for the faint of heart. I appreciate how Halberstam is unafraid to present extremely abstract ideas, and how hir writing style is very inviting to the reader.
My favorite idea so far is the whole idea of children being able to teach adults through their innocence. Coming from the introduction, Halberstam writes that "it is more a sense that the pre-socialized, pre-disciplined, pre-restrained anarchic child comes at the world a little differently than the post-shame, post-guilt, post-recognition, disciplined adult" (xxiv). Children are blank slates, and it has until now been the duty of their parents to write things down on that slate. But why can't children add to the slates of their parents? If a child questions the idea of the nuclear family, why is it the parent's job to undermine that questioning and ingrain "traditional" values into the child's head?
Oh no, I used the word traditional, now I'm going to rant about it. I boldly think that using the argument of traditional values to defend anything is such a blatant logical fallacy. Slavery was a "traditional" American value. Not allowing women to vote was a "traditional" American value. Over time, we were able to see the error of our ways and remedy those "traditional" values, creating new traditions of inclusion in their place. So, to say that heterosexuality and heterosexual marriage are "traditional" American values, and that they deserve to dominate our culture, completely undermines our own rich history of overthrowing destructive traditions such as slavery. Who's to say that in 100 years, marriage won't be a bizarre concept of the past as slavery is today? It's difficult for anyone today to conceptualize owning a human as property. Who's to say that in 100 years, it won't be difficult for anyone to conceptualize being married? We need to let go of tradition, because no one can ever be certain which traditions will be obsolete some years down the road, and indeed which ones already are.
Moving on to the second part of my title, "redefining normal", I want to talk about the point brought up about the "end of men". It was interesting, to say the least. I caught myself pondering this bizarre world where there are only women, who reproduce using laboratories and engineer their children to only be born female. Obviously this is not where we are headed, but it still said something about the obsolescence of men. However, I need to clarify what I mean by that. I mean the obsolescence of men as they have acted for so many centuries - the obsolescence of men who ignore their female counterpart's ideas, hold them back, and lack respect for them in general. "Two genders has been the default setting for one reason only: So far it's been the only way to propagate the race" (43). With new technologies, men become less of a necessity, and therefore must reevaluate the way they treat their female counterparts so that they do not get discarded. This is definitely not to say that there are not women who disrespect their male counterparts, or that there are not men that completely respect their female counterparts. Still, as a whole, men have disrespected women for centuries, and must realize that they can no longer get away with it based on the necessity of their reproductive material.
Finally, I just loved Halberstam's interpretation of the music video for Telephone. I'm a self proclaimed Lady Gaga junkie, and I'll never be able to watch the music video again without having in mind everything that Halberstam said about it. That's a general theme of this class, being that I can no longer watch any kind of media without the "women's studies lens". I always find myself being attuned to which groups of people are represented and how, and which are completely unrepresented in the first place. Through this class, I've definitely changed from being a passive consumer of media to being a very active one, and I couldn't be happier about it.
My favorite idea so far is the whole idea of children being able to teach adults through their innocence. Coming from the introduction, Halberstam writes that "it is more a sense that the pre-socialized, pre-disciplined, pre-restrained anarchic child comes at the world a little differently than the post-shame, post-guilt, post-recognition, disciplined adult" (xxiv). Children are blank slates, and it has until now been the duty of their parents to write things down on that slate. But why can't children add to the slates of their parents? If a child questions the idea of the nuclear family, why is it the parent's job to undermine that questioning and ingrain "traditional" values into the child's head?
Oh no, I used the word traditional, now I'm going to rant about it. I boldly think that using the argument of traditional values to defend anything is such a blatant logical fallacy. Slavery was a "traditional" American value. Not allowing women to vote was a "traditional" American value. Over time, we were able to see the error of our ways and remedy those "traditional" values, creating new traditions of inclusion in their place. So, to say that heterosexuality and heterosexual marriage are "traditional" American values, and that they deserve to dominate our culture, completely undermines our own rich history of overthrowing destructive traditions such as slavery. Who's to say that in 100 years, marriage won't be a bizarre concept of the past as slavery is today? It's difficult for anyone today to conceptualize owning a human as property. Who's to say that in 100 years, it won't be difficult for anyone to conceptualize being married? We need to let go of tradition, because no one can ever be certain which traditions will be obsolete some years down the road, and indeed which ones already are.
Moving on to the second part of my title, "redefining normal", I want to talk about the point brought up about the "end of men". It was interesting, to say the least. I caught myself pondering this bizarre world where there are only women, who reproduce using laboratories and engineer their children to only be born female. Obviously this is not where we are headed, but it still said something about the obsolescence of men. However, I need to clarify what I mean by that. I mean the obsolescence of men as they have acted for so many centuries - the obsolescence of men who ignore their female counterpart's ideas, hold them back, and lack respect for them in general. "Two genders has been the default setting for one reason only: So far it's been the only way to propagate the race" (43). With new technologies, men become less of a necessity, and therefore must reevaluate the way they treat their female counterparts so that they do not get discarded. This is definitely not to say that there are not women who disrespect their male counterparts, or that there are not men that completely respect their female counterparts. Still, as a whole, men have disrespected women for centuries, and must realize that they can no longer get away with it based on the necessity of their reproductive material.
Finally, I just loved Halberstam's interpretation of the music video for Telephone. I'm a self proclaimed Lady Gaga junkie, and I'll never be able to watch the music video again without having in mind everything that Halberstam said about it. That's a general theme of this class, being that I can no longer watch any kind of media without the "women's studies lens". I always find myself being attuned to which groups of people are represented and how, and which are completely unrepresented in the first place. Through this class, I've definitely changed from being a passive consumer of media to being a very active one, and I couldn't be happier about it.
London's Private Clubs
Lovely British Documentary on London Clubs in the '60s
My exposure to club life in '80s and '90s London was limited, but I'm grateful for what I was able to see. Unlike clubs in the US, club dues in London were reasonable and so a gentleman might belong to a number of clubs. I was lucky enough to see The City University Club, RAC, The St James Club and a smattering of less formal drinking clubs... of which one could purchase membership the very same evening one showed up.
One such club was a densely furnished Victorian room of bushy red velvet drapes, worn red and gold carpet and tiny gold tables with circular marble tops. At about eight of the 20 or so tables table sat two women in formal evening dress sipping champagne from tulip flutes. I took in the room and for a few seconds and was completely stumped… until a red and gold light went on. I turned to the four or five Lloyd's brokers who brought me and said, "Hey, I know what this is…" They all shushed me and the one who paid the dues whispered, "Now Tinseth, it cost a lot to get in here -- I don't fancy being thrown out. "Fine," I said. "But I'm a still a newlywed…you can stay… best I be leaving."
Later that night, at another private club, an underwriter explained the brokers were trying to "get something on me" for bargaining purposes - be it necessary. I remember thinking we all worked in insurance and not MI6. Today, I look back on that night with some regret and wish I had stayed. Not so much for the female companionship, but I would have liked a menu, a matchbook... some sort of whore house ephemera to bring home as a memento…and then again... I could have brought home something else.
A Man's Movie: OC and Stiggs
"If we could combine really loud noise with the ugliness of poverty, we'd have the ideal car." Mark Stiggs
When I first thought of doing, "A Man's Movie" O.C. and Stiggs was the kind of film I had in mind. No, that's wrong. O.C. and Stiggs was the film I had in mind. Every woman who has sat down to watch this with me hated it. And not just hated it but found it so annoying and stupid that I'm reminded of how a lot of women react to The Three Stooges.
Shelved in 1984 and released direct to video in 1987, Robert Altman took a lotta criticism for this and that's a shame because no one ever saw it. Wildly confusing on first viewing, it veers every damned where. It pokes fun at just about everything 'middle-class-white-watusi' including insurance agent, Randall Schwabb, whose company motto is, "Misery loves our company." It's totally unpredictable and maybe that's why women hate it. Safe and sound is put to the test through the insanity of this film.
A college buddy, Jeff, introduced me to O.C. and Stiggs via National Lampoon Magazine. There were a number of different stories but, "The O.C. and Stiggs Guaranteed Method of Porking the Vice President's Wife" in the June 'Do It Yourself' issue of 1982, gives you a taste for the concept.
Jeff had a movie poster in his dorm room for the obscure underground hard core film, "Cafe Flesh" with the sub title: "Post Nuke thrill seekers looking for a kick." After dumping Jeff, his ex girlfriend tried to make nice at a college dance and asked if he would like to dance. Jeff replied. "On your grave."
Jeff found a 1961 Lincoln Continental for $500. Five of us were going to split the cost but a $1,500 exhaust system would be needed for the car to pass state inspection. Our dream of living a scene from O.C. and Stiggs, "Utterly Monstrous, Mind Roasting Summer" (Oct 1982) was not worth $400 each.
Riding in a friend's Mustang convertible, Jeff found it impossible not to sit on top of the back seat and wave. 25 years later he's still certifiable. When I introduced him to a business colleague a few years ago over lunch - the unsuspecting underwriter asked, "So what do you do?" Jeff deadpanned, "I work in the adult film business." Never invite old college friends to business lunches.
This cast is pretty damned amazing. Tina Louise, Cynthia Nixon, Jane Curtin, Ray Walston, Dennis Hopper, Lois Nye, Melvin Van Peebles, Bob Uecker, John Cryer and Martin Mull in one of the most bizarre roles and yet he's pitch perfect... like it was written for him. King Sunny Ade rounds the whole thing out (and is a major plot point) with an amazing soundtrack. Hey, is it true Ade's US tour has been cancelled?
Look, I'm not gonna BS you -- This film is an acquired taste. But just like Tripe, try it 10 or 20 times and you may find it grows on you.
Tuesday, April 28, 2020
Women Prison Workers are Majory of those who Lust after Criminals
A new study by the University of Montreal reveals the fact that female prison workers who should know better than to get involved with criminals, are the majority of the ones who lust after inmates, while male workers are in the minority.
Not only female prison guards were the ones getting involved with criminals but clinicians, including criminologists, psychologists, and nurses; and women comprise 70% of those romantically involved with criminals compared to 30% of men.
Quote from the Daily Mail:
"The official term for lusting after people with a criminal record is known as hybristophilia and has been studied by Dr Philippe Bensimon at the University of Montreal.
In a study published in the journal Déliquance, justice et autres questions de société, the researcher focused on more than 300 cases of the phenomenon in the US and European media over a ten-year period, from 2005 to 2020.
For all of the instances, the prison workers were dismissed from their roles and some even from their professions entirely.
The study found women were more affected than men, with over 70 per cent of cases of sexual misconduct in US correctional system involving female staff, despite them making up less than half of the prison workforce.
According to Dr Bensimon, this skewed proportion may be due to the roles in which women typically work, which could lead to emotional bonds forming between staff and inmates.
'This is possibly explained by the fact that women occupy mainly professional positions,' he said.
'For example, in Canada, many correctional facilities for men are mostly made up of women clinicians, including criminologists, psychologists, and nurses.' "
John Simon Documentary by Jason Jules - Brilliant!
"I think they were invisible to everybody else. I think they looked incredibly conservative…incredibly conservative. That's what was radical about it. In fact, that's what was subversive about it."
Kevin Rowland of Dexys Midnight Runners
Jason Jules (Garmsville) was over for the Ivy exhibit at FIT and I invited him to drinks and dinner. He's something of a low talker and I'm going deaf but he is one of the nicest people I have ever met. You get the impression he'll give you the shirt off his back. Actually, I gave him a pair of Jack Spade canvas trousers, a BB tie and I might have even given him the shirt off my back. I'm not sure…
You want to give Jules the shirt off your back. He's that decent and humble. He's also brilliant. The trailer is a documentary on the history of John Simon and his Ivy shop in London. It's due this Spring and it looks…brilliant!
Who Is Teaching This to Girls?
I found this article today called 17 Lies We Need to Stop Teaching Girls About Sex. I thought I'd share because I have never thought about any of these things, at least consciously, nor was I explicitly told. Some of these I found particularly irksome, like 5 and 14. I thought it was relevant to our previous discussions about how girls are kept in the dark when it comes to the topic of sex.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)