Hmmmmm. I would say slightly melodramatic and a little cheesy at points (come on, the ending?) but overall an interesting clip. I still have some issues even with this though, in terms of the way these men, in trying to "free" women from the box they've been put in, carefully and kindly stick them in another. Check out the points at which the men talked about women as being more in-tune with the earth; more compassionate and understanding rather than driven by logic; and capable of bringing peaceful insights into politics. Now, it's nice that these guys are glorifying those stereotypically feminine traits rather than considering them weak and useless, but my issue is still the assumptions made about women. If there is a woman who is devoted to logic and ready to fight for what she believes rather than try to peacefully negotiate, has she then failed as a woman? She's certainly not a man even if she thinks like one, so is she then considered an impostor? Now, I'm not refuting that a lot of what these men said about the majority of women is true. Women tend to be less inclined to fist fights over sensible conversation, and for the most part, they possess a large capacity for compassion and similar such qualities. But as I mentioned before, not all women are like this. So the stereotype, as lovingly presented as it is here, can still do some damage. Women are taught to think they have to be this way, whether or not it fits with her individual nature.
The other issue I have with this is that by default, it stereotypes men as well. Men are now violent and thoughtless and entirely product/success driven, and once again, this limits men to thinking one way or another. Men can be peaceful, compassionate, earth-loving and all those other "female' traits just as successfully as a woman. But the way we discuss men and women, and especially as we see in feminist criticism, men get lumped together just like women often do. All men become overpowering, or inconsiderate, and so forth and so on. In this piece, the men seem to be doing this to themselves. Now, just like with the woman's part, yes, it's true that there's been quite a handful of men who have subjugated women, and many have been violent, domineering, and have taken ownership over the woman and her body. I agree, this is not good. But not all men are like this, so attacking men in general creates a stereotype that attacks even the men who have treated women equally and with the ultimate respect.
I think I would have liked this piece better had it just been a straight-up apology, rather than an exaltation for the "good" things about women and a rundown on the "vices" of men. I don't know, I guess I just have a problem with all these stereotypes in general. And I'm sick of thinking in terms of gender. Yes, we are tied to our genders, yes, they make us different, but we are so constantly aware of them and trying to act "appropriately" with in them. When will we stop trying to impose stereotypes on ourselves and each other? They get boring real fast.
@Aubrey: "The other issue I have with this is that by default, it stereotypes men as well. Men are now violent and thoughtless and entirely product/success driven, and once again, this limits men to thinking one way or another."
At the same time, if the stereotype already exists, then commenting upon it isn't going to drive it deeper. And even if it did, you need to do at least some theorizing before you can enable action; otherwise you're just acting blindly. I think commentating upon a stereotype is actually a great way the get people thinking about whether or not it's actually justified.
"Men can be peaceful, compassionate, earth-loving and all those other "female' traits just as successfully as a woman."
I think that it's possible for a man to adopt feminine traits as successfully as a woman. At the same time, I also believe that men are biologically predisposed to be more aggressive and competitive. Some of the differences between men and women are cultural and some of them are not; I strongly disagree that a man could adopt feminine traits as successfully as a female of relatively equal circumstance and ability; to say that he (consistently) could is just to deny some of the basic differences between the sexes.
While commenting on a stereotype is a way of changing it, I don't feel like that's what's going on here. I feel like these men are more commenting within the stereotype. It's a basic "we love women for being that way, we're sorry we are this way" speech. The apology is all good and nice, but it all begins to feel very limiting. They appreciate women for being this, this, and that, and give a nice checklist of all the good female traits that I, as a woman, may or may not possess. Then in terms of men, they acknowledge all their failures (and yep, you suckers have screwed it up a time or two) but once again, the men who are even speaking themselves might not fit into what they are saying. You argue that men generally are aggressive and competitive. Seeing as you're a guy and I am not, I have to respect your thoughts on this. However, I still think women can be incredibly aggressive and competitive as well. I would concede, though, that it is expressed in different ways in men and women. Men are more physically expressive in these realms, just based on pure biology, but women can be very competitive and aggressive verbally, or though more subtle actions than brute physicality.
Now, on the subject of biological differences here, I would say that plays a part in the different non-physical traits seen in men and women. Because woman are physically weaker, yes, they tend to be more peaceful, compassionate, and so forth and so on simply because they know that is all physical reality, they can't go around picking fights. Men can physically withstand getting smacked around better than women, so tend to be more inclined to a little violence and the ambition that often gets associated with men can be considered to stem from the male perception that he has the physical power to do anything. But not all men and women think this way. Maybe the women who aren't so peaceful are stronger; maybe the less competitive men are weaker, that makes sense and still exists within the typical gender model in some ways. But I think that that's where the cultural powers come into play, convincing individuals that because MOST men are strong and aggressive and ambitious, ALL should be, and they should leave all the peace-keeping to those women over there. And women, even if they’re capable of taking out anyone who touches them, better just stay calm and cultivate flowers because that's what women are supposed to do and are loved for.
At some point, it would be nice if the female traits were just traits, with neither good nor bad attached to them. And it would be equally nice if the traits weren't so married to a particular gender. Yes, I will concede that for the majority, most stereotypically male traits align with men, and most stereotypically female traits align with women. I'm not refuting that. Stereotypes generally arise because of the traits of the majority. But still, I'm going to argue for the minority here and say that it would be nice for women to not feel like failures to not fit into a certain "trait ideal" outline and likewise for men. All in all, I'm just not a fan of the stereotype of women presented in this video. It almost felt like a reinvented "angel," but the angels were granted a little more strength and control. Still, I suppose in some ways, this goes back to de Pizan and her creating one stereotype to free women from a worse one. She argues that women are meek and temperate to deliver them from the notion that women are evil, and perhaps in some ways, that's what we're doing today. Trying to recover from the idea that women are the "lesser" or "weaker" sex, we talk about all the strengths and virtues of women. So perhaps I'll eventually get used to being told I'm charming for all my mother-nature in-tuneness and my peacefulness as a woman, and in the meantime, I'll continue unintentionally killing every plant I lay eyes on and picking fights with rubber bands (or on blogs).
Margan, Interesting, but I find it essentialistic. I'm not sure about the "unconscious masculine psyche" that causes wars and about the "intuitive sense and feeling" and "connection to the earth" that women have. The speakers fail to realize that women may that that "connection to the earth" simply because men have relegated them to that position of being "closer to the earth" or more agricultural or natural. On the whole, it's pretty weird and new agish. I don't disagree w/ what they "confess" to, but I don't think that they can apologize on my behalf, really.
@Aubrey: "But I think that that's where the cultural powers come into play, convincing individuals that because MOST men are strong and aggressive and ambitious, ALL should be, and they should leave all the peace-keeping to those women over there."
This is a good point. I do wish that we could culturally move past it, but I think that, from a pratical standpoint, it's basically impossible. When people see that most X exhibit Y characteristic, it becomes very difficult to convince them that those characteristics are not exhibited globally. And even if they overcome it, it's another battle entirely to try and stamp out those feelings on a more subconscious level. Which is unfortunate.
Hmmmmm. I would say slightly melodramatic and a little cheesy at points (come on, the ending?) but overall an interesting clip. I still have some issues even with this though, in terms of the way these men, in trying to "free" women from the box they've been put in, carefully and kindly stick them in another. Check out the points at which the men talked about women as being more in-tune with the earth; more compassionate and understanding rather than driven by logic; and capable of bringing peaceful insights into politics. Now, it's nice that these guys are glorifying those stereotypically feminine traits rather than considering them weak and useless, but my issue is still the assumptions made about women. If there is a woman who is devoted to logic and ready to fight for what she believes rather than try to peacefully negotiate, has she then failed as a woman? She's certainly not a man even if she thinks like one, so is she then considered an impostor? Now, I'm not refuting that a lot of what these men said about the majority of women is true. Women tend to be less inclined to fist fights over sensible conversation, and for the most part, they possess a large capacity for compassion and similar such qualities. But as I mentioned before, not all women are like this. So the stereotype, as lovingly presented as it is here, can still do some damage. Women are taught to think they have to be this way, whether or not it fits with her individual nature.
ReplyDeleteThe other issue I have with this is that by default, it stereotypes men as well. Men are now violent and thoughtless and entirely product/success driven, and once again, this limits men to thinking one way or another. Men can be peaceful, compassionate, earth-loving and all those other "female' traits just as successfully as a woman. But the way we discuss men and women, and especially as we see in feminist criticism, men get lumped together just like women often do. All men become overpowering, or inconsiderate, and so forth and so on. In this piece, the men seem to be doing this to themselves. Now, just like with the woman's part, yes, it's true that there's been quite a handful of men who have subjugated women, and many have been violent, domineering, and have taken ownership over the woman and her body. I agree, this is not good. But not all men are like this, so attacking men in general creates a stereotype that attacks even the men who have treated women equally and with the ultimate respect.
I think I would have liked this piece better had it just been a straight-up apology, rather than an exaltation for the "good" things about women and a rundown on the "vices" of men. I don't know, I guess I just have a problem with all these stereotypes in general. And I'm sick of thinking in terms of gender. Yes, we are tied to our genders, yes, they make us different, but we are so constantly aware of them and trying to act "appropriately" with in them. When will we stop trying to impose stereotypes on ourselves and each other? They get boring real fast.
@Aubrey: "The other issue I have with this is that by default, it stereotypes men as well. Men are now violent and thoughtless and entirely product/success driven, and once again, this limits men to thinking one way or another."
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, if the stereotype already exists, then commenting upon it isn't going to drive it deeper. And even if it did, you need to do at least some theorizing before you can enable action; otherwise you're just acting blindly. I think commentating upon a stereotype is actually a great way the get people thinking about whether or not it's actually justified.
"Men can be peaceful, compassionate, earth-loving and all those other "female' traits just as successfully as a woman."
I think that it's possible for a man to adopt feminine traits as successfully as a woman. At the same time, I also believe that men are biologically predisposed to be more aggressive and competitive. Some of the differences between men and women are cultural and some of them are not; I strongly disagree that a man could adopt feminine traits as successfully as a female of relatively equal circumstance and ability; to say that he (consistently) could is just to deny some of the basic differences between the sexes.
Bridger,
ReplyDeleteWhile commenting on a stereotype is a way of changing it, I don't feel like that's what's going on here. I feel like these men are more commenting within the stereotype. It's a basic "we love women for being that way, we're sorry we are this way" speech. The apology is all good and nice, but it all begins to feel very limiting. They appreciate women for being this, this, and that, and give a nice checklist of all the good female traits that I, as a woman, may or may not possess. Then in terms of men, they acknowledge all their failures (and yep, you suckers have screwed it up a time or two) but once again, the men who are even speaking themselves might not fit into what they are saying. You argue that men generally are aggressive and competitive. Seeing as you're a guy and I am not, I have to respect your thoughts on this. However, I still think women can be incredibly aggressive and competitive as well. I would concede, though, that it is expressed in different ways in men and women. Men are more physically expressive in these realms, just based on pure biology, but women can be very competitive and aggressive verbally, or though more subtle actions than brute physicality.
Now, on the subject of biological differences here, I would say that plays a part in the different non-physical traits seen in men and women. Because woman are physically weaker, yes, they tend to be more peaceful, compassionate, and so forth and so on simply because they know that is all physical reality, they can't go around picking fights. Men can physically withstand getting smacked around better than women, so tend to be more inclined to a little violence and the ambition that often gets associated with men can be considered to stem from the male perception that he has the physical power to do anything. But not all men and women think this way. Maybe the women who aren't so peaceful are stronger; maybe the less competitive men are weaker, that makes sense and still exists within the typical gender model in some ways. But I think that that's where the cultural powers come into play, convincing individuals that because MOST men are strong and aggressive and ambitious, ALL should be, and they should leave all the peace-keeping to those women over there. And women, even if they’re capable of taking out anyone who touches them, better just stay calm and cultivate flowers because that's what women are supposed to do and are loved for.
At some point, it would be nice if the female traits were just traits, with neither good nor bad attached to them. And it would be equally nice if the traits weren't so married to a particular gender. Yes, I will concede that for the majority, most stereotypically male traits align with men, and most stereotypically female traits align with women. I'm not refuting that. Stereotypes generally arise because of the traits of the majority. But still, I'm going to argue for the minority here and say that it would be nice for women to not feel like failures to not fit into a certain "trait ideal" outline and likewise for men. All in all, I'm just not a fan of the stereotype of women presented in this video. It almost felt like a reinvented "angel," but the angels were granted a little more strength and control. Still, I suppose in some ways, this goes back to de Pizan and her creating one stereotype to free women from a worse one. She argues that women are meek and temperate to deliver them from the notion that women are evil, and perhaps in some ways, that's what we're doing today. Trying to recover from the idea that women are the "lesser" or "weaker" sex, we talk about all the strengths and virtues of women. So perhaps I'll eventually get used to being told I'm charming for all my mother-nature in-tuneness and my peacefulness as a woman, and in the meantime, I'll continue unintentionally killing every plant I lay eyes on and picking fights with rubber bands (or on blogs).
Margan,
ReplyDeleteInteresting, but I find it essentialistic. I'm not sure about the "unconscious masculine psyche" that causes wars and about the "intuitive sense and feeling" and "connection to the earth" that women have. The speakers fail to realize that women may that that "connection to the earth" simply because men have relegated them to that position of being "closer to the earth" or more agricultural or natural. On the whole, it's pretty weird and new agish. I don't disagree w/ what they "confess" to, but I don't think that they can apologize on my behalf, really.
@Aubrey: "But I think that that's where the cultural powers come into play, convincing individuals that because MOST men are strong and aggressive and ambitious, ALL should be, and they should leave all the peace-keeping to those women over there."
ReplyDeleteThis is a good point. I do wish that we could culturally move past it, but I think that, from a pratical standpoint, it's basically impossible. When people see that most X exhibit Y characteristic, it becomes very difficult to convince them that those characteristics are not exhibited globally. And even if they overcome it, it's another battle entirely to try and stamp out those feelings on a more subconscious level. Which is unfortunate.