Friday, 4 September 2009
I will admit that until a few days ago I was unaware of the Mary Jo Kopechne scandal. BB, who's knowledgeable about politics and whatnot, filled me in on the details whilst complaining about the coverage Ted Kennedy's death was getting. As I know very little about politics, especially of the American variety, I was interested to hear about this.
Here are a few details from Wikipedia - "On July 18, 1969, Kopechne attended a party on Chappaquiddick Island.
"Kopechne reportedly left the party at 11:15 p.m. with... Ted Kennedy, after he — according to his own account — offered to drive her to catch the last ferry back to Edgartown, where she was staying. She did not tell her close friends at the party that she was leaving and she left her purse and keys behind.
"Kennedy drove the 1967 Oldsmobile Delmont 88 off a narrow, unlit bridge without guardrails that was not on the route to Edgartown. It landed in Poucha Pond and overturned in the water. Kennedy extricated himself from the vehicle and survived, but Kopechne remained in the vehicle and was found dead.
"Kennedy failed to report the incident to the authorities until the car and Kopechne's body were discovered the next morning."
What this fails to mention is that there was an airpocket in the car and Kopechne was still alive when Kennedy got out. Kopenchne did not die from the crash, she died from suffocation because the air ran out whilst Kennedy was refraining from calling the police. When he finally pleaded guilty he got a two month suspended sentence - doesn't seem much of a punishment considering he was directly responsible for her death. The article on Wikipedia goes on to recount how the scandal adversely effected Kennedy's political career, even though the title of the piece is 'Mary Jo Kopechne'. Anyone would think her death was only important in the context of how it affected Kennedy's life.
This is by no means the first willful forgetting of history when someone dies though. There have been two other recent examples of this. Michael Jackson, for instance, although that's the obvious one. Does nobody remember the child abuse allegations. Yes, yes, I know he was found 'not guilty', but does anyone remember them? Let's not forget that the animals at his 'Neverland Ranch' (I never thought I'd type those two words together) were left to die when he ran out of money - no-one much cares about that though. His album sales are up, on the news fans were saying ridiculous things like "today's the day that music died", and now there's the big who-hah on who provided the sperm for his children. This is all tantamount to saying "Yeah, he was a bit weird, but we can't speak ill of the dead".
The other case which really annoyed me, but seemingly no-one else, was the coverage of the death of Jade Goody. I agree very much with Michael Parkinson's views on the matter. She was "barely educated, ignorant and puerile", and she was exploited by the media. Her death was treated as if she was a person whom we should all mourn for, a great loss for the world at large. It's odd how at this time the whole racism thing was ignored. The very thing she was vilified for was nicely glossed over because she was dying. No longer was she 'racist Jade'. She was, and for all eternity now shall be, 'tragic Jade'. For goodness sake, she made no intellectual or positive contribution to the world, she was racist, and yet there are about a hundred groups on Facebook named things like 'We will miss you Jade' and 'RIP Jade', many groups of which have been joined by people I know! She symbolises everything in this country which celebrates mediocrity over greatness. She makes the weak feel good about their lives because she was "puerile" and 'loved' at the same time.
Saturday, 7 February 2009
Patriarchy socialises women that the only way to keep a man they particularly like within a relationship is to submit to sex with them. Don't get me wrong, much of the time women would like to have sex with their partner - however, it is considered such an integral part of relationships that women often feel they have to have penetrative sex at least on a regular basis to keep their man interested.
I wouldn't write that without some kind of evidence. Take a look at this and the 'treatments' offered.
"Peter T. Pacik MD FACS cures vaginismus with Botox injected directly into the old vadge. The Botox prevents the pelvic muscles from contracting, and voilà! The natural order of the conjugal universe is restored! Best of all, the treatment is on sale! Through May 31, your Nigel can get back in the saddle without you puking for as little as $2400! That’s a $500 savings! No word on whether your pelvic muscles’ newfound inability to contract will have a negative impact on your gratification."
There are women who suffer pain when anything penetrates them. And instead of considering whether they think any kind of treatment (not the botox one, for Christ's sake) could benefit them as people, they feel guilty. Guilty! They feel they are not made correctly. That they are not functioning correctly. I would have to agree with the blogger's sentiments and say that if penetrative sex hurts, don't do it. But I also understand that within the current structure of society, which the media perpetuates, women are considered prudes if they do not submit to their boyfriend's advances (remember though that women should not submit to too many men's sexual advances because that would make them sluts). So now I come to the notion that perhaps the word 'sex' should be expanded to include non-penetrative activities. Both men and women can orgasm through means other than penetration. So why is penetration so important? I'll tell you why - because men are made to feel guilty for not doing it. So women are made to feel guilty for not wanting penetrative sex and men are made to feel guilty for not penetrating them.
Women are supposed to be on the receiving end of actions rather than doing the actions themselves. They are supposed to be child-bearers and the primary care-givers to those children; they are supposed to have a family (defined as being in a partnership with a man and hoping to have children in the future - if they do not, then they are selfish); if they do not want children they are treated as lepers, social pariahs, and told that they "will change their mind when they're older". If they have a career they are expected to not put that ahead of their responsibilities to their family, or if they don't have a family they should not put a career in the way of obtaining one. Does this sound familiar to anyone? These are the kinds of messages that women receive everyday. Whether subtly or direct they are all pervasive. And even worse, women are socialised into believing that such things are in their best interests; that if they try and subvert those ideas they will be punished and socially rejected. But you know what? If enough women rebel at the same time; if enough women say "no!" and mean it and aim for something beyond the cheery infantalisation that is levied our way, things can change.
Sunday, 1 February 2009
The Bank of England held a meeting for its female staff telling them an assortment of things on how to dress to work. These things included always wearing heels and make-up. Apparently, women who do not wear heels and make-up and have their skirts a different colour from their shoes do not look professional and by implication cannot do their job properly. I wish this was a joke. I really do. The idea that the heads of a company are dictating to their female staff to wear items of clothing that are conspicuously parts of the current standard of female beauty is terrifying. This is not the 1950s, for goodness sake. I would like to point out that the male staff did not have a meeting like this, that an independent corporate image consultancy was called in to comment only on how female staff should dress. Sounds to me like they want women to be eye-candy for the men in the office. However, a member of the Federation of Image Consultants argues that advice given on how a woman should dress will make those women look more professional. She said that it could add to a woman's credibility, and further implies that as women struggle to command authority in male-dominated corporations they need to look the part, i.e. eye-candy for the men. This suggests that the only way a woman is going to be noticed in a corporation is by looking attractive. That a woman says this is extremely disturbing, but not entirely surprising considering what I wrote in my previous posts about some women perpetuating patriarchy as much as men.
Thankfully, there has been uproar about this. I mean, how dare they dictate to women that they have to wear make-up and high heels to go to work. High heels are damaging to the feet and they restrict movement (women cannot run for the bus in them), rendering women tottering about and appearing weak and vulnerable. Make-up is merely a way for women to look more attractive in the eyes of men to the extent that women who do not wear make-up are deemed unattractive and lazy because they have not put 'effort' into their appearance. Equal opportunities solicitors say that there is a case for sexual discrimination here, and I think the opportunity to sue them should be grabbed. Of course, there is a possibility, as I said in my previous post, that the female employees who sue them could be punished (they are challenging the mainstream and not conforming to the view that women should remain mute in the face of discrimination against them). In this case it could be in the way they are treated afterwards, perhaps forcing them to leave their jobs, and, of course, if they leave their jobs willingly, there would not be a case for unfair dismissal. This could make some employees reticent about kicking up a fuss.
The fact that this is in the paper is not enough. Institutional sexism should not be tolerated.
How can anyone possibly find George Bush Senior's joke funny?! And why, for Goodness Sake, was footage of it shown on CNN? I'll tell you why, because jokes against women are considered hilarious, but jokes against anyone else are deemed offensive and not for public consumption. Case in point - there was an uproar about Jade Goody making racist remarks on Celebrity Big Brother. At no point were her comments actually broadcast on the news - we were just told about it. Presumably so that no gullible individual could hear the remarks and think 'this is going to be my new world-view'. However, when there was the whole Russell Brand/Jonathan Ross uproar, footage was shown of the jokes on the news with just the swearing bleeped out. Why? Racism is not funny and should not be broadcast in any form. Sexism is controversial, yet hilarious, and therefore should be broadcast. Afterall, who cares if some little child sees it and thinks to themself that women are to be the butt of jokes and thus structures their world-view upon that (seemingly, news companies would prefer children to not swear than take part in the subjugation of women). Bear in mind that at no point was the butt of Brand and Ross' joke seriously considered - it was supposed to be considered offensive by her uncle (was it her uncle?)!
These double standards really annoy me. Why are sexist jokes so funny? It reminds me of this which I saw earlier. Mental health problems are treated by the general public as a big joke. Emos are categorised by the facet of their subculture of self-harming and laughed at for it (by no means am I suggesting that Emos have mental health issues - what I am suggesting is that for a person to cut themselves there has to be a certain mind-set), and in the example in the article people even try to take pictures of a person behaving 'oddly'. I've even seen things like this happen. In Wolverhampton about a year ago there was a man ripping his clothes off in the street and shouting nonsensically. No one stopped to ask if he was alright. They stood at a 'safe distance' and took pictures and videos of him on their phone. One only has to look at the way Amy Winehouse is treated by the popular press as well to see that behaviour associated with mental health problems is considered funny.
No one stops to think any more. Quite often I wonder if people want to think any more. They just act without considering what they are laughing at. It's emotivism gone mad - I feel like laughing at that distressed person today. They do not stop and think to themselves, "do I want to be the type of person who laughs at someone in pain?" Similarly, people, and this includes women (because I know very well that there would have been women who laughed at George Bush Senior's joke, because quite often women perpetuate patriarchy as well), do not think what exactly they are laughing at when they laugh at a sexist joke. They are laughing at the situation of women in this society, they are laughing at the wage-gap between males and females, they are laughing at the fact that women are still expected to do the majority of child-raising themselves, they are laughing at the way women are represented in the media (the new Lynx advert is a good example), they are laughing at the objectification of women in the media, they are laughing at how women are socialised into being in competition with one another in terms of their looks and ability to get a man, they are laughing at how women are infantilised, they are laughing at how women are socialised to get upset in emotional situations (hysteria) whereas men are socialised to remain stoic and assertive, and they are laughing at the fact that women will never be taken as seriously as men. This is what the people in the crowd listening to George Bush Senior were laughing at.
People need to think more. They need to evoke change instead of going along with the flow. To quote something I heard the other day whilst on a field trip to a company's corporate headquarters - "you get prizes for conforming". People want those prizes. It is exactly how Nietzsche outlined in Thus Spoke Zarathustra - people are rewarded for conforming, for not thinking for themselves, for going along with the ideas that mainstream society places before them. Those ideas are naturalised, and people cannot imagine a world without them - they are deemed to be an inherent part of the world we live in. Quite often there is punishment for not conforming - feminists are punished, as demonstrated by George Bush Senior's joke, for not being attractive in the eyes of men. They protest for something they believe in, but as that something is outside the mainstream it is derided. People, in general, prefer to be rewarded rather than punished, and thus it is no surprise that there are so many ignorant individuals in the world. But staying the course will yield rewards in the end. This culture of instant gratification is working against people who work for change - when changes are not made immediately, some individuals cannot see the point in continuing. It is easier to conform. And this I find sad.
Nietzsche argued that we should live our lives as if it is going to repeat eternally, over and over again, exactly the same each time. It would repeat exactly the same because otherwise the repetition would not be of 'our' life - it would be the life of another 'I'. Every action we take we are creating ourselves anew, and thus we have complete control, complete creative power, over the direction which our lives will take. If we create a fantastic future for ourselves then we can will that all the bad things that have happened in the past should repeat over again because we will get to this fantastic future. All actions are linked - the past leads to the future. So if we just allow ourselves to merely 'exist' we are not creating a future that could 'justify' those bad moments in our lives.
Now I understand that this may sound a little simplistic. Some things can happen to a person, such as rape, that no future creating could possible make them wish that it would repeat over and over again, no matter how great the future is. However, the Nietzschean view of the world can help individuals get over past events and stop dwelling on them. The past cannot be changed, but the future can. And if, for example, an individual has been raped, the best thing they can do is start creating a future for themselves that does not mean 'existing' within those past events.
To get back to the situation at hand, I sincerely believe that a Nietzschean perspective on life can help people through depression. Depression causes individuals to think they have no control over their own lives, but the Nietzschean perspective is the complete opposite - humans have control over their lives and they should use it by not just 'existing' but striving for change.
Basically, the loveable guy which is Pope Benedict XVI claims that "blurring distinctions between male and female could lead to the "self-destruction" of the human race." (see here for full story). The BBC article seems to focus on the implications for homosexual and transgender individuals, but when I first read it I immediately thought of the implications for all women and men. Presumably the Pope believes that men should be men and women should be women (i.e. men or women who have sex changes are a corrupting influence on God's creation); but what about men who shun traditional notions of masculinity and women who shun femininity. The Pope seems to have rolled the word 'gender' into meaning 'sex', and the implication is that individuals who are physically women should behave in a feminine way because if they did not they would not be 'true' women.
Surely one of the Pope's personal advisers (I assume he has some) could have advised him against making such ridiculous claims. He is perpetuating the notion of there being a strict gender divide between males and females and then justifying it with the name of religion. This gender divide is something which needs to be addressed, because during the past couple of months I have been seeing the perpetuation of it everywhere. Perhaps this is a bit of an inane, innocuous example, but there is a new style of coat out for women - it is deemed to be a 'military' style, and from the front it looks a bit Russian or German. When I first saw it, from the front, I thought "That's quite nice", because for a woman's coat it looked quite non-feminine - it gave a rather assertive appearance. But then I saw the back. At the bottom it had been made into frills, and the description on the label of the coat said 'military style women's coat with feminine accents'. I kid you not. It was almost as if without those frills the coat would have been deemed too masculine for a woman to comfortably wear - women must not look assertive. And we cannot have a woman looking overly masculine, can we? Because then that would not be attractive. Since seeing that coat in a catalogue I have actually seen women wearing it, and it looks ridiculous with those frills on the back. It is so incongruous with the style of the rest of the coat that they may have well put a big pink bow on the back!
Even though that is a bit of an innocuous example, it shows that the gender divide is being perpetuated in even the smallest of things. On a field trip I went on in my computer course last week, we were given a talk by a young man who told us all about the different methods of target setting they use within the company (interesting stuff *cough*). Afterwards, the women in my class were debating whether he was attractive, and the majority said that he was too "feminine-looking" to be attractive. Interested in this, I asked what they meant, and they said that they preferred men who looked like men. So I thought back to the talk he had given us - he was soft-spoken and a little nervous - and it dawned on me that those qualities are not traditionally male. Perhaps if he'd had a beard that would have made all the difference. But this suggests a gender divide as well - there is a standard of attractiveness for men (although not quite as strongly perpetuated as that for women) as well as women, and it is not only men interested in keeping that gender divide intact. I got stared at like I was a leper when I said the other day to my 'class mates' that I have no interest in having children.
So the Pope's comments are not one-off occurences by a religious nutter, although the BBC article would have you think so. It is not surprising that the BBC would give this impression - women are supposed to believe that they are equal to men so they think that the world we currently live in is the best possible world for them. I am not suggesting that the BBC are purposely trying to quell a women's uprising, but what I am saying is that anyone who suggests vehemently that women are subjugated in our society is treated as a nutter on par with the Pope. Sexism and the gender divide is so deeply ingrained within the structure of society that it is going to be difficult to tear apart.
Wednesday, 12 November 2008
Apparantly, 'real' female beauty is a result of the 'beauty secrets' the author has listed in the article. So you are only beautiful if you have a brazilian wax, a fake tan, push-up bra, an hour-glass figure and hair extensions. And even though it clearly says that a brazilian wax is extremely painful, women must have it because "Guys love the look". So in other words, it does not matter what women want - they have to look exactly as men want them to in order to be attractive.
The fake tan, even though it is known to increase the risk of skin cancer if it is achieved through a sun-bed, is seen as a must-have because it gives a "healthy glow" apparently. It wasn't that long ago that being pale was considered to be a sign of beauty. So now they think that having a tan is being 'really' beautiful. Do they not know that 'beauty' is a social convention? It is something created! Our society has a view of what is beautiful and it is foisted upon women at every turn, perpetuated by articles such as this MSN monstrosity.
Every single 'beauty tip' in the article actually seems to be aimed at men, which is odd considering it is women who would be carrying out the 'procedures' (which some of them really are!). A push-up bra gives women a cleavage "we're happy to let our men admire". Hmm, in that case would women also be pleased if a complete stranger gave their breasts a good stare? Women's bodies are not there for the sole enjoyment of men. "[T]hat little black dress hugs our perfectly primed curves for your viewing pleasure" - your viewing pleasure? Are men reading this now as well? But hang on, I thought all these tips were meant to be secret. For women only.
"Women will drain their savings accounts for hair extensions, but they won't utter a word about where the money has gone" - thank you for generalising all women there. Not only do we ALL apparently do these things, but we have to keep it a secret (shhh) incase men find out we're doing it. After all, men are supposed to be left in the dark and think that women are naturally hairless and primped. And more to the point, the majority of women are NOT as frivolous as to empty out a saving's account on something so ridiculous as hair extensions. Women's lives do not completely revolve around looking good for men.
What I want to know is, why is the title of the article 'Her Shameful Beauty Secrets'? Is it shameful because women are not 'naturally' beautiful without all the 'help' given in the article and thus it's shameful because it's a secret we are keeping from men? Hmm, what I think is shameful is that women are constantly told that they are not beautiful without spending at least half a day primping themselves.
Quite honestly I am flabbergasted at the propaganda unleashed within this article. It is insulting and detrimental to women as a whole.
Monday, 27 October 2008
However, as soon as I saw the actual slogan being used - 'There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life' - I was rather disappointed. First of all there is no conviction to the statement. It's almost like a watered-down version of atheism. Evangelists who sound certain of their beliefs - i.e. there is a God - are more likely to be taken seriously than an agnostic who says 'there might be a God'. Atheists should sound sure of their convictions also, otherwise religious people are only going to suggest we are not sure. Of course, if you're not sure then feel free to say so - there is much discussion that could be had about the subject. But the term atheist is generally used to denote a person who does not believe in God, and if you don't believe in God, you cannot say there may not be a God. The whole thing smells of trying to make people think without offending anyone in the process.
The second problem I had with it is summed up quite nicely in this post which I found linked to from here (thank you A Sceptical I). The slogan suggests that atheists do not worry about anything, that they do not take life seriously. Whether or not there is a God is not the only thing in life worth worrying about, and I'm sure that religious people don't only worry about there being a God. The slogan, unintentionally, plays into the stereotype of atheists - the one which says they are not moral because they don't believe in God. Someone who does not worry about anything could not be moral because they would have nothing which they value - when we are faced with a situation in which we must act, our values suggest which actions would be relevant to the situation. Someone who did not have any values could pretty much do anything they wanted in that situation without feeling any repurcussions on his/her conscience. There are already too many people who think atheists are guilty of the above; atheists themselves don't have to suggest they are right with messages on the side of buses.
Therefore, it was a nice idea which could have been an effective counter to evangelists, but the way it was done was extremely disappointing.
Wednesday, 15 October 2008
Something BJ said to me last night struck a cord with me - she said that the world is "such a dangerous place for women at the moment". And something which happened this morning really demonstrated that statement to have some truth to it. One of the women in my class had taken the elevator down to the lower floors and whilst in there a man, accompanied by his friend, had pointed a video camera at her. She said "don't point that thing at me" - she clearly didn't want to be filmed without her consent even though, as one of the other passengers in the lift said, "it was just a bit of fun". *rolls eyes*. Yes, just a bit of fun filming someone without asking them first. Anyway, on being told to turn the camera away the friend said "don't talk to my mate like that", and he started threatening her, calling her "just a little girl", at which point he even threatened to kill her. All because she had told him to turn the camera away from her.
This disturbed me considerably. I mean, men do not have the right to do whatever they like to women and then threaten them should they tell them not to, yet for some reason many men seem to think that they do. I have noticed many times that when women tell a man that his attention is not welcome they react as if somehow she is insulting his masculinity, and in order to defend one's masculinity one must blatantly show it. And what counts as masculine behaviour? Threats of violence, swearing, etc. In the elevator once she had reacted negatively to the man pointing a video camera at her, it was almost as if he and his friend felt they had to defend themselves as heatedly as possible - perhaps they did not like being told off by a female. Perhaps they thought it somehow demeaned them as men to have a woman tell them off in front of other people. Hence the threats.
And all this is in a world where women are constantly told that they've won the war. We haven't won the war, we've won a few battles here and there, but as the above story shows we certainly haven't won the right to consider our bodies our own. Men and women are not at the moment equal, no matter what anyone may say. Women are constantly demeaned, objectified and treated as if they can't do anything quite as good as men can. We are considered the lesser sex, and when we try to gain some advantage we are threatened.
Friday, 29 August 2008
The church has currently said that it will allow the vaccination at Catholic schools... but at a price - girls will not be given any sex education about 'artificial contraception', which of course includes condoms and 'the pill' (article on this here). Hmm, I was under the impression that if girls were given more information about their bodies and how they would react to sex (i.e. teaching them the ability to say 'no', because sometimes the facts of STDs aren't enough if a girl feels she cannot say 'no' or a boy feels that he has a right to sex), rather than just the same old 'penetration is sex' nonsense, they would be much more well-informed to say 'no' if they didn't want sex and 'yes' if they were ready for it. So in other words, girls will pick up information about sex at school whilst socialising that is not necessarily correct and there will be no opportunity to gain an insight from sex education lessons. Presumably girls will still be informed of the mechanics behind pregnancy, but even that posits the egg as passively waiting the active sperm (see here), thus portraying women's internal biology (as well as their external bodies) as passive receivers of men during sex.
When I was at primary school, sex education was for children of ten years old. Parents were invited in to see the videos first, and then they would decide whether they wished their child to see them. That was all sex education consisted of - those three videos. The first one was about sex, which pretty much described there being only one form of sex - penetrative and in the missionary position, which (as they made abundantly clear) was the ideal position for conception. The second one was about male and female genitalia (Jeez, I hate that word). The video showed diagrams and how everything worked. But, the mechanics of the female genitalia was only talked about in the context of conception - i.e. where the sperm would go. Everything was given a name, but the parts that really had no purpose in conception were not given a function. The look on the headmistress' face when the presenter suggested that girls get a mirror and use it to look at the position of everything 'down there' was classic. She told us that she wouldn't recommend us doing that. Anyway, the third video was about childbirth, and featured a man and woman walking naked around a house. I don't recall any information given about contraception - I think I would have had more knowledge of it when I got to secondary school if it had been in those lessons.
In sex education, sex is always posited from the perspective of men - the man ejaculates as a result of sex. But from the education children are given, I'd be forgiven for asking What happens to the woman? And more to the point, penetrative sex is not the only form of sex. The mainstream posits sex as being preceded by foreplay (unless you're reading a fifties magazine, of course), but the actual sex isn't portrayed as starting until penetration. This, again, gives the impression that women are passive receivers, because it's the men who do the penetrating.
According to this, by law girls have the right to accept the HPV injection if their parents refuse it, or refuse it if their parents accept it because "[t]he law recognises that it's her body that is about to be invaded or protected - according to your viewpoint. The decision is hers. It follows that she should be fully informed on the matter". I assume that "according to your viewpoint" bit is because the Catholics don't believe that a woman's body (or indeed a man's) is her own - it's God's. What I have a problem with, other than that last sentence, is that parents seem to have to decide whether they think their child is going to have underage sex (because the vaccination can protect them against those two strains of HPV if they do). Surely that's something that no parent could know. Parents are not privy to everything that goes through their child's mind - they have a private world that should be kept private so they can develop some degree of independence of thought.
The author of the above linked article (in the previous paragraph) states that she is concerned about the vaccination because of the amount of chemicals young girls have already taken in the form of other vaccinations, and will go on to take in the form of oral contraceptives on the grounds that "they are born with the eggs that will become the next generation". I would like to point out that there are choices for women other than giving birth. Regardless of what mainstream society says, women can have a career and choose to live their lives on their own terms without having a child dependent upon them and without a man. Women are not to be constantly perceived as mother-figures!
Anyway, she goes on to say something extremely important - "isn't it time that men carried some of the cost and responsibility of this shared business of sex and reproduction and its untoward side effects? It is only women's bodies that are doctored. Why?" I can answer that question for her - it's because contraceptive is still considered to be the female's business. Afterall, men don't get pregnant. And don't even think about spouting that nonsensical term that men say when they're delighted that their partner's pregnant - "we're pregnant". Yeah, right. Unfortunately, the article's writer does not dwell on this.
Girls should have the right to choose for themselves whether they want the vaccination. They should be given the statistics of cervical cancer and they should be given information about sex (which, along with the 'how women get pregnant' bits, includes information about STDs, contraception, women's role in sex (not from a male perspective), what happens to a woman during sex (also not from a male perspective), that sex doesn't have to involve penetration, and, SHOCK HORROR, the female orgasm). The more information they have, and the more assertiveness they feel they have in deciding to have sex, girls will be more likely to make educated and rational decisions about sex.
Tuesday, 19 August 2008
Anyway, back to my story. One of my friend's girlfriends arrived. He had been pretty critical of her before she arrived, mainly against her musical tastes and generally suggesting that she was a bit 'wafey'. And there was much laughter from the other men in the room. And when she arrived he ignored her. He went into the kitchen to talk to two of the other men until one of the women told him to offer her a drink. Now personally I wouldn't have waited to be offered a drink - I've never understand that 'convention'. And if I was being ignored by someone who was supposed to be my boyfriend I wouldn't have given him the time of day. Anyway, the worst is yet to come. When he finally did acknowledge that she was there, he promptly kept lunging at her, making some kind of growling noise (like a lion or maybe a tiger - either way the implication was clear: he was the predator, she was the prey), and she, whilst trying to take it in good part, was clearly trying to push him off her (she was cringing away from him for goodness-sake). All this behaviour seemed to be aimed (subconsciously or not) at letting her, and anyone else in the room who cared to be noticing, know that he was the one in charge of the relationship.
Thinking about this afterwards I considered maybe I had been mistaken. Maybe he was just being playful, afterall she was laughing (albeit a bit nervously). And anyway, I was the only one who seemed to be thinking that there was a problem. Maybe I was over-reacting. But then I realised that I was 'normalising' the behaviour. I was 'normalising' the fact that he was treating her like an object, a possession that he could treat as he wanted. I was 'normalising' the fact that he was treating this woman as if she was there for him to impose his will upon her.
To fully understand how this relates to the title of the post. Some brief background information is required. All the men in the room had at some point had their heart's broken (I don't like this sentimental term, but it's the only one I can think of). And the man in question had his heart broken quite badly - his girlfriend had left him for someone else. However, his previous girlfriend was quite strong-willed - she would never have let him maul her like that or ignore her. She would have got her own drink for a start. And her having a good time would not be dependent on him being there. But it seems to me that he, and all the other men in the room, had picked, since breaking up with their original girlfriends, women who would be a bit dependent on them and would not complain if they treated them a little roughly. They picked women who they could have a modicum of control over - they are punishing women for their own failings, as if to say 'if the relationship ends this time, it'll be me who does it'.
Ironically, in this case, it seems to be that these men (I'm including the other males who were at the party) cannot control their emotions - ironic as it's traditionally women who are accused of this. It's almost as if they think it was a fault to treat their previous girlfriends as actual people (i.e. a fault because the behaviour is not masculine enough), and now they're making up for it by being as overbearing and overwhelming as possible. They are exerting male-sexual privilege upon women because perhaps they think that their girlfriends then won't leave them in that case - the old myth that women like a man who will take charge and take all the difficult parts of life into their capable hands. It's downright sickening!
Thursday, 7 August 2008
The Conservatives are merely playing into the recent question (which isn't new by any means) of whether a woman's place is in the home. Single mothers cannot always stay at home to look after the children full-time - they have to work to bring money into the household. But if the father of the child lived in the same house, he could go out to work and the mother could perhaps 'choose' to stay at home. Am I the only one who's noticed this implication? I'm not taking into account benefits here, because I think it's an unfair assumption that all single mothers live off benefits and are a drain on the economy (although the Conservatives would have us think so). If the father lived with the mother, the implication is, if benefits were taken into acount, that the mother could stay at home whilst the man works, because, you know, a woman can't support herself without a man present. There is a telling statement in this article by Sarah Churchwell - "Women without a family don't, of course, exist. Never have". And this is true - you very rarely (if at all) hear of women outside of a family environment, not a 'normal' woman anyway. They're traditionally termed 'spinsters' - even though we're not called that anymore, the implication is still there evidenced by the look on a friend's face when I answered his question of "you've been single for a while now so you'll be looking for a man" with "actually I'm fine being single". You hear of men all the time having left the 'embrace of the family unit' to create a life of their own, making a mark upon the world. It would seem that 'the powers that be' would prefer it if women instead chose 'family life' to leaving a mark on the world with their intellect.
It appears that the Conservatives are pandering to the framework of male-sexual privilege. They suggest that they don't want women to be viewed as sex-objects there for the gratification of men, but rather as mother-figures who have to shoulder responsibility for children when the father is absent (here's the cue to take pity on the poor, vulnerable, defenseless creatures that are women); because women who do not give up their whole self-hood to their children are horrible monsters. The Conservatives are still within the framework of patriarchy as the focus is still on how men create the image of the female rather than asking women how they would like to be perceived themselves.
Sunday, 3 August 2008
Nowhere in any magazines or adverts does it say that there is no need for women who wear trousers to be worried about their legs. I mean, who's going to see them? It's almost as if women are supposed to feel self-conscious about hairy legs even if no-one can see them. It's all propaganda which suggests to women that the most important things they need to worry about in life are having a hairless body (apart from the head, because a woman with a shaved head is 'unfeminine' - I mean, the amount of women who are undergoing chemotherapy and purchase wigs are evidence enough for this), being attractive to men, and outdoing other women in their attractiveness to men.
This all reminds me of the advert for Gillette's Venus Breeze with its tagline 'Reveal the Goddess in You' and something BJ once said to me - 'because that Goddess is hiding under all the body hair'. It's true - the implication is that the sole point of a woman's life is to be beautiful.
Wednesday, 16 July 2008
The lack of self-worth which Sasha had as a female was palpable. When asked to describe herself in three words, her reply was ‘pretty’, ‘blonde’, and ‘dumb’. She went to great lengths to explain that she was ‘stupid’, explaining that her father often told her that was the case as her brother was better than her at maths. She said that she did not need to have brains as she had her looks, and that would enable her to get a “fit” boyfriend – “ugly” girls get “sweaty” boyfriends with bottle-bottom glasses. Nowhere did she say what kind of personality she wanted a prospective boyfriend to have, or how she would expect him to treat her (she also didn’t seem to be aware that ALL men sweat). Seemingly, the only criterion she was interested in was that he be good-looking. Considering her answer to the question ‘what do want to achieve in the future?’ consisted of the answer ‘I want to be famous’, and her answer to the question ‘why?’ was ‘I want to be on tv’, it is no wonder that she has no aspirations to be clever (and no wonder that she claimed her idol to be Jordon) – to be a celebrity these days you don’t actually have to be good at anything. In fact, it’s preferential if you do something extremely stupid – bad news is interested, good news is not.
Sasha’s mother was adamant that her daughter practice her beauty pageant ‘talent’ routines at every possible moment – in restaurants, at the bus-station, at the airport – on the grounds that “a guy” might see her and think she has talent and thus push her on her way to stardom. The truth comes out – Sasha’s appearance is cultivated solely for the eyes of men. At eleven years old the girl is being taught that for a woman to be successful in life she must be pretty, that that is her most important asset. And Sasha is seemingly powerless to stop it as her mother is so unbelievably obsessed with her being ‘successful’ in this way. In this case, the girl is being objectified by her mother, as well as by men, because her mother is looking at her from the perspective that a man would take.
Sasha explains to the viewer that school is about wearing make-up and looking good. Apparently, all girls wear make-up at school (funny assumption that, considering I never did). This reminds me of this blog where the ‘back to school’ edition of Seventeen magazine is analysed – the suggestion in the magazine is that with make-up, girls cultivate the appearance that they are serious about school (apparently, grades and doing the actual work are not good enough). Women everywhere are told that they should turn themselves into an ‘artform’ – a mainstream ‘artform’, of course, considering Goths who put effort into painting their faces in a way that confronts the mainstream often get attacked in the streets. It is amusing how notions of beauty in England have changed over time – in the early eighteenth century, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu claimed that she did not like the appearance of women in France because their faces are covered in make-up. She much preferred looking upon an “unsullied complexion” (Montagu, Turkish Embassy Letters (London: Virago Press, 1994). p. 161). Of course, she was fully aware that the impression which a woman gave to those in her company was extremely important (and is still considered so), but she put more emphasis on the refinements that ‘natural beauty’ afforded (unfortunately, as long as women ‘naturally’ resembled the artistic renditions of the Graces (Montagu, Turkish Embassy Letters. p. 59 – The Graces, in Greek mythology were the daughters of Zeus), so beauty, for her, was a class concept, and also an ironic one).
Sasha was treated, in essence, as the property of her parents. She had no privacy – her father, for example, put the camcorder over the top of the changing cubicle whilst she was trying on a dress, even though the fact that she’d gone in there alone to try on the dress suggested that she wanted some privacy – and whenever she tried to say something whilst in the company of her mother the latter would always interrupt and do the talking for her (Sasha’s mother actually threatened her with a grounding if she didn’t get accepted into a modelling agency they were visiting, because it would apparently be her fault for not smiling enough). Never have I seen a more striking example of a mother living vicariously through her daughter. What was striking was how when they were at the ‘beauty pageant’ in America, there were only three boys competing in the male division, suggesting that it is thought that boys perhaps have better things to do than singing off-key in a ‘talent’ competition and walking ‘perfectly’ across the stage in an outfit styled for someone twice their age. And to be honest, the boys who were competing looked extremely uncomfortable. But that was allowed. What was not allowed was for any of the girls to look uncomfortable, because the pageant was deemed to be their calling in life and to look uncomfortable would be a sign of failure.
Thursday, 19 June 2008
I had never really given much thought to the portrayal of women in music genres other than pop music, because it is that particular genre that has always made my blood boil somewhat. Watching scantily clad females ‘bopping’ around a stage singing about ‘love’ (a very narrow definition of love I might add) is not my idea of fun. It gives the impression that for a man to ‘love’ a woman (i.e. want to have sex with them), women must be attractive. I remember a television interview with The Pussycat Dolls – when asked what their image was all about they responded that they are all about ‘looking good’ and ‘being seen with the right people’. Am I the only person to see the shallowness in this? They are perpetuating the notion that women are only valued on how they look. And don’t think they are the only group to pass along that message.
When in Sainsburys the other day, I glanced at the magazines in the vain hope that maybe they stocked the music magazine Terrorizer. Suffice to say they did not. What they did stock however was what must have been about twenty different women’s magazines all stating that they have the answer to female problems. These problems are not life-threatening, although you would think so by the way they are talked up. These problems all relate to a woman’s appearance. How to make one’s hair shine, how to apply make-up evenly, how to have a flatter stomach this summer, how to lose weight (that’s the most popular one), how to have an even tan, the latest cosmetic surgery treatments. And those are just a few! Nowhere does it say that make-up IS NOT necessary, nowhere does it say that women do not have to aspire to a thinner figure.
Germaine Greer was not wrong when she claimed that “Every woman knows that, regardless of all her achievements, she is a failure if she is not beautiful” (Greer, The Whole Woman, 1999. p. 19). One only has to take a look at programs such as 'How to Look Ten Years Younger' to see this in action. The edition a few nights ago portrayed a woman who was fantastic at DIY. But this was somehow portrayed as irrelevant because she did not look ‘feminine’. The narrator even claimed that due to all that work her ability to use make-up had sadly been left to one side, hence putting across the prevalent notion that women who do not try to live up to ideals of female beauty are careless, lazy, and put no effort into their appearance - forget that they may spend their time engaged in other things. This sort of propaganda does nothing but place upon women an unfair pressure to look a certain way and be a certain way. The ‘contestant’s’ friends and daughter even paid little attention to her DIY abilities, focusing instead on how that ability had scuppered her chances of looking attractive. But don’t worry, Nicky Hambilton-Jones was there to help. The very same woman claimed a couple of weeks ago that she doesn’t “believe in feminism. Being sexy is one of a woman's biggest assets. To downplay that is madness. I don't want to compete with men. I want to play on my strengths while they play on theirs - and let's see who wins.” (see whole interview here). It makes me want to scream!
So now I ask the questions What does being a woman entail? What is being a woman like? What does it mean to be a woman? These are all questions appropriated by advertising that more or less propounds a message that scratches the surface yet claims to be exhaustive – being a woman, for such advertising, means being concerned with the condition of her hair, or the tone of her skin, the smell or hairiness of her body to a much more obsessive degree than males. And yes, I do mean obsessive. Women are conditioned from birth to be overly concerned with their appearance. Germaine Greer puts it wonderfully when she claims that whilst BDD (Body Dysmorphic Disorder) “is pathological behaviour in a man”, it is “required of a woman” (Greer, p. 20). One only has to look at toys aimed at girls to see that women are primarily valued by how they look. Dolls where girls can primp and colour the hair and apply the make-up are nothing more than a practice for adult life that is increasingly becoming earlier and earlier for girls who are coerced into thinking that wearing make-up is something ‘natural’ that all women do, that it is part of being a woman. It is the toys and advertisements that do the coercion, portraying all the ‘popular’ girls as those who wear make-up, and by ‘popular’ I mean ‘popular’ with boys. Everything seems to convey the message that the point of a female’s existence is to cultivate one’s appearance so that men will find them attractive.
Being a woman entails in many senses being the lesser sex – ‘lads-mags’ portray this message perhaps the most comprehensively. Homogenous, airbrushed, flat-stomached women arranged in increasingly provocative positions, tagged with the words ‘Take her to a motel room and bang her like a beast’ (Nuts, July 2006 – more quotes here under the leaflets section). Women are always the ones being enjoyed – even when the female is in a sexual position deemed more under a woman’s control, it is the male’s pleasure that is focused upon. ‘Lads-mags’ are widely available in newsagents and they all portray the message that women are there to be enjoyed. Even more disturbing is the suggestion that women like a man who will ‘take control’ in the bedroom, that women are thrilled with this male-appropriated take on sex. This is where notions of ‘she’s playing hard to get’ come in. Ideas like this ensure that some men believe that ‘no’ does not mean ‘no’, that it in fact means ‘please continue trying to get me into bed, I’m actually enjoying this forceful coercion’ (and, of course, the coercion may be justified later by the male claiming that it was ‘just a bit of fun’, something which usually gets the offender off the hook as the phrase implies ‘shared knowledge’ amongst men, and thus is a method of trying to get other men to see his point-of view). The woman’s ‘voice’ is not taken into consideration unless, of course, it is moaning in pleasure at the controlling man.
This is all nothing more than evidence of an insidious male sexual privilege that men and women are conditioned into from birth. Men think they have a right to sex, and it is women who are expected to provide themselves for it. Think about it – when in a relationship men expect that they will get sex. If they don’t get it, they look somewhere else for it under the innocent line of ‘this relationship isn’t working out’. A woman’s explanation for why she might not want sex at that particular point in the relationship will, in essence, fall on deaf ears. There is an unspoken number of weeks whereby a man can expect his girlfriend to ‘put out’, and if that number of weeks is not met then the relationship is over. This may sound somewhat melodramatic, but it is true. It is incredibly telling how defensive men get when women point out to them this notion of male sexual privilege. It is almost as if they want us to shut-up just in case any other women overhear and also realise it to be true. I'm not, of course, suggesting that women don't enjoy sex. A lot of women do. I'm just pointing out the expectations that males place on us when it comes to sex.
The above is why the blog I linked to at the beginning is so interesting. Women in the rock and metal genre are expected to be more forthright. I have never met a woman into metal that likes the portrayal of women in generic lads-mags such as Nuts or FHM. Yet, many will wear ‘gothy’ lingerie on an Ann-Summers theme night or in a bikini contest (on a side note, I remember when being a goth meant showing as little skin as possible, but then again I’m confusing being a goth with being into rock music).Wearing these clothes are not for the women’s benefit. They’re deceiving themselves if they think it’s a sign of women’s liberation. It is just perpetuating the notion that to get any attention from men, women have to fit into a narrowly defined ideal of female beauty – in this case the ideal is different to the mainstream as it requires more of an edge (spikes, dark reds (because it’s the colour of blood?), blacks, metallics), yet the ideal is still prevalent throughout the ‘rock scene’. Thus male sexual privilege is at large within the ideals here as well. When I say that such women are expected to be ‘forthright’ I mean defined as having a loud voice, willing to act violently, and swearing a lot. Personally, I would prefer women to be forthright in the sense that they are able to put across a rational view forcefully rather than shouting violently any old nonsense.
Being loud is not going to liberate women – if anything it’s just the masculinisation of women. Germaine Greer beautifully describes a vision of womanhood that is not subject to a male perspective: “[A] woman who [does] not exist to embody male sexual fantasies or rely upon a man to endow her with identity and social status, a woman who [does] not have to be beautiful, who could be clever, who would grow in authority as she aged” (Greer, 1999. p. 5). Now this is an ideal that could be relevant both across the mainstream and the rock and metal subcultures – women as no longer valued on how they look, but for their intellect and strength of character.
Tuesday, 17 June 2008
“We have explicit expectations of ourselves in specific situations – beyond expectations; they are requirements. Some of these are small: If we are given a surprise party, we will be delighted. Others are sizable: If a parent dies, we will be grief-stricken. But perhaps in tandem with these expectations is the private fear that we will fail convention in the crunch. That we will receive the fateful phone call and our mother is dead and we feel nothing. I wonder if this quiet, unutterable little fear is even keener than the fear of the bad news itself: that we will discover ourselves to be monstrous” (Lionel Shriver, We Need to Talk About Kevin, p. 92).
I have never thought myself to be monstrous, but it is easy to see why people would think I am as I’ve uttered the unutterable – I do not feel anything when relatives die. Do not think that I am completely without sentiment or that I’ve not latched on to some integral part of life – I understand that I am expected to grieve, expected to be sad. I even expected myself to be melancholy when my grandparents died. But the most sadness I felt was directed towards my mother because she was sad and I could not understand why I was not. I am told that sometimes it takes months or years for the death of someone close to really settle in and grieving to begin. I guess I’m still waiting.
Grief, to me, is the melancholic expression of loss. It is a melancholic reaction to a certain void, a lack, a space that has suddenly opened where the deceased once was. I cannot understand this. Surely when a person dies, the immediate first step should be to celebrate that person’s life? Instead of ‘mourning’, why not consider all the things the deceased accomplished in his or her life and perhaps think about how their take on life matches up to your own. Death is the perfect time to consider whether your principles are ones that will give you the opportunity to live a worthwhile life because it is perhaps the most significant reminder that we are all going to die one day.
There is an aspect of the language of death that strikes me as awkward. People speak of their relatives as looking down on them as if they are some kind of omnipresent entity. Am I the only person who finds this notion disturbing? Relatives would not only look down on you when you’re doing something that would make them proud like winning a rowing contest or passing a degree, you could not pick and choose what they look down on. They would look down on your most sordid moments and your most unpleasant moments. So although the notion of omnipresent relatives may be a form of relief to some people I would find it somewhat constricting if it were to be true. Of course, I cannot rationally believe it to be true. Because I cannot conceive the mind and body to be separate, I cannot rationally believe that the mind survives after the brain dies. When the brain dies, so does consciousness, and that is the end. Yes, it’s a difficult concept to grasp because we have such a strong sense of self, but because I know that death will be the end of ‘me’, the ‘I’ that constantly recreates itself throughout life, I feel an urgency to make sure that my life is one which is worthwhile.
Tuesday, 3 June 2008
I first discovered Nietzsche’s philosophy when I was embarking upon a philosophy and english degree at university. Of course, I’d heard of him before, but like many others I had associated him with anti-semitism. The idea that Nietzsche was anything resembling national socialist is a myth, as it was his sister who edited his works after his death and geared them towards a more unpleasant direction. It is easy to see how a misinterpretation of his philosophy could be made though – the Nazis wanted to create a super-race, and Nietzsche’s ideal of the Ubermensch (which can be translated as the ‘Superman’) may, on a superficial reading, be construed to be aimed at the same end. The ideal of the Ubermensch, however, was aimed as an attitude towards life. Along with his ideal of the Eternal Return, it is a way of living life, a way of being able to affirm life (I would like to point out here that the Ubermensch can be a concept applicable to women as well, even though at the time the concept was thought-up it would only have been applicable to men).
The Ubermensch attitude towards life allows one to take on the burden of one’s past experiences and redeem them, as will be discussed in further blogs relating to the Eternal Return. The Ubermensch is “Master of himself” (Hollingdale, 2003. His emphasis), not the master of others. In self-overcoming an individual gains power over him/herself. Nietzsche claims that having mastery over the self is much more powerful than having mastery over others. True power lies in self-mastery, and thus the Ubermensch, who is master of him/herself, is the most powerful individual. Therefore, Nietzsche’s philosophy lauds the emotionally strong rather than the physically strong, although he claims that those with the Ubermensch attitude, through attaining self-mastery, would be the healthiest and happiest of individuals.
A facet of Nietzsche’s philosophy that I cannot agree with, however, is the notion of there being no teleology outside of ‘human nature’ to which our lives should aim. He claims that through self-overcoming we should just become, as an over-riding teleology towards which we aim would be far too constricting. It was not uncommon during the Enlightenment (c. 1600-1850) for philosophical theories to evade or completely deny the importance of teleologies. Science had begun to answer questions that religion could no longer explain – if the movements of the planets could be explained non-teleologically (i.e. God was not moving them) then so could human beings. Thus, where religion was rejected, so was teleology. Like other Enlightenment philosophers, Nietzsche explained moral values non-teleologically by identifying features of human nature to justify them against. He does this by claiming that it is human nature to pursue the gaining of power, and thus anything which prevents individuals from gaining power over the self is ‘bad’, whilst that which is involved in gaining power is ‘good’ (Twilight of the Idols, p. 127-128).
However, surely the point of morals is that we try to overcome our subjective perspective of the situation in front of us by applying some over-riding framework separate to our human nature (and by this I do not mean some kind of religious doctrine), an example being that I might be looking forward to going out to the pub but a friend calls me in tears needing to talk just before I leave the house and asks if she/he can come round for the evening – I want to go out, but I value the feelings of my friend so I forego my plans and stay in to comfort her/him (I value the feelings of my friend as part of a framework of what type of person I want to be, separate from my human nature). It is possible to will the Ubermensch attitude into existence as part of a teleology of what type of person you want to be – gaining mastery over the self (and thus one’s past) is inextricably tied up with your relations to other people because in creating a future for yourself that could justify your past you must have some sort of idea of what sort of person you want to be, and that involves how you would help people other than yourself when they are in need. This is something which Nietzsche does not take into consideration (I would not have wanted to be the type of person who left my friend in tears whilst I went out and had fun, because it would have been cold and cruel – I want to aspire to mastery over myself but I cannot affirm a life in which I did not help my friends when they needed it, and life-affirmation is one of the main purposes of the Ubermensch). I will elaborate more on my views upon the Ubermensch attitude in future posts.
Therefore, in relation to moral issues, you may find me taking more of a Contextualist perspective rather than that derived from the Enlightenment period.